The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. While the nominator may have come to AfD looking for an enforced merge or a rename, I do not see a consensus for either. Numerically and policy-wise, there is a clear consensus to delete. Arguments in favor of keeping tend to fall along the lines of
Its useful! or
I like it!. Both have been found to be poor arguments by the community. --
GuerilleroParlez Moi12:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure a colon is appropriate when a backslash is not, but in any case, nothing should be done until consensus is reached and the discussion is closed. Moving pages during a discussion just creates a mess (and creates redirects unless they are suppressed) and causes confusion.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
00:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: These two pages contain tables of detailed information used to populate many Colorado-related articles. These two table are sufficiently large that including them in the main articles would disadvantage users with phones and other small screen devices, so I moved them to these secondary articles. Yours aye,
Buaidh talke-mail00:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep The new pages contain a lot of data in a single place that will prove helpful to researchers. Perhaps a title like Statistical abstract of Colorado counties is more fitting, for the pages are not mere lists.
Jeffrey Beall(talk)00:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC).reply
Delete I'm not really seeing why this is a valid split list. The only additional detail listed in this table is elevation, and a column could easily be added to the main list for that. AFAIK there aren't similar articles for other states.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback)
21:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Listcruft or not, these lists are actively used by
WikiProject Colorado. Perhaps they should have a say.
When the
List of municipalities in Colorado was nominated for Featured List, the main complaint was that the table was far too wide. Moving the original table to the
List of municipalities in Colorado: details was intended to remedy this problem. This also eliminated the need for a separate table of Municipalities in multiple counties.
As nom, I'd like to clarify that I am not advocating for deletion of the content, only the page. The current situation is untenable, so the content should either be merged back, or the pages moved to new titles.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
20:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
These articles were split from their parents with content not found there, so they are not duplications. As I've said, I favor them either being merged back (without a redirect) or moved to appropriate titles.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
20:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. The nominator proposed a merge but there seems to be more support for an outright deletion of these pages. Would those advocating Keep be amenable to a merge? The one thing that is clear is that these pages can not remain at these titles. Please do not move the articles in question during this AFD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: for
legal reasons, we cannot merge and delete the redirect. We could move the redirect to a different valid redirect, but we cannot delete it. All of the stats exclusive to the detailed list are contrary to
WP:NOTDATABASE. Listing population is fine, but growth and past size are not needed. Finally, per the explicit examples in
WP:LOCALCON, WikiProjects have no special influence in the consensus-making process (such as deciding to exempt themselves from NOTDATABASE). In sum, I do not see anything that can be merged, so I support deleting the entire page.
HouseBlastertalk23:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: Let's not be hasty here. The creating editor(s) have painstakingly constructed a two-page system which is functional and a little bit elaborate, with a lot of info. And they complied with requirements set by other editors (for achieving "Good list" rating, or whatever), and they've complied with "legal reasons" for whatever, too. This AFD is a brand new (for these articles) process and time must be allowed to sort out a different solution. Pressing for immediate "Delete" is just unhelpful. Perhaps this should be admin closed and taken out of the AFD domain, to allow for refinements that are satisfactory to the editors. The two-page system, at least if some issues are worked out, may well be a model for improving all the other U.S. states' corresponding pages. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: Possible refinements I have experience with many big list systems especially related to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), although I have not been a "Featured list" or "Good list" (is that a thing?) reviewer nor have I ever achieved a FL rating, and I personally think this two-list system is neat. But note that the main list has a lot of white space, which means there is opportunity for rewriting to make the information denser. In some lists I have saved space by combining multiple pieces of info into one column, e.g. put street address, city or town, and coordinates into one "location" column. E.g. put both "Year built" and "Year listed on the National Register of Historic Places" into one column that is sortable by the "Year built". Here are some possibly helpful ideas and some questions, towards working out a system that is fully satisfactory to "everyone that matters", which might not be everyone here, no offense intended. I will write in named issue areas; feel free to insert comments. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
FIPS code How about drop the FIPS code column from
List of counties in Colorado, either by completely dropping the codes or by placing the codes into another column, say in parentheses beneath the county name, filling in some white space? I personally don't see the usefulness of FIPS code in any way for myself, or for most readers. I don't really know what it is, and have to look it up, and see that it is just an assigned number. Like the NRHP reference number, it's arbitrary and shouldn't necessarily be presented. Or as a lesser importance item, it can be kept but subordinated under the county name, so that it is still available, and a reader could run a search for a given FIPS number say to find which county it applies to, while letting go the (not too important) functionaliy of allowing sorting by FIPS code. Few readers are arriving with either an NRHP reference number or a FIPS number that they want to look up, anyhow. And, further, per
Federal Information Processing Standards#Withdrawal of geographic codes, it seems the FIPS code is being retired from wide use, so it may be of less and less interest. Perhaps there is a state or Federal source online that provides the correspondence of FIPS codes to counties, and that could be mentioned with a link for readers who do want that. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Review issues / table width: The main list appears not to be a
wp:Featured list, and the Talk page provides no link to any FL review. Reviewer requirements were mentioned above somewhere, perhaps stated in reference to a different similar list. Please provide a link to the discussion. Perhaps the reviewers were stupid and should be ignored. Perhaps we don't care because this is not being developed for FL listing. Maybe there will be future wikimedia software developments which magically help display for mobile device users, say by allowing them to toggle between viewing all the columns vs. viewing just selected columns. So....why not just go ahead and make the main list wider. I saw mention of concern for readers of mobile devices or other small-screen viewers, if a table is wide. Is that really so bad, that they would have to scroll over to the right to see some of the columns? Probably the more important info should be to the left. Anyhow, let's look into what really matters, not just accept that a screen which requires scrolling is unacceptable. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Anger about duplication: In comments above, to me it seems there is possibly unreasonable anger about the fact that there is duplication between the two tables, and extreme statements that the duplication simply must be eliminated by deletion or merger. I don't know what the problem is, really, but how about present the two tables differently. So, instead of having a main, limited table and a secondary table duplicating all of that and adding more, how about removing most of the duplicating columns from the second table. Just call it "List of geographical facts for Colorado counties", or "Additional info by county in Colorado" or something like that. And keep ALL of the info, just in two tables with no duplication except the "County name" column. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
County seat. This seems like fine info to keep, but how about subordinate it under the county name in the first column, which becomes "County name / (County seat)" or "County name / (County seat) / FIPS". Being subordinated, the table would not be sortable by county seat name, but maybe that is of lesser imprtance than info which can then be included in another column. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone including children, and all this stuff is traditional and useful, and where are the policy issues?. Having a bunch of sortable columns is fun, to a degree, for children, and it is neat to be able to see which are ranked high when sorted by elevation minimums rather than by elevation maximums, etc. Keep all of the info in
List of counties in Colorado/detail. Arguments above assert policy issues but don't hold water as far as i can tell.
User:Lorstaking dismisses the list because it is "just Listcruft". In fact this list does not suffer from any of the bad things covered at
wp:LISTCRUFT. The info is objective, requires little or no maintenance, does not require adopting a non-neural view, is not original research, etc. Out of all the criteria for "LISTCRUFT", perhaps most possibly relevant is: "The list is a violation of
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? But follow that link and you see that what is bad are "Lyrics databases" (this is not one), "Summary-only descriptions of works" (this is not one), "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" (everything here is immediately understandable, there is no confusion at all), and "Exhaustive logs of software updates" (this is not one). Okay, then, but "Listcruft" states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Fine, this page has true, verifiable info. "Listcruft" does NOT say that true, verifiable info is unsuitable. I happen to think this is very good for an encyclopedia, to have accessible info, like for children especially. Like the "Childcraft" encyclopedia or encyclopedia-like set of books that I devoured as a child, was so wonderful. I see no policy issue here.
User:Otr500 states: "There is redundant content with the parent article and per Lorstaking
WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay based on
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#DIRECTORY that is policy." I don't see any link to any policy outlawing "redundant content". I have dismissed Listcruft above. About "Wikipedia is not a directory", that is about publishing ephemera like opening hours and phone numbers for museums in a list, say. Check
wp:NOTDIRECTORY; there is no complaint there which applies here.
User:Lightburst states "it is a duplication". So what if there is one column, or several columns, in this article which appear in another article too. Note another list by Colorado county is
List of Colorado county high points; should we delete the county name column out of that because county names are already listed elsewhere? I don't see any policy issue. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
So, there are no policy issues as far as I can tell, so the outcome here should simply be "Keep". That said, perhaps there are some changes which might be made, as editorial matters of organizing information, and I wonder what
User:Buaidh thinks now? --
Doncram (
talk)
22:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
There is a policy issue here as I noted in my nom, that
WP:SUBPAGES are not allowed in mainspace. So the content must either be merged back to where it was
split from, or the pages moved to appropriate titles. So "Keep" is not an acceptable outcome.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
23:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comments': Aside from the above mentioned WP:SUBPAGES, I think at least one is taking a very argumentative and final authority approach to the arguments for keep. Not sure why "unreasonable anger" was mentioned at all. It has been my less non-tenured (edit count wise) time on Wikipedia that the closing of the discussion be determined by --- the closer. Wikipedia is
not a text book, statistics table, or database. Maybe I need to cast the page on my 60" TV (17" is not enough) so I can see the whole bunch of figures without scrolling. I imagine it would really play hell viewing on a tablet or cell phone per the creators rationale ("would disadvantage users with phones and other small screen devices") for the page. It seems most of this would be of use to a specialist (serious researcher of some degree) and not the average reader. I cannot imagine the world where kids would enjoy playing with sortable columns. To me (we are allowed opinions) this, as a stand alone list, is unneeded and unencyclopedic bunch of intricate details. --
Otr500 (
talk)
00:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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've added more information and sources. Please note
WP:NOTFINISHED: Wikipedia is a living document, constantly improving and expanding. It will never be a finished work.. Let us continue to improve upon this article, not delete it.
CLalgo (
talk)
08:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)reply
All the sources on the article currently are from the IJF or EJF, both of which are not independent of this event. This is a clear fail of WP:GNG.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
15:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)reply
More over, I haven't found
WP:NOTDATABASE's &
WP:SIGCOV's relevance to this case. Please, see
WP:JUSTAPOLICY: While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why..
As JudoInside is a reliable, secondary source, SIGCOV\GNG falls. NOTDATABASE says nothing on sports articles as far as I can tell.
CLalgo (
talk)
08:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment There is no evidence that this topic deserves its own WP page. There is no significant independent coverage nor is there any reason to think this event for 15-17 year olds is historically significant. In fact, the article on the entire tournament has no significant independent coverage so I have difficulty supporting a redirect, although that's quite likely to be the result.
Papaursa (
talk)
22:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Not notable, per nom. If it is an alternate name for
Shah Jewna then a redirect is fine, but need to be certain it is the same first. If in doubt, deletion is better.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
18:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, leaning against redirection as I don't see Mehboob Alam Shah mentioned on the target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 political figure, not
properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing
WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claims here are that he's a city councillor in a midsized community and an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election to higher office, but neither of those are automatic inclusion freebies -- city councillors are presumed notable only in internationally prominent global cities on the order of Los Angeles, New York City, Toronto or London, candidates are accepted as notable only if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons, and the only slim chance either a city councillor or a candidate has otherwise is to show such a deeply unexpected volume and depth of nationalizing coverage that they have a credible claim to being a special case of much greater national prominence than the norm. But that's not what this article is showing: with 29 footnotes it looks well-sourced on the surface, but it's actually just
reference bombing him with a mixture of primary sources, glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him in any non-trivial way, reduplicated repetition of the same citation two or three times instead of using the proper name-and-callback format, and the purely
run of the mill local coverage that any person in either of these roles would merely be expected to have in their local media, not evincing any proof that he could be seen as more notable than other city council colleagues or other candidates on the same state legislature ballot. Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the state legislature seat, but nothing here is sufficient grounds for him to already have a Wikipedia article today.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I could not find many sources which were not already cited, and these sources are insufficient to prove notability as the nominator suggests. No significant coverage appears forthcoming. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback)
15:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any more support for draftifying or should this article just be deleted? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
In what universe is
this or any of the others "peer reviewed"? These are mostly blackhat, passing announcements and otherwise not in depth coverage. None of the sources are substantially ABOUT IBIA and they're certainly not "top" publications.
This is a useless blog, and the other two definitely aren't any sort of authoratative or reliable sources. The fact that other articles exist that shouldn't is
completely irrelevant.
PICKLEDICAE🥒 10:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Filbert Street is an ordinary east-west street in San Franicisco and does not meet
WP:NGEO. It is not a main road, nor an arterial street, nor a shopping district, nor is the street itself particularly historic. It does contain a notable feature, the Filbert Steps, a San Francisco landmark that I believe does meet
WP:NGEO. An earlier article on Filbert Steps was merged into this one as superfluous - unfortunately, this was backwards, as Filbert Street itself is a non-notable feature. I would Propose to Merge, but that creates a redirect for "Filbert Street" to "Filbert Steps", which has its own set of problems. I am proposing to manually merge the content on Filbert Steps into another article, either Filbert Steps itself, or better, the
Telegraph Hill, San Francisco article, with a newly added section on the step streets of Telegraph Hill, including the Filbert, Greenwich, and Vallejo steps.
Peter G Werner (
talk)
06:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This is what I lean towards. It also allows some discussion of the nearby Greenwich Street and Vallejo Street steps without creating separate articles.
Peter G Werner (
talk)
22:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, simply. IMHO the deletion nomination should not have been made. The nominator basically wishes to move the substantial topic back to Filbert Steps, from which it came (or from which the most notable info came). That should have been submitted as a
wp:RM. Offhand, that doesn't make sense to do, because "Filbert Street" is the geographically larger topic and it is fine to cover Filbert Steps as a relatively huge section within that. Allowing for additions of more info about notable happenings, history, buildings, etc. at other places along Filbert Street which add to the notability of the street. But the reverse doesn't work, it doesn't make sense to be covering the street and various places along it, within an article about the steps. It is also logically possible to have two articles, as if Filbert Street is a historic district (and in fact it is, but not yet listed as such on the National Register of Historic Places) and Filbert Steps is an individual place (like a contributing building or object in an NRHP historic district, or like a place separately listed on the NRHP which happens to be within the district. In NRHP writing, it would never be done, to relegate a big historic district's coverage into a section of an article about one place in the district. Also, I think many long historic streets in San Francisco probably deserves explicit coverage eventually, either as an article or a section in a neighborhood or historic district article. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Doncram, I'm curious about what content you think this article could have besides the Filbert Steps. In addition, what would the sources be for that content? As it stands, the article does not have any references for the street itself and I am not able to find any.
Lamona (
talk)
05:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Well, one thing it could cover is registered historic places (which is what I edit most about in Wikipedia) along the street. At
National Register of Historic Places listings in San Francisco, I don't see any places with Filbert address which are individually NRHP-listed. But do any of the historic districts in that list span Filbert? If so then there is detailed info available about Filbert buildings. Also there may be coverage of Filbert buildings in any City of San Francisco local historic registry program. Another thing I'd do is "take a walk" down the street in Google Streetview, and inspect for apparently notable monuments or other objects, buildings, etc. --
Doncram (
talk)
20:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Okay, echoing those and adding a few more, please see numerous landmarks along Filbert Street all in a map by clicking on "Map of all coordinates using OpenStreetMap" to the right of this page. The several landmarks along the street, whose coordinates I have just identified and labelled, are:
And please compare this info to what's covered in
Lombard Street article. That article has a table indentifying the street's end points and additional major intersections, which this could have too. It mainly (only?) talks about the one block with the curvy roadway, besides mentioning the intersections. The Lombard Street article has no landmarks besides intersections along the street.
I am not the one to write interesting text about these spots, but there's more to say than can comfortably be merged into Telegraph Hill (and much simply does not apply there). And I think this is adding up to be better than the
Lombard Street article. --
Doncram (
talk)
01:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was originally considered as part of the clean-up of Iranian "company towns", but removed from the list due to the additional sourcing. The issue here is that it is not clear at all whether the sources are referring to the same place. The census just refers to "Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan" as a refernce-point for counting the people around it, without it being clear what this is (part of a village? a grouping of more than one village?). On the face of it this is a
WP:CORP.
The additional sources are:
neshan.org, which appears to be a wiki-like source and thus unreliable. The
location it points to is an industrial complex within a location that, based on address of other companies in the area (e.g.,
this,
this) is called "Zayanderud". This is the name of a local river and thus not a surprising name for the actual location.
A
one-sentence news story on
https://sahebnews.ir/ dated 24 May 2014 about the burial of "martyrs" in a place called Shahid Namjoo Industrial City. Nothing indicates that this is the same place as "Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan". Not sigcov, cannot sustain a
WP:GNG pass, does not show evidence of legal recongition for a
WP:GEOLAND#1 pass.
A imna.ir
news story about the burial of an unknown "martyr" at "Zarin Khodro industry in Zarin Shahr, located in the Defense Industries of Lanjan region". Nothing indicates that this site is the same as the previously-mentioned sites. The real town discussed here appears to be
Zarrin Shahr, a place we already have an article about, and this is just a factory complex located within it. The date of the news story is February 1396 (i.e., 2018) so it is not the same story as the one-sentence story above.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously deleted via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit12:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - as there are some citations to confirm its existence. We should keep it. I believe that geographic locations can be kept with minimal citations, but I am unable to find the actual policy to refer to.
Lovewiki106 (
talk)
02:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - Citations confirming it exists are not enough to establish notability. Per
WP:NBUILDINGThe inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Notability is not established in this case.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
20:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Sirfurboy: in this case I believe Lovewiki106 is actually referring to
WP:GEOLAND - it's not (just) a commercial development but would be more of an inhabited location in the company town sense. Geoland does use a much lower threshold.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
14:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
You may be right -
WP:NBUILDING may not be the most appropriate as this complex is clearly sizeable, but still it would come under commercial developments (for some sense of 'commercial') which would be
WP:NBUILDING. But regardless of what it is, the question is whether there is anything notable here. I found 3 mentions in sources and some web hits. As I said, these confirm existence but nothing I have found describes it in detail. Yet perhaps an article could be written about it. I have not found enough for a notable article yet, but that does not mean it is impossible. What is clear, however, is that the page asis does not seem to know what it is about. Per the nom, the 4 sources say 4 different things, and the very brief information on the page appears to be in error. If nothing else, I think this one needs
WP:TNT.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
17:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - Can anyone !voting keep/draftify explain why and how this is supposed to be notable?
"It Exists" is a well-known fallacy, and as explained above it is not clear that the thing described in the sources is either the same thing, or the thing discussed in the article. It is not clear how this is supposed to meet
WP:GEOLAND#1 since it is not clear that this is not just a factory so simply invoking
WP:GEOLAND#1 is not sufficient. There is no
WP:NBUILDING or
WP:NCORP pass made out here because there is no significant coverage.
As an alternative to keeping I am prepared to accept draftification, primarily because I think it will just end up with this article being deleted under
WP:G13 after six months.
FOARP (
talk)
14:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I am plumping down on the side of delete here. My thinking is as the title is derived from a census, it is a census tract and I do not think we regard census tracts as being notable. Certainly, there are no substantive sources about a place with this title. I'm aware that it has been said that it has an alternative name of 'Shahid Namjoo' but without good sources saying so, this is OR. If substantive sources exist for 'Shahid Namjoo' then an article can be created for 'Shahid Namjoo' (but it needs more than a news story about burials). Zarin Shahr (and the nearby steel mills) is readily found on Google maps and we have an article on it; I see no sources that connect 'Zarin Shahr' to the name 'Defense Industry Complex' or to 'Shahid Namjoo'. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
20:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Fails GNG. Reception is literally all listicles and trivial coverage. Would be much better off as a section in the list of characters than split off to a separate, non-notable article.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
21:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: The Game Informer and Venture Beat sources cited in the article give some important details on the character, as does Syfy, the former two being completely dedicated to her. The character's voice actress has also won two awards. There's quite a few listicles cited, and while they might not be enough on their own to build the article (per
WP:WHYN), I would argue they are when supplementing the aforementioned sources.
MoonJet (
talk)
10:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I took the liberty of removing the VentureBeat community writer-cited material from the article, as well as a couple of other definitively unreliable sources, lest they contribute to the false appearance of notability.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
12:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
To be fair, I wasn't too sure about VentureBeat. Though some of the "community writers" used to work for Bitmob. As for Gamenguide, which I noticed you also removed, I've kind of been under the assumption its reliable, due to its privacy policy, and the fact its used in a number of GAs on here. A discussion of it at
WP:VG/RS might be warranted.
Even if we're not counting these sources, I still stand by my keep vote. After searching for some more sources, I just found a review of her as DLC from an
archived Fearnet. That's the thing about DLC characters, they tend be reviewed by a site or two.
The Fearnet source barely squeaks by SIGCOV, I guess, but the site itself says nothing about an editorial staff. As a very likely to be unreliable source, I am dubious that it can be used. Even if it were reliable I still don't think it's reaching the bar for GNG but there is no evidence that it is.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
10:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Fearnet was a US-based media network and video on demand service owned by
Comcast. My impression is that it was a professionally run outfit with editorial staff throughout its existence, as opposed to being an enthusiast site run by a group of fans. Whether the review article itself, taken together with the other cited sources, constitutes significant coverage is debatable.
Haleth (
talk)
11:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
That is grasping at straws without proof that the site was run with an editorial staff. I'd like to see actual proof of that rather than just vague assertions. In terms of the actual content of the review, it's pretty basic and doesn't go into much depth. All it mentions about her backstory is bookended by a nod to jokes about her blood powers and menstruation... need I say more, it reads like it was written by a teenager.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
23:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Read what I wrote again, carefully. I said whether it counts as adequate significant coverage is debatable, because I personally found the review a little short for my liking. What I also said, that "Fearnet was a US-based media network and video on demand service owned by Comcast", as opposed to a long-running webzine that is clearly operated by enthusiasts like say this
site, is also fact. I'd be more surprised if a submitted article published by a subsidiary of a major multinational corporation was never reviewed by an editor, but then again, blunders like US Today's retraction of a story about EA being acquired by Amazon do happen.
Haleth (
talk)
23:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of Mortal Kombat characters. This is yet another example of how a character being mentioned in a video game website headline and in listicles does not necessarily mean that there is anything substantial to say about the character that couldn't be sufficiently covered within the parent article. Following
summary style, we should only split to a separate article when there is an overabundance of coverage that warrants the split and would create undue weight in the parent list article. czar16:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
"Independent notability" is not a thing. The term "independent" as defined by
WP:GNG or
WP:SIGCOV explicitly refers to sources, that means any material produced by the article's subject or an entity affiliated with the subject do not count towards establishing the presumption of suitability for a stand-alone article about the subject. The correct question to deliberate on, is whether the aggregated coverage about the subject is adequately "significant". Another important point to consider, is whether its prose is a
content fork that more or less duplicates the material contained in another article that is better established in terms of notability, because that would justify the AfD approach.
Haleth (
talk)
11:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
You are incorrect to seem to suggest there is wrong doing here. It's a completely valid editorial decision to say that, if something receives virtually all of its coverage in the context of a parent subject, that it doesn't need to be split out into its own article
Sergecross73msg me13:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
You're missing my point here. I am not disagreeing with the suggestion that this article should be merged and redirected. Without opening a can of worms that has little bearing on the current discussion, all I am saying is, the notion of "independent notability" has no basis on guidelines or policies and makes no sense especially when any given number of related topics are never truly independent from each other in terms of discussion and scope. The primary issue to determine in most AfD cases is the alleged lack of significant coverage from independent RS, which is not a question of editorial decision, and I am not at all incorrect on that point.
Haleth (
talk)
16:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I think that they meant "standalone" notability, i.e. being its own page. It's the height of Wikilawyering to seize on a typo as evidence of bad faith of some kind, I think most of us know what they mean and it doesn't need multiple paragraphs refuting a nonexistent issue.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
17:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Sergecross73: When did I say I am arguing against a merge? I said I am ok with a merge and redirect for this article, if that isn't clear already. I simply decided to speak up over what came after, which in my opinion is a misinterpretation and misapplication of Wikipedia guidelines and policies.
@
Zxcvbnm: It isn't a typo. It's not the first time someone used the terms "independent notability" or "independently notable" as if it is an established and vetted norm, much like how another prominent editor often repeated the concept of "real world notability" in deletion discussions which has no basis in any consensus. It is as misleading as some editors who parrot
WP:THREE, merely an editor's personal observation, in discussions as if it is a guideline or policy that everyone is obliged follow. Pointing out a misleading statement that is not endorsed by existing guideline or policy isn't Wikilawyering because it is no different then telling an AfD nominator that they have not provided a deletion rationale or perhaps that they are using AfD as an inappropriate cleanup drive for clearly notable topics. And if you are butting into conversations that aren't actually addressed at you and insinuating that there is bad faith editing involved, then perhaps it says a lot more about you then it does me.
Haleth (
talk)
23:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I can't imagine I'm alone in being surprised that you agree with Axem with your comments. I was reading this as an argument against his stance. If you agree with merging then I won't comment further.
Sergecross73msg me23:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Wow, uhhh, I guess this happened while I was enjoying my weekend. FWIW, I think "independent" and "standalone" basically mean the same thing semantically. If it helps, you can replace independent with standalone in your head. It's what I meant when I said it.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
03:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
"Standalone notability" is still...not an actual guideline or policy. We have concepts like standalone "sequels/prequels", or standalone pages I suppose. But WP:N is pretty clear. Either something is notable for inclusion and mention on Wikipedia, or not at all. Most of the time, the fundamental question is still whether a topic is entitled to its own page, or covered in various proportions as part of a page about a broader topic.
Haleth (
talk)
03:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Then the guidelines do not reflect the de facto reality of how notability is applied and should be updated. The fact that you keep running into experienced editors employing the concept of "standalone notability" in AFDs so often is evidence that the concept is supported and should be enshrined in PAG somewhere. "Either something is notable for inclusion and mention on Wikipedia, or not at all." I don't think this is true. Notability is applied to articles, not individual sentences in articles. There are plenty of sourced sentences/facts in articles that are mentioned in Wikipedia that do not and should not get their own articles, despite their inclusion being perfectly reasonable within articles.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
18:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I've took it upon myself to expand the article with some new sourcing, including the Fearnet source I posted above and the
IGN source, as well as expanding upon the Game Informer source. Right now, we have at least
three non-listicles in the reception and a couple more elsewhere. Not to mention, her voice actress winning two awards.
MoonJet (
talk)
12:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Her voice actress won a minor industry award, an accolade for the voice performance, but it is not among the
major annual gaming awards we take note of. It does suggest that Beata Poźniak is probably a notable or distinguished individual, but does little with establishing the presumption of a standalone Wikipedia article for the character she played. It certainly isn't
Outstanding Achievement in Character, where the character itself is the subject of the accolade.
Haleth (
talk)
16:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I mean, on their own, yeah, they don't mean much. I was just adding that for a little something extra. Either way, my main point was the sources I brought up, not her voice winning awards. I still think it would pass without the awards.
MoonJet (
talk)
18:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of Mortal Kombat characters - A dozen or so pieces of trivial entries in routine coverage of the MK games or listicles does not constitute significant coverage nor denote any kind of stand alone notability. The closest we have out of all of these sources of actually valid coverage is that the voice actress won a minor industry award, which as mentioned above, is not sufficient for establishing notability for the fictional character she portrayed.
Rorshacma (
talk)
18:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I thought the DLC reviews and impressions came the closest to in depth coverage of the topic, but overall, there isn't enough significant coverage.
Haleth (
talk)
23:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of Mortal Kombat characters. Although there are two reliable sources covering the character in detail (Game Informer and
IGN) it either barely passes
WP:GNG or is just an article reliably sourced to the subject indirectly or in passing mention. It's hard to decide, but merging (and/or redirecting) might be the better option here.
Sparkltalk14:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
What do you think of the
Fearnet and
Syfy sources? Both cover her too, neither of which being listicles, and are both media networks, suggesting their reliability, like Haleth talked about above.
MoonJet (
talk)
14:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm curious, but where did you get that Syfy is RS, or is it just your opinion? It might be possible that
Fearnet, with a WP page, could be reliable, but could you find any editorial policies (apologies if I can't find any) that indicates the reliability of these sites, instead of an assumption?
VickKiang (
talk)
03:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry to say, but I don't think both sources are decently reliable, at least from what I've seen. I couldn't find any credentials for both Fearnet and Syfy, and they are both nowhere to be found at
WP:VG/Sources. I'm not sure if this is mentioned before or if I forgot, but the author of the Syfy article, Jenna Busch, could be
this person, but again, that's just speculation.
Sparkltalk15:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. If merge is done, please ensure MERGE IS DONE, not just a redirect. The reception section is worth preserving in its entirety somewhere. I concur it suffers from mostly passing mentions, but that doesn't mean it should be discarded. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 - Article appears to fail
WP:GNG. I tried searching the name with and without the diacritics and other than routine stats pages, nothing came up. In the article, the first two references are literally just stats with no context and are absolutely trivial. The third reference on the article wasn't loading but I was able to get it working
via archive.org and it is absolutely a trivial mention: Medzi ženami bola najrýchlejšia na trati s prevýšením 1200 m Anna Pažitná. which in Slovakian says Among the women, Anna Pažitná was the fastest on the track with an elevation of 1200 m. That's as far as it goes into detail, other than listing a completion time of 3:33 for her amongst the stats of others. -
Aoidh (
talk)
21:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Appears to fail both
WP:GNG and the former and current standards of
WP:NBASE. The only sources are an archive of a now-defunct blog and a dead link for his obituary, neither of which are reliable or independent of the subject. Wiggins played briefly in the dying days of the
Negro league, long, long after they were anything resembling major league caliber. Couldn't find any hits for Wiggins during his playing career on newspapers.com, and any hits from post-career where brief mentions of autograph signings, reunions, and one
brief interview in the Chicago Tribune where he says he didn't even get paid for playing in 1959 and 60, his only years in the
Negro American League.
Penale52 (
talk)
19:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
If there was a copy of it, it might help, but usually obituaries have information supplied from the family, so I'm not sure how it could be completely independent of the subject. Even if it supports his brief career, his tenure happened so far removed from major league quality competition, I'm not sure it would even matter.
Penale52 (
talk)
19:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I'd consider this independent, but minor coverage. He was associated with a charity, and they have a profile of him,
[2]. And whatever else is given in the article, keep I guess. I'd prefer if we kept ALL baseball articles, but we have notability guidelines.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. I've rescued the dead
Chicago Sun-Times article, the article is
here. It's a real article independent of the subject, entitled, "Outfielder, passed up by Sox, made his mark in the old Negro Leagues." Based on that and the other couple of non-trivial mentions, I think this passes. Andre🚐06:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - Article fails
WP:GNG and more specifically
WP:ORG (especially when viewing the trade papers through
WP:ORGIND). While their "HYD 25 testing apparatus" and "Beam-Flex" are somewhat popular in multiple asphalt-related research papers cited in Google Scholar and compilation works in Google Books, they are discussing a specific product used in testing, not the company that makes it; any mention of the company itself in these instances is trivial. Newspapers.com returned exactly 1 result, which again
is a trivial mention. -
Aoidh (
talk)
22:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Appears to be worker housing on the edge of Isfahan proper. No evidence of either official recognition or significant coverage to establish notability. –
dlthewave☎16:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:NBUILDING has three criteria, the second of which is relevant here: "Buildings...may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."
The importance here is both social (being some sort of main student building, as I gather from university sources) and architectural (rationalist architecture). However, I can't find in-depth coverage from third-party sources; those given on this page and in the Italian analog of the page are either affiliated, passing, or both. Searches for 'edificio sarfatti' and 'edificio leoni bocconi' turn up no in-depth third-party coverage. It may be significant, but I can't find the requisite sources to back it up.
Iseult Δx parlez moi21:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi, I created the article. The building is actually featured, together with other Bocconi University buildings, in the Lombardia Beni Culturali website, which collects all the recognized and protected monuments in Lombardy region.--
Plumbago Capensis (
talk)
21:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Plumbago Capensis: As for the first, I reviewed that when I nominated this for deletion, and don't consider that to be substantial coverage, but I can see an argument for notability when taken together with the whole university complex. However, this is one of many buildings in the complex. As for the second, that might be significant coverage, but that's one source, so not substantial enough.
Iseult Δx parlez moi05:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello @
Iseult:. I do believe that the combined sources point to a significant notability of the building. There are some which are same-party, but others include a catalog of Architectural monuments in Lombardy which itself features a very long list of references, a well-known and highly esteemed tourist guide (Touring Club) and an in-depth description article created by the Ordine degli Architetti di Milano (an official institution reuniting all architects in Milan).
Plumbago Capensis (
talk)
09:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Plumbago Capensis: I don't doubt that you believe that; after all, those were the sources in the Italian version of the article, which you created, when I nominated this for deletion. Again, this is not significant: the catalog is not a significant mention, as it mentions the building itself in passing, and the references as a rule do not seem to refer to the building itself but the university. The same is for the guide. I'll only concede the architects' thing, but then we're at one third-party source, which isn't enough per
WP:NBUILDING.
Iseult Δx parlez moi15:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Being "a masterpiece" of that kind of architecture is a significant claim. It was built in 1937, and i would think it is the kind of building that, in the U.S., would be listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its architecture. In the English Wikipedia though, we don't seem to have coverage of any corresponding Italian registry (see
wp:HSITES).
Here is a 2010 article bemoaning lack of formal historic preservation in Italy. It seems that Italy only recently, in 2016, created laws and a government department for such (
[4]), a "Ministry for Cultural Assets and Activities (MCAA)". The law sets a 50-year minimum age for listings, the same as the U.S. National Register has. Wikipedia does have an article
Ministry of Culture (Italy) which suggests that a previously-existing department, at least somewhat related, was renamed to become that. But that article, when it mentions "historic monuments", links to
Monument historiques, Wikipedia's page on the formal program in France. So this is a sad situation, I don't see how I can easily look up if this Sarfatti Building has been immediately registered, and it likely hasn't yet, although it seems to me that it almost certainly will be, based on what I can see about this building and what i know about many other countries' heritage registry systems. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Searches should try "Edificio Sarfatti", or it seems to be known also as "Edificio Sarfatti 25". The deletion-targeted page seems to be a close translation of an Italian Wikipedia article, not yet noted in this article or its (non-existent) Talk page. (However there is a small link over to the left to go to the Italian wikipedia version). But that articulolio was created earlier this month by
Plumbago Capensis, and I think has only been edited by them. (Hey, Plumbago, when you translate an article from another language's Wikipedia, there are requirements for what the new page must have in its edit summaries and what it should say on its Talk page, in order to ensure proper attribution is given to the original authors in the other language. Here, IMO there is no issue, since it's just you who wrote the Italian page. I'm not up to speed on the details, but I suggest you look into this and create a Talk page for this article and put the right stuff there.). Plumbago, I am glad you are contributing, and I think/hope this AFD should not be allowed to discourage you. There are often/always AFDs opened when anything looking different comes up. If this AFD does result in the article's deletion, please let's chat; I would be very motivated to help you get set to be able to contribute along these lines. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I am not sure if the "Lombardia Beni Culturali" is an official governmental registry listing or not. But the Lombardia Beni Culturali page mentioned, apparently
this about Università Luigi Bocconi, has a LONG list of good-looking-to-me substantial sources. Plumbago, it is true that a Wikipedia article does not have to include and cite reliable sources that are independent of the topic. They merely need to exist, for an article to be justified and to survive an AFD. But using such sources upfront avoids AFD troubles. Do you have access to any of those / can you add any information or quotes sourced to any of them? --
Doncram (
talk)
22:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doncram: Regarding your first comment, Wikipedia isn't a
WP:CRYSTALBALL, and we can make the article if the registry ever gets created. But not before, not based on speculation. As for your second and third, if you'd reviewed my nominating statement, you'd find that I've already been there.
Iseult Δx parlez moi05:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks
User:Iseult. But if there's significant coverage, the article can be created, whether or not the topic is listed in any official registry. But if the topic is listed in a registry that we understand to be "good enough" in terms of ensuring there exists documentation, then we can cut short any AFD discussion and educate AFD editors to avoid similar nominations. Like for a Level I or a Level IIa
Listed building in England, or for an individually listed
NRHP-listed building in the US (but there are lower levels in those registers where having an article is usually not justified). Currently I/we don't know about Italian heritage registries; I'd like to help fix that. --
Doncram (
talk)
06:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doncram: First, I'm a bit confused, because two 'but' sentences that adjoin each other are usually used to complement each other; however, your points there seem to contradict each other. In any case, regarding the first, as I've tried to establish in my nominating statement and in my other replies, I have found no significant third-party coverage of the building. Regarding the second, per
WP:NBUILDING, this registry has to be of the national level. If you don't know of any, then we're done here, and it's a delete. I personally don't know of any either.
Iseult Δx parlez moi08:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - I spent a while trying to find the "masterpiece" claim in
this source and as far as I can tell it is the sentence L'edificio è una delle più raffinate opere del razionalismo italiano... which Google Translate calls "finest works" rather than "masterpiece" but I think it's fair to say that's close enough, considering that I do not speak Italian and am not about to argue the nuance of the language when I'm basing it off of machine translation; I will
take the author at their word that masterpiece is a proper translation there. The source itself I linked also itself refers to other sources, so I think it's fair to say there is "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources" required by
WP:NBUILDING. Unfortunately in the English language I wasn't able to find any third-party sources that discuss the building, so I have to rely on the Italian sources which again, I do not speak Italian. However, there does appear to be coverage and the building does appear to be historically significant, so I think there's enough notability there to keep the article. -
Aoidh (
talk)
22:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment per Todesco, Fabio (December 12, 2016).
"When Architecture Tells the Story of a University, an Era and a City". Via Sarfatti 25. Retrieved August 25, 2022. Seventy-five years ago, on December 21, 1941, the Bocconi building in via Sarfatti 25 was inaugurated. It had been designed by Giuseppe Pagano...The building has left an imprint not only in the history of the University, but also in Italian architecture and in the development of Milan. In the difficult years between the '30s and '40s, with Italy ready to go to war and the Fascist regime influencing intellectual life, the construction of the building was so tormented, that Pagano himself defined it "a drama in three acts".
Yes, and the university magazine is also called Via Sarfatti 25 (the address of the building): "THE BOCCONI BUILDING IN VIA SARFATTI TURNS 75 AND IS CELEBRATED BY A CONFERENCE AND A BOOK ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF THAT TIME, THE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP WITH GIOVANNI GENTILE AND THE ARCHITECT GIUSEPPE PAGANO, FASCIST, ANTIFASCIST AND MARTYR, WHO DIED SHORTLY THEREAFTER IN MAUTHAUSEN."
Djflem (
talk)
15:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Clearly a heritage-listed building, so meets
WP:GEOFEAT. While Italy as a whole is not great at listing such things, Lombardy is much better, and as far as I know, Lombardia Beni Culturali is an official listing. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
No sources, no indication of notability. No verification that this "stable" name is actually used. It's not mentioned in the ELs for the three members.
MB19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Can't find good enough coverage for
WP:NBIO. There's a USA Today interview, cited in the article, but that's of course not independent at all. On newspapers.com I only found passing mentions and brief quotations from him cited as an aviation guy.
Ovinus (
talk)
18:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete While the subject may be frequently consulted for aviation-related media, this doesn't make him notable. My own search didn't turn up anything that could be used to augment this article.
A loose necktie (
talk)
01:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
To be honest, I'm surprised that the creation of this page was even controversial. How is John Cox any less notable than, say,
Greg Feith? In fact, one can argue that Cox is even more notable and decorated than Feith. I think this should be assessed by people who are more in tune with the aviation industry than Wikipedians who are less familiar with Cox's omnipresence within aviation-related media.
Electricmaster (
talk)
02:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I took a look at Feith's article to compare, and I'll respond. In its current state, Feith's article is in sorry shape. I could go and slap a fair number of citation needed tags on there. But looking at the list of awards, and putting things in the best, most optimistic light, I would expect to find some coverage in Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine for his Laurel Award, even though it's not currently cited. Same goes for the Embry-Riddle Distinguished Alumni Award, even though it's not cited. Looking at Cox, none of the awards are cited either, but none of them seem to be especially likely to have been widely reported in anything other than press releases. (I think "distinguished alumni award" trumps "outstanding MBA graduate" in significance). Finding non-PR coverage of at least a couple of them might tip the arguments towards keep.
RecycledPixels (
talk)
00:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
i understand that what i wrote above might be slightly derogatory, and i apologise for that. However, i still think that this person is just not notable enough, and stand by my original vote.
Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (
talk)
23:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 result was delete. The discussion as whether this should have been listed at RFD or AFD is interesting and perhaps can continue elsewhere. However, as it is here and I see a consensus for deletion, delete it is.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
16:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
This is a micronation in one of the pockets of alleged terra nullis on the Croatia-Serbia border.
Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Liberland mentions a notable and three non-notable micronations claiming one or more pockets of land. The mentioned micronations are, on a brief check, verifiable as claimed micronations in reliable sources but I cannot find a single mention in reliable sources of this micronation, let alone in-depth coverage. A day after creation in 2017,
Pichpich redirected this to the border dispute article, but as it is not mentioned there I don't think the redirect is useful. As the content has never been discussed and is not speedy deletable, RfD would rightly conclude to revert and send it to AfD for discussion so I've just done that.
Thryduulf (
talk)
15:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Wrong forum. The status quo is a redirect, so this needs to be discussed as a redirect at RfD. When someone redirects article content and then immediately nominates the redirect at RfD, consensus is that the article should be restored and taken to AfD because the nominator is gaming the system by trying to delete an article as a redirect. This is no different. This was never established as an article and unreferenced garbage like this
should never be restored. Furthermore, the nominator's claim that only "speedy deleteable" content should be deleted at RfD does not enjoy consensus. This was discussed at length
here. --
Tavix(
talk)03:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree, I see little point in restoring an unsourced article created over 5 years ago which was an article for less than a day. If it seems controversial, someone actually thinks it needs to be discussed at AFD or specifically asks then yes but otherwise I don't see a problem with deleting articles that were short lived years ago where no one objected to redirecting in the sense of they thought it should remain a full article. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
20:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I believe and (barring occasional exceptions) consensus strongly agrees, that articles that are not speedy deletable should be discussed at AfD before being deleted and that the correct response to a BLAR that results in a bad redirect is to revert the redirect and discuss the article at an appropriate forum. AfD is an appropriate forum to discuss the deletion of an article. So yes, someone (i.e. me) does think this needs to be discussed at AfD.
Thryduulf (
talk)
22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The central question (and the whole reason you want the redirect deleted) is ...as it is not mentioned there I don't think the redirect is useful and that is a question for RfD, not AfD. Many RfD discussions hinge on the mentionworthiness of a topic and is something that RfD editors are experienced to handle. No rational editor will want to keep the rubbish you have restored, so trying to backdoor-delete the redirect through AfD would naturally have a higher likelihood of getting your desired result. This is
gaming the system and should not be tolerated. I also find it—interesting—that you have alluded to a consensus multiple times now without showing evidence of it. --
Tavix(
talk)23:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't have time to find all the links right now to demonstrate the consensus (I'll add them when I do), but restoring and sending to AfD is very common following a BLAR nominated at RfD. My main concern here is not that it is completely unverifiable in reliable sources - indeed only in unreliable sources was I even able to verify its existence (to the extent that micronations can be said to actually exist). My justification for coming to AfD is, exactly as I've explained, to get the process right not so that I am more likely to get the result I want (the result I want is either consensus that this is a verifiable (and ideally verified) thing notable enough for either an article or to be merged somewhere or consensus that it should be deleted). Merge and redirect are both appropriate outcomes of an AfD, but deleting article content is not an appropriate outcome of an RfD.
Thryduulf (
talk)
09:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Indeed, restoring and sending to AfD is common following a BLAR nominated at RfD, but this is not a
WP:BLAR situation. The key element, which is missing here, is that there is a disagreement on whether there should be an article or a redirect at that title. There is no one advocating for this article, thus no disagreement. After my review of this topic, I only see two possible outcomes: someone finds a source good enough to add to
Croatia–Serbia border dispute and the redirect is kept, or no such sourcing turns up and the page is deleted. That is an RfD issue, and a common one at that. Deleting appropriate article content is not an appropriate outcome of an RfD, but this is not appropriate article content, even by your own admission in the nomination. Restoring this content was a violation of
WP:BURDEN so proper process, even when setting aside the status quo, was not followed. --
Tavix(
talk)12:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Whether content is appropriate for the encyclopaedia or not requires consensus at a venue suitable for discussing article content, RfD is not such a venue so it would need to come to AfD anyway.
Thryduulf (
talk)
19:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
RfD is absolutely the correct venue for discussing any page whose status quo is a redirect, no matter its history. RfD editors are more than competent to make a determination on whether or not article content is appropriate and act accordingly. To that end, I have never seen appropriate article content deleted at RfD, it has always been junk like this. --
Tavix(
talk)19:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
No, RfD is the appropriate venue only for discussing:
The correct target of any redirect
The existence of redirects without history as something other than a redirect
The existence of redirects with history as something other than a redirect when:
That content would be speedily deletable if restored, or
That content has previously been subject to a consensus discussion an appropriate venue.
This has always been the case throughout the more than 18 years I've been on Wikipedia, baring a circa single digit number of exceptions article content that does not meet one or both the requirements is simply not deleted at RfD because it is not AfD (RfD and AfD are separate for a reason). This is despite how much you have argued for the contrary over the years.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. This is one of them. --
Tavix(
talk)20:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. what we are discussing here is content that was submitted as an article and is currently an article. The article content was boldly redirected, I objected to that redirect and so reverted it and have started a discussion about it in an appropriate venue.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
You are five years too late making that argument, the status quo is not an article. In the intervening time it had become established as a redirect. On the other hand, it was never established as an article. Because you also object to the article content (as evidenced by starting this discussion), restoring it was not appropriate. You are more than welcome to object to the blanking-and-redirecting of an article, but that objection needs to be because there is acceptable article content under the redirect. --
Tavix(
talk)15:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This is not a hoax. There is enough information in unreliable sources to be sure that this is an accurate reflection of a real but non-notable thing. A11 is closer than G3, but I'm not convinced it definitely meets the requirements of that criterion (specifically the close connection between article creator and article subject). I did carefully check whether this met any speedy deletion criterion but while it's close it doesn't quite match any of them and CSD explicitly only applies in the most obvious of cases, which means that where there is doubt it does not apply.
Thryduulf (
talk)
19:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
When the subject of the article is a claim that something exists (which is what a micronation is), evidence that people have claimed that that thing exists is sufficient evidence to show that the article is not a hoax for the purpose of speedy deletion. Whether or not it shows anything else is irrelevant for the purposes of G3.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As far as I can tell there really is no notability here--the company exists, this is true, but seems to not be anything special, and any notability seems derived from a lawsuit filed in 1993 and settled in 2003. I don't think they meet NCORP.
Update: I just noticed this is the second nomination--see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coit Cleaners (really a third--deep dive into Wikipedia history!). But our standards for discussing deletion have changed a bit, and we should now require evidence of notability rather than just claims of notability, which is what we find in those two discussions from 2005.
Drmies (
talk)
15:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Ahem. Bob Vila is a TV host. His website is not a reliable secondary source. I've never been very impressed with Bizjournals.com, but OK, there's an article then. Anyway, the idea that one hit on a TV host's website and an article in a business journal is enough is kind of silly.
Drmies (
talk)
21:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - I have fond memories of watching Bob Vila, but his website is questionable in terms of establishing notability. For one thing, Mr. Vila certainly did not write that article, a freelance writer did. Second, the BobVila.com website earns a commission on the listed cleaners, so there is a conflict of interest there, as defined by
WP:IIS: "Independent sources have...no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)" It's not an independent reliable source. While
this BizJournal article does go into some detail about COIT, what's there is honestly trivial because to be clear, the article is about "COIT Kentuckiana franchisee Krish Inc." not about COIT itself. Americanfreedom's comment about only needing one source is inaccurate, as
WP:GNG requires multiple reliable third-party sources, and even if you were to include BizJournal piece (which we shouldn't, as
parent notability should be established independently), that's still just one article, and that's not sufficient for an article on Wikipedia. With that in mind, and with what I was able to find online, there are no reliable third-party sources that have significant coverage of the article's subject; it fails
WP:GNG. -
Aoidh (
talk)
23:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete sources aren't really useful. Bob Vila is 75 or so, I really don't think he's active on his website and rating companies; likely people running it and paying to use his name.
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: A
heavily promotional BLP that fails the GNG going away, even after removing a fair bit of uncited puffery. The subject's only mentions in the sources provided are casual namedrops, or quotes from the subject (which explicitly cannot support the notability of the subject). The article creator is a SPA for whom creating this article, and promoting the subject in others, is the sole Wikipedia activity.
Ravenswing 22:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BASIC. Aside from
this which is a local piece, everything that mentions him is a trivial mention, and articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Notability's just not there. That local piece does say "Doan Nguyen made headlines around the state earlier this year..." which made me think there would be something out there in terms of reliable sources, but aside from
an interview everything I could find was either related to the press release found in the article, or mentioned him in passing. -
Aoidh (
talk)
00:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Possibly TOOSOON? Some media coverage that could imply meeting criteria 7 of
WP:Notability(academics) but he might be well producing those in his function as a journalist not as an academic. The article would need more evidence of notability - either general, or as an academic or author.
JamesKH76 (
talk)
08:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I added two references as evidence of notability, this might meet criteria 7 of WP:Notability(academics): substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
Andreas Tuffé (
talk)
18:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
You added a youtube video which has 168views and is likly non-rs because of that and a 40 documentatry short where he presents is not evidence of an academic. The real problem there is no mainstream evidence. Its all patched together. It should be immediately visible by a 2 minute search. scope_creepTalk06:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Unclear how being able to swim e.g. humans and Crab-eating macaques makes something semiaquatic. Perhaps examples on
Semiaquatic could be lengthened, but this list is far too vague.
Reywas92Talk16:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems to violate
WP:INDISCRIMINATE by being a list that isn't necessarily about an encyclopedic intersection, i.e. "List of runners with brown hair" or "List of old ladies with green cars".
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
21:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy, G4, if an admin can verify it's close enough for
WP:G4, otherwise, this should be deleted anyways. No evidence of notability, one of the sources used is deprecated, and the addition of "Dr" is because the page
Vivek Bindra (check the deletion log there...) is salted.
ASUKITE14:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
I am not convinced that this company meets
WP:NCORP. Coverage appears to be typical PR output, mostly in a local weekly newspaper. The awards do not appear to be significant, and being 3,441 in a list, or 258th in a list, or number 45 in a list of 50 doesn't make a company worthy of an article in an encyclopedia. This seems to be a run-of-the-mill company going about its business.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
13:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 unreferenced non-article has been sitting as an orphan since its creation in 2014.
Bashkortostan has a demographics section that is working fine. This page fails notability and sourcing requirements. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
12:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - The content of the article isn't even worth merging to the parent article, and the demographics section of
Bashkortostan is not so expansive that it needs its own article, nor does the size of the parent article warrant a split. I say delete over redirect because it doesn't seem to be a viable search term for the parent article. -
Aoidh (
talk)
00:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. The Directions Magazine source is an
WP:INTERVIEW. The ESRI award is not a major award as far as I can tell (it doesn't have it's own Wikipedia article) and the podcast's parent company won the award, not the podcast.
TipsyElephant (
talk)
12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - While it has won an award from
Esri, there's no article for the award, so that doesn't meet
WP:WEBCRIT #2 as it doesn't otherwise appear to be a "well-known" award, and the article fails
WP:GNG outright. One interview and one niche industry award do not create notability for the article's subject. Considering how long the podcast has been running, an impressive 16 years, you'd think there would be coverage in all that time, but there's nothing that can be found to support notability for the subject. -
Aoidh (
talk)
00:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unusual one this. This was set as a redirect back in 2012 as non-notable, which is certainly appears to be. Obviously A7 doesn't apply to schools else it could have gone then.
The redirect was then raised as a speedy this week, which I had to decline as it's clearly not a recent redirect. I've rolled back to the article's substantial content so that a discussion can be had here on notability. A quick search by me couldn't find anything about this school outside of directory listing and the like.
GedUK11:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - Primary schools are rarely notable enough to merit an article of their own, and I do not see any evidence that this case is an exception at the moment.
Dunarc (
talk)
22:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Woody Woodpecker shorts have been integrated in
Woody Woodpecker filmography; a few still remain. Some correctly so, as they are notable, but this one does not appear to be so. All we have is a stubby plot summary and infobox catalogue-like data. The ref to "The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons" is misleading, so no, it's not "two page of coverage", it's two pages in it that have
WP:SIGCOV-failing passing mentions (and incorrectly so, this short is mentioned on p. 148 and 153, at lest in my edition). Anyway, the short is never discussed, it's just listed in the two separate lists of WW's shorts. Given that, I suggest redirecting this to
Woody Woodpecker filmography. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Woody Woodpecker filmography. Ref
1 is online, but clearly a non-reliable SPS blog. I'm unsure on how long the coverages of the printed refs are, but considering that ref 2 only supports one sentence (assering the film is the 24th animated cartoon short subject in the Woody Woodpecker series), and ref 3 another two sentences, with a link that can't be opened, I'm inclined to agree with
Piotrus that the book doesn't cover this film for two pages. So, with none of the refs being reliable, independent, and significant, neither
WP:GNG nor any
WP:NFILM criteria are met.
VickKiang (
talk)
01:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Tagged for notability 2 years ago, still no reception section, just a plot summary and publication history. That said, while some Dredd story arcs have ended up as redirects to
Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines, others made it through AfDs in the past, so let's discuss. Can we find sources to rescue this, or should it be redirected? My BEFORE isn't showing much. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Judge Dredd#Major storylines as suggested by the nomination. I was unable to find any kind of real coverage or reviews in reliable sources, just in a few fan sites and blogs. The suggested target probably needs to have a good cleanup itself (its completely unsourced, with nothing actually supporting which listed stores are in fact, "major" storylines"), but that's a different issue and for now, would be the best target for the nominated article.
Rorshacma (
talk)
19:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a suitable dab page, one item is clearly the primary topic while there is only one other entry. This situation should be handled with hatnotes per WP:ONEOTHER (
t ·
c) buidhe07:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: Nom's rationale is sound; I don't see how the article can go beyond stats and meet the GNG. "rugby matches between France and Japan" has zero Ghits and zero TWL hits. —
Danre98(
talk^
contribs)09:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Tiktok trend unworthy of an article. IF this content is worth keeping, I suggest moving to be a section within a more relevant page, like
2020s in fashion or something of that nature. If this becomes a larger known thing and continues beyond a fad of summer 2022, then articledom can be re-discussed, but at this point, it's only worth a section within an article, if that.
Zinnober9 (
talk)
22:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a stub article, but based upon the sourcing, there is more than enough to demonstrate that there is enough material to make a standalone article. This article looks like the
Indie sleaze article before it was recently expanded.
Thriley (
talk)
21:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can people arguing sources please discuss the sources and how they meet the gng pleAse? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug!07:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 SNOW Keep. This article has had a rather tumultuous history. Its
first AfD was closed as redirect and a later
deletion review (with an intervening edit war (and full protection) between restoring and expanding the article and redirecting it based on the prior AfD) endorsed the outcome and sent the article back here. Ordinarily, that would counsel letting the AfD run its full course. However, it appears that the
consensus has changed in a somewhat dramatic manner (while not dispositive, I note that a number of participants from the prior AfD have also participated here and argued in favor of keeping the article) given a large amount of recent news coverage in reliable sources of the article's subject such that this AfD is
clearly going to be closed as keep as the subject now passes
our general notability guideline.
Mifter (
talk)
05:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep If she was not notable before, she certainly is after beating Liz Cheney in the primary. She has major features on her in NYT, NPR, etc. as of last week.
Chagropango (
talk)
07:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Meets
WP:GNG, especially due to the nature of the political win and the amount of coverage in reliable sources (even though it's not something that meets
WP:NPOL). -
Aoidh (
talk)
00:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Totally obvious keep, anybody who has gotten to the point of running for political office is notable enough for a Wikipedia page.
Joe (
talk)
22:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Eh. You may be right. I should say that most people who've gotten to the point of running for political office will be notable enough for a Wikipedia page, and this is an obvious case of that.
Joe (
talk)
00:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Snow keep per all above. A lot has changed in the last two months since the last AFD as evidenced by comments in the DRV and this discussion. Very clear pass of GNG and NPOL now.
Carson Wentz (
talk)
03:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
In compliance with
WP:N, this article does not meet requirements for notability. The subject of this article is not discussed outside of guidebooks or trip reports and has (as best I can tell) never been mentioned in any mainstream news
¡Ayvind!(talk)03:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I don't see why good guidebooks or climbing books should be considered less worthy than "mainstream news." News outlets are not the only reliable sources. That said I would want to see *significant* mentions in more than one such source, by different authors, to consider a climbing route notable. Not sure yet if this route meets that standard. A secondary note that this seems to be one of a number of very short articles sourced primarily to Fifty Classic Climbs of North America (see
East Buttress (Middle Cathedral),
Northeast Face (Pingora), and many others at
Category:Climbing routes), so whatever happens here may have relevance for them as well.
—Ganesha811 (
talk)
13:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
delete - Relevant material already covered at
Wolfs Head.
—Ganesha811 - Certainly climbing routes can potentially be notable as
WP:GNG passes, and two reliable, independent sources could be enough to substantiate that, even if they are specialist climber press/books, but in this case, even if that were the case, we already have an article on the Wolf's Head that is not very long and the relevant subject matter is already there, so why do we need a separate article on it?
FOARP (
talk)
09:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree, as it is I don't see any reason to keep the climbing route articles split from the articles on the peaks/mountains except in very rare cases (like some Everest routes).
—Ganesha811 (
talk)
11:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect. I don't think there's enough sourcing to support
Characters in the Realm of the Elderlings and would redirect it (possibly to
Robin Hobb bibliography § The Realm of the Elderlings). Other comments: GAs do not require a character list. See
MOS:CHARACTERS: "Most articles do not need this section. Instead, a finely crafted plot summary is used to introduce the characters to the reader." I doubt if The Farseer Trilogy would benefit from such a section, as it has just one primary character. On the other hand the Liveship Traders has 7–8 POVs, so I can see how a character glossary would help there.
Olivaw-Daneel (
talk)
06:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC) (updated 07:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC))reply
@
Olivaw-Daneel We are a bit off topic here, but I'd suggest adding a note to Farseer that there is just one major character somewhere. Frankly, even a short section on characters saying so, with some analysis of the main character, would be good there (if sources exist). If I was a GA reviwer I'd likely make such a request. Just saying. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect - The current article fails both GNG and LISTN. It can maybe be salvaged to merge, but that can be decided at a late time.
TTN (
talk)
13:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree that
Realm of the Elderlings is feasible to write, although some of the sources you list are Masters theses and aren't suitable. I went through this search a year ago and have compiled the usable ones at
Robin Hobb § Sources. (I meant to write it at some point, but I had to take a break after expanding the trilogy pages. If anyone wants to, they're welcome to do so.)
Olivaw-Daneel (
talk)
00:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Masters' theses are a bit like Wikipedia: Not necessarily sufficient or reliable, but often a great place to find references to other, better scholarship.
Jclemens (
talk)
16:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Delete, Keep, Merge, Redirect, the only thing clear here is that there is no consensus thus far. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Lack in-depth coverage in RS. There is nothing remarkable stated in the article that would suggest notability and the sources are all minor mentions.
MB01:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep (or merge) -- The article has three newspaper sources, which may well be the sources for the book (I do not know). However, I would like to hear more of the vessel's history: was its grounding fatal to it? Unlikely.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The three newspapers sources are trivial happenings, not in-depth coverage:
"The Bishop, Right Rev. Dr. Harmer, arrived here on Saturday in the mission launch Etona, and on Sunday he held services in the Mission Hall, being assisted by the Rev. H. H. Wylie (the Incumbent) and the Rev. Mr. Bussell" - minor mention
"owing to the steamer Etona grounding on a sandbank, and remaining there for six or seven hours." - minor mention
"During the year the boiler of the launch Etona gave way entirely, and has been replaced by a new one at a cost of £87" (with a little more talk of the funding).
The article even incorrectly states that "services on board" - the newspaper says in "Mission Hall" which I do not believe would be a room on the ship.
MB17:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider option of Merging article Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge per North America. I suspect there are more sources (offline) available for this, but merging will protect the existing content rather than outright deletion.
Deus et lex (
talk)
04:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Airline union/labor functionary. Only RS are passing mentions in The Independent and Bizjournals. Other available sources are primary, unreliable (Forbes contributor posts), or otherwise doesn't contribute to notability (Bloomberg standard profile page).
Vermont (
🐿️—
🏳️🌈)
02:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This wikipedia entry was created to promote Insler in his campaign for Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) President. It is pretty obvious he doesn't warrant a wikipedia page. I would not oppose deletion of the entire entry.
Norco3921 (
talk)
14:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)reply
He is actually an important figure in the labor movement and responsible for thousands of jobs beings saved. That being said, the page is constantly vandalized and should be deleted.
Greydog1! (
talk)
11:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
His is only important in the labor movement in that he has betrayed it. I can completely understand why a supporter of his or he would describe adding the truth to his wiki page as 'vandalizing' it and would want it deleted now that the truth is being added.
Norco3921 (
talk)
13:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The resolution referred to was out of order. It was libelous and violated both the LMRDA and ALPA Constitution & Bylaws, therefore, it will never be in any official meeting minutes. Since there is no valid source to reference the resolution, it needs to be removed from this Wiki page.
Calguppyguy (
talk)
02:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
It was ruled out of order, but the members overwhelmingly overruled the Chair's ruling with a challenge so it was 'in order'. How convenient that you left that out. Perhaps you should brush up on your Robert's Rules of Order.
Norco3921 (
talk)
13:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Resolutions must be permissible under federal labor law. Resolutions which violate the LMRDA are properly ruled out of order. If the body overturns the chair's ruling, it doesn't change the fact that even if the resolution passes it is still in violation of the LMRDA and will not appear in the minutes or be acted on. Robert's rules don't take precedence over federal law.
Calguppyguy (
talk)
16:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Fortunately, the resolution didn't violate LMRDA and ALPA Constitution & Bylaws, but feel free to cite the specific portions of these regs that you are citing. Otherwise, nice try.
Norco3921 (
talk)
17:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
A mirror resolution was passed in the Houston Local Council. It was not ruled out of order and passed overwhelmingly. The resolution does not violate the LMRDA and the ALPA Constitution & Bylaws and will be included in the minutes of the meeting. As the maker of the resolution, I am confident of this information.
96.94.152.89 (
talk)
11:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This page has been continually vandalized with uncited information. The community has allowed this vandalization and has frozen the page in its vandalized state. VOTE TO DELETE
Greydog1! (
talk)
11:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete not interested in the brouhaha above in the AfD discussion; I don't see anything reliable on which to create an article. Union functionary and a pilot, that's about it. all I can find is a one line mention in the NYT
[5].
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Added full-length review from Zamin Ryot given above, and a restrospective
article from India Herald. Although the latter is not a newspaper, it's a registered company (rather than a blog) per it's
about us page, therefore going for weak keep. --
Ab207 (
talk)
12:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete A copy and paste from the NJCAA website, an interview and two match reports don't go to GNG. The MVP award article contains a few lines on her but nowhere near enough for a GNG pass. Searching for sources didn't bring up anything useful.
Dougal18 (
talk)
15:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, I could not find enough coverage to reach a GNG pass. Of the sources available from a search,
this is a student newspaper at the
Dallas College Brookhaven Campus, and is therefore not reliable,
this is just a quote and a passing mention. The only source that looks half-decent I could find was
this, which is not enough for a GNG pass by itself.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
04:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per Pburka. Besides the sources they found, I found
7 and
8 among many many other sources from bernews.com and royalgazette.com etc. She is clearly significant figure in Bermuda women's and international football and helped Brookhaven College win their first national championship. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another 20 will probably be deleted. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
15:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Royal Gazette
#1 ("dazzles"),
#2 ("final"),
#3 ("MVP"),
#4 ("fruit"), some very positive "hometown girl makes it big"-style commentary on her performances at D3 junior college matches and the NJCAA Division III Women's Championship, all by the same author. Together they amount to non-trivial coverage, but each is essentially a routine recap with almost nothing of encyclopedic value, N.
#5 ("scholarship") is another press release, N. I think Bermuda might be the number 1 source for this Texas community college's sports news! Nevertheless, the hyperlocal focus without any broader attention suggests limited appetite for a standalone page of global interest.
JoelleJay (
talk)
00:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Could you please let me know, what notability do you require? Is there anything bigger than Sahitya Akademi in India? He is Sahitya Akademi Awardee. On the day, he was awarded Sahitya Akademi award, the very next day this article was proposed to be deleted? If a Sahitya Akademi winner can't be in wikipedia then who will be?
Shivamco19 (
talk)
11:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 The Weird Al song mentioned is from a different song and band than the one listed. So inaccurate information. Also most of his songs are parodies of other songs, so that'd fill up its own list. Is this list suppose to be full parody songs, or those that just borrow a brief bit from the original? Do reliable sources cover this anywhere?
DreamFocus19:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, although "Trapped In the Drive-Thru" is a parody of "Trapped in the Closet", Weird Al's version also interpolates "Black Dog" at around 6:25.
TomasNotThomas (
talk)
16:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - There are some sources, although in the lede, it says "References can be found in the articles of either the interpolated song or the interpolating song, or both." So really the sources in the actual song articles should also be included in the List of interpolated songs page for each entry listed. See also the now improved article
Interpolation (popular music).
Hiddenstranger (
talk)
01:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)reply
When I have time I'll start adding reliable sources to prove the entries listed, but remove ones where sources are lacking. "
Sampling" is not the term to be used here, as all the songs listed contain interpolations, not direct samples (although both direct samples and interpolations can appear together in one song) – it doesn't matter if songs contain interpolations even for a few seconds or throughout a whole song, they're all interpolations anyhow. Though related, there is a distinct difference between sampling and interpolation.
Hiddenstranger (
talk)
10:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)reply
without clear RS sourcing, everything you have just stated is
WP:OR, anything unqualified needs to be excised, and if there is nothing left after that, there is nothing to keep.
Acousmana18:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We need some editors who are knowledgeable about music to chime in here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Giving it one more round to accommodate the improvements done in the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃(
ICE-T •
ICE CUBE)05:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - I already voted above. Over at the related
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpolation (popular music) we ended up with a "no consensus", which will probably be the case here too. Kudos to the editor who has expanded this list article, but I am still very skeptical on whether a working definition of "interpolation" has been narrowed down, not just here but in the various magazine articles that are being used as sources. All of these interrelated Wikipedia pages need to figure that out or admit that there is no precise definition of the term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 14:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 can't find sources to prove WP:GNG. As it is, the article has a very promotional tone that would be more appropriate in a blog post comparing different softwares for consumers than a Wikipedia article, and I can't find enough information to improve it.
Chagropango (
talk)
04:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can't seem to find sources about this thing either. Results for '"H-sphere"' show that it's some sort of geometric concept, but searches for '"h-sphere" software' show a bunch of manuals and guides. Best thing I could find was
this. Hope others may uncover other sources because this can't be it.
SWinxy (
talk)
19:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - added sources. I'd also like to draw people's attention to the comment from the closer on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination): "As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries." This purge of Oceanian sportspeople really looks like
WP:BIAS.--
IdiotSavant (
talk)
05:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per @
IdiotSavant:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
16:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment The 2 keep votes do say something i can agree with, however, we must be extra carefull, because, if we start accepting mostly-unsourced articles just because they are not from an english-speaking country, we may accidentally open the floodgates for spam.
Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (
talk)
16:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: GNG doesn't include a minimum number of sources for establishing notability, and there are clearly multiple sources available for this player.
Seany91 (
talk)
19:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sourcing has not been shown to exist, and neither a pointer to a closing statement at a contested AfD nor an argument that other projects have fewer deletions is a policy based reason to keep. StarMississippi02:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - added sources. I'd also like to draw people's attention to the comment from the closer on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination): "As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries.". --
IdiotSavant (
talk)
05:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per @
IdiotSavant:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, only one secondary source has been found which gives the subject significant coverage, therefore they still fail
WP:GNG. English is extremely widespread in Fiji in any case, so there is clearly no indication that sources in the language would be particularly rare.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
23:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Fails
WP:GNG and lacks
WP:SIGCOV. I searched under the article title and found this
[8]. Not sure if this is the same person, but even if it was, one article would not equal SIGCOV. Her full name only brought up trivial sources such as
[9] and
[10] among others.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
04:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 think
this might be a source, but the last name is different. This is the camp which selected the OFC team,
other reporting around it makes it clear that the Laijipa Daini at the camp was selected, but there's nothing to pin it down (and not a lot else to go on).--
IdiotSavant (
talk)
06:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm sorry to say none of the "keep" arguments directly pertain to this page. If there are issues with mass nominations (and there may be; I make no judgement either way) this ought to be raised at a noticeboard that can handle it. Vanamonde (
Talk)18:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per @
Pburka: and @
Ortizesp:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
05:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, unfortunately I could not find any additional coverage outside of the Fiji Sun article, a search under both variants of his name brought up only a couple of passing mentions within match reports.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
12:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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've added sources, including a large article from the National.
[19] There's likely more there - I got bored paging through it all. And I didn't look for rugby material. I'd also like to draw people's attention to the comment from the closer on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination): "As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries." This purge of Oceanian sportspeople really looks like
WP:BIAS, especially when targeting teams off to the women's world cup.--
IdiotSavant (
talk)
07:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep as per
IdiotSavant, we have one good source:
[20], and the online coverage of news in this country is not as high as the Western World (and lots of newspapers don't feature prominently on Google search), so reasonable to presume other sources exist. No
WP:BEFORE looks to have been done.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per @
IdiotSavant: and @
Joseph2302:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
19:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit03:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 an "I got nothing'" case: I can find nothing out about this place besides what GNIS says, and the topos and aerials are not at all illuminating. About as non-notable as anything gets.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Newspapers.com, especially the Martinsville Reporter-Times, has thousands of results. Everything I looked for was passing coverage, such as a Man from Turkey Track was shot, someone from Turkey Track died, entertained guests, etc. Many referred to the rest park, the hill, the road, a church, guests in a home or an outbreak of flu. The paper had a regular Turkey Track news column and even a story about a correspondent. It's plenty to prove the place exists and was populated, but I couldn't find anything I would call SIGCOV.
Jacona (
talk)
12:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:Nactor. Only did a notable role in one film, not multiple. No update on that Hindi film since. Not many sources other than upcoming Bollywood debut, which never happened.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
User:Belyny brought this to my attention. I apparently had declined a draft, but the article was added to mainspace anyway. I can't find any mention of this family. It's possible the family did run a diamond factory, but if so, it wasn't a notable one.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
02:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
A little more has been added to the article, but in terms of establishing this as a notable family, I note that none of the cited sources appear to indicate that any of the three mentioned people were related to each other. --
Metropolitan90(talk)01:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment If you check the German and Dutch versions of the page, there are at least 7 or 8 sources, and apparently the family is documented in a museum somewhere in Europe. I don't know if that makes it notable, but the information and sources from the Dutch and German pages could be imported.
Chagropango (
talk)
04:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
If someone wants to use the sources cited in the German or Dutch versions, they would have to look up those sources and cite specific facts to specific citations. For example, one of the sources cited in
nl:De la Montagne is cited there as "Detlev Schwennicke, European Family Tables. Detlev Schwennicke, European Family Tables." This appears to be a reference to the set
Europäische Stammtafeln edited by Rev. Detlev Schwennicke, but someone is going to have to locate where the family is mentioned in one of those 29 volumes if they want to use that source. --
Metropolitan90(talk)16:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. The author of the article (Philip.anno.1976) is responsable in different Wkipedias (German, Dutch and French versions) of a hoax about this family La Montagne (of which he seems a member) that he presents with fake sources linked to the
House of Faucogney (became extinct in the 14th Century). When you remove everything that is a hoax (link between La Montagne family and House of Faucogney) there is only a La Montagne family working in the diamond industry in Antwerp in the 19th centurym but without any notoriety and with rigged sources which do not provide the information indicated. This international hoax is a waste of time for others. --
Belyny (
talk)
16:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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: criticizing the three extant sources used in the article:
Of Mandaluyong city official website — no mention of the circle, nothing to prove the correlation between the circle and the prior development supposed to stand on the site before the roundabout's inception.
2016 ABS-CBN News article — the circle is secondary topic; main topic of this news article is about the drainage project that was then being constructed in the roundabout.
Merge: While Maysilo Circle is a vital commercial area of Mandaluyong and the location of its city government center, I do agree that the circle itself is not inherently notable. In fact, the history section talks more about
Barangay Plainview and as such can easily be moved to that article instead, which actually lacks any information at the moment.
Ganmatthew (
talk •
contribs)
06:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 result was delete. While the nominator may have come to AfD looking for an enforced merge or a rename, I do not see a consensus for either. Numerically and policy-wise, there is a clear consensus to delete. Arguments in favor of keeping tend to fall along the lines of
Its useful! or
I like it!. Both have been found to be poor arguments by the community. --
GuerilleroParlez Moi12:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure a colon is appropriate when a backslash is not, but in any case, nothing should be done until consensus is reached and the discussion is closed. Moving pages during a discussion just creates a mess (and creates redirects unless they are suppressed) and causes confusion.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
00:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: These two pages contain tables of detailed information used to populate many Colorado-related articles. These two table are sufficiently large that including them in the main articles would disadvantage users with phones and other small screen devices, so I moved them to these secondary articles. Yours aye,
Buaidh talke-mail00:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep The new pages contain a lot of data in a single place that will prove helpful to researchers. Perhaps a title like Statistical abstract of Colorado counties is more fitting, for the pages are not mere lists.
Jeffrey Beall(talk)00:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC).reply
Delete I'm not really seeing why this is a valid split list. The only additional detail listed in this table is elevation, and a column could easily be added to the main list for that. AFAIK there aren't similar articles for other states.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback)
21:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Listcruft or not, these lists are actively used by
WikiProject Colorado. Perhaps they should have a say.
When the
List of municipalities in Colorado was nominated for Featured List, the main complaint was that the table was far too wide. Moving the original table to the
List of municipalities in Colorado: details was intended to remedy this problem. This also eliminated the need for a separate table of Municipalities in multiple counties.
As nom, I'd like to clarify that I am not advocating for deletion of the content, only the page. The current situation is untenable, so the content should either be merged back, or the pages moved to new titles.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
20:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
These articles were split from their parents with content not found there, so they are not duplications. As I've said, I favor them either being merged back (without a redirect) or moved to appropriate titles.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
20:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. The nominator proposed a merge but there seems to be more support for an outright deletion of these pages. Would those advocating Keep be amenable to a merge? The one thing that is clear is that these pages can not remain at these titles. Please do not move the articles in question during this AFD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: for
legal reasons, we cannot merge and delete the redirect. We could move the redirect to a different valid redirect, but we cannot delete it. All of the stats exclusive to the detailed list are contrary to
WP:NOTDATABASE. Listing population is fine, but growth and past size are not needed. Finally, per the explicit examples in
WP:LOCALCON, WikiProjects have no special influence in the consensus-making process (such as deciding to exempt themselves from NOTDATABASE). In sum, I do not see anything that can be merged, so I support deleting the entire page.
HouseBlastertalk23:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: Let's not be hasty here. The creating editor(s) have painstakingly constructed a two-page system which is functional and a little bit elaborate, with a lot of info. And they complied with requirements set by other editors (for achieving "Good list" rating, or whatever), and they've complied with "legal reasons" for whatever, too. This AFD is a brand new (for these articles) process and time must be allowed to sort out a different solution. Pressing for immediate "Delete" is just unhelpful. Perhaps this should be admin closed and taken out of the AFD domain, to allow for refinements that are satisfactory to the editors. The two-page system, at least if some issues are worked out, may well be a model for improving all the other U.S. states' corresponding pages. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: Possible refinements I have experience with many big list systems especially related to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), although I have not been a "Featured list" or "Good list" (is that a thing?) reviewer nor have I ever achieved a FL rating, and I personally think this two-list system is neat. But note that the main list has a lot of white space, which means there is opportunity for rewriting to make the information denser. In some lists I have saved space by combining multiple pieces of info into one column, e.g. put street address, city or town, and coordinates into one "location" column. E.g. put both "Year built" and "Year listed on the National Register of Historic Places" into one column that is sortable by the "Year built". Here are some possibly helpful ideas and some questions, towards working out a system that is fully satisfactory to "everyone that matters", which might not be everyone here, no offense intended. I will write in named issue areas; feel free to insert comments. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
FIPS code How about drop the FIPS code column from
List of counties in Colorado, either by completely dropping the codes or by placing the codes into another column, say in parentheses beneath the county name, filling in some white space? I personally don't see the usefulness of FIPS code in any way for myself, or for most readers. I don't really know what it is, and have to look it up, and see that it is just an assigned number. Like the NRHP reference number, it's arbitrary and shouldn't necessarily be presented. Or as a lesser importance item, it can be kept but subordinated under the county name, so that it is still available, and a reader could run a search for a given FIPS number say to find which county it applies to, while letting go the (not too important) functionaliy of allowing sorting by FIPS code. Few readers are arriving with either an NRHP reference number or a FIPS number that they want to look up, anyhow. And, further, per
Federal Information Processing Standards#Withdrawal of geographic codes, it seems the FIPS code is being retired from wide use, so it may be of less and less interest. Perhaps there is a state or Federal source online that provides the correspondence of FIPS codes to counties, and that could be mentioned with a link for readers who do want that. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Review issues / table width: The main list appears not to be a
wp:Featured list, and the Talk page provides no link to any FL review. Reviewer requirements were mentioned above somewhere, perhaps stated in reference to a different similar list. Please provide a link to the discussion. Perhaps the reviewers were stupid and should be ignored. Perhaps we don't care because this is not being developed for FL listing. Maybe there will be future wikimedia software developments which magically help display for mobile device users, say by allowing them to toggle between viewing all the columns vs. viewing just selected columns. So....why not just go ahead and make the main list wider. I saw mention of concern for readers of mobile devices or other small-screen viewers, if a table is wide. Is that really so bad, that they would have to scroll over to the right to see some of the columns? Probably the more important info should be to the left. Anyhow, let's look into what really matters, not just accept that a screen which requires scrolling is unacceptable. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Anger about duplication: In comments above, to me it seems there is possibly unreasonable anger about the fact that there is duplication between the two tables, and extreme statements that the duplication simply must be eliminated by deletion or merger. I don't know what the problem is, really, but how about present the two tables differently. So, instead of having a main, limited table and a secondary table duplicating all of that and adding more, how about removing most of the duplicating columns from the second table. Just call it "List of geographical facts for Colorado counties", or "Additional info by county in Colorado" or something like that. And keep ALL of the info, just in two tables with no duplication except the "County name" column. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
County seat. This seems like fine info to keep, but how about subordinate it under the county name in the first column, which becomes "County name / (County seat)" or "County name / (County seat) / FIPS". Being subordinated, the table would not be sortable by county seat name, but maybe that is of lesser imprtance than info which can then be included in another column. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone including children, and all this stuff is traditional and useful, and where are the policy issues?. Having a bunch of sortable columns is fun, to a degree, for children, and it is neat to be able to see which are ranked high when sorted by elevation minimums rather than by elevation maximums, etc. Keep all of the info in
List of counties in Colorado/detail. Arguments above assert policy issues but don't hold water as far as i can tell.
User:Lorstaking dismisses the list because it is "just Listcruft". In fact this list does not suffer from any of the bad things covered at
wp:LISTCRUFT. The info is objective, requires little or no maintenance, does not require adopting a non-neural view, is not original research, etc. Out of all the criteria for "LISTCRUFT", perhaps most possibly relevant is: "The list is a violation of
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? But follow that link and you see that what is bad are "Lyrics databases" (this is not one), "Summary-only descriptions of works" (this is not one), "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" (everything here is immediately understandable, there is no confusion at all), and "Exhaustive logs of software updates" (this is not one). Okay, then, but "Listcruft" states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Fine, this page has true, verifiable info. "Listcruft" does NOT say that true, verifiable info is unsuitable. I happen to think this is very good for an encyclopedia, to have accessible info, like for children especially. Like the "Childcraft" encyclopedia or encyclopedia-like set of books that I devoured as a child, was so wonderful. I see no policy issue here.
User:Otr500 states: "There is redundant content with the parent article and per Lorstaking
WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay based on
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#DIRECTORY that is policy." I don't see any link to any policy outlawing "redundant content". I have dismissed Listcruft above. About "Wikipedia is not a directory", that is about publishing ephemera like opening hours and phone numbers for museums in a list, say. Check
wp:NOTDIRECTORY; there is no complaint there which applies here.
User:Lightburst states "it is a duplication". So what if there is one column, or several columns, in this article which appear in another article too. Note another list by Colorado county is
List of Colorado county high points; should we delete the county name column out of that because county names are already listed elsewhere? I don't see any policy issue. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
So, there are no policy issues as far as I can tell, so the outcome here should simply be "Keep". That said, perhaps there are some changes which might be made, as editorial matters of organizing information, and I wonder what
User:Buaidh thinks now? --
Doncram (
talk)
22:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
There is a policy issue here as I noted in my nom, that
WP:SUBPAGES are not allowed in mainspace. So the content must either be merged back to where it was
split from, or the pages moved to appropriate titles. So "Keep" is not an acceptable outcome.
Mdewman6 (
talk)
23:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comments': Aside from the above mentioned WP:SUBPAGES, I think at least one is taking a very argumentative and final authority approach to the arguments for keep. Not sure why "unreasonable anger" was mentioned at all. It has been my less non-tenured (edit count wise) time on Wikipedia that the closing of the discussion be determined by --- the closer. Wikipedia is
not a text book, statistics table, or database. Maybe I need to cast the page on my 60" TV (17" is not enough) so I can see the whole bunch of figures without scrolling. I imagine it would really play hell viewing on a tablet or cell phone per the creators rationale ("would disadvantage users with phones and other small screen devices") for the page. It seems most of this would be of use to a specialist (serious researcher of some degree) and not the average reader. I cannot imagine the world where kids would enjoy playing with sortable columns. To me (we are allowed opinions) this, as a stand alone list, is unneeded and unencyclopedic bunch of intricate details. --
Otr500 (
talk)
00:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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've added more information and sources. Please note
WP:NOTFINISHED: Wikipedia is a living document, constantly improving and expanding. It will never be a finished work.. Let us continue to improve upon this article, not delete it.
CLalgo (
talk)
08:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)reply
All the sources on the article currently are from the IJF or EJF, both of which are not independent of this event. This is a clear fail of WP:GNG.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
15:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)reply
More over, I haven't found
WP:NOTDATABASE's &
WP:SIGCOV's relevance to this case. Please, see
WP:JUSTAPOLICY: While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why..
As JudoInside is a reliable, secondary source, SIGCOV\GNG falls. NOTDATABASE says nothing on sports articles as far as I can tell.
CLalgo (
talk)
08:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment There is no evidence that this topic deserves its own WP page. There is no significant independent coverage nor is there any reason to think this event for 15-17 year olds is historically significant. In fact, the article on the entire tournament has no significant independent coverage so I have difficulty supporting a redirect, although that's quite likely to be the result.
Papaursa (
talk)
22:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Not notable, per nom. If it is an alternate name for
Shah Jewna then a redirect is fine, but need to be certain it is the same first. If in doubt, deletion is better.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
18:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, leaning against redirection as I don't see Mehboob Alam Shah mentioned on the target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 political figure, not
properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing
WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claims here are that he's a city councillor in a midsized community and an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election to higher office, but neither of those are automatic inclusion freebies -- city councillors are presumed notable only in internationally prominent global cities on the order of Los Angeles, New York City, Toronto or London, candidates are accepted as notable only if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons, and the only slim chance either a city councillor or a candidate has otherwise is to show such a deeply unexpected volume and depth of nationalizing coverage that they have a credible claim to being a special case of much greater national prominence than the norm. But that's not what this article is showing: with 29 footnotes it looks well-sourced on the surface, but it's actually just
reference bombing him with a mixture of primary sources, glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him in any non-trivial way, reduplicated repetition of the same citation two or three times instead of using the proper name-and-callback format, and the purely
run of the mill local coverage that any person in either of these roles would merely be expected to have in their local media, not evincing any proof that he could be seen as more notable than other city council colleagues or other candidates on the same state legislature ballot. Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the state legislature seat, but nothing here is sufficient grounds for him to already have a Wikipedia article today.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I could not find many sources which were not already cited, and these sources are insufficient to prove notability as the nominator suggests. No significant coverage appears forthcoming. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback)
15:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any more support for draftifying or should this article just be deleted? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
In what universe is
this or any of the others "peer reviewed"? These are mostly blackhat, passing announcements and otherwise not in depth coverage. None of the sources are substantially ABOUT IBIA and they're certainly not "top" publications.
This is a useless blog, and the other two definitely aren't any sort of authoratative or reliable sources. The fact that other articles exist that shouldn't is
completely irrelevant.
PICKLEDICAE🥒 10:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Filbert Street is an ordinary east-west street in San Franicisco and does not meet
WP:NGEO. It is not a main road, nor an arterial street, nor a shopping district, nor is the street itself particularly historic. It does contain a notable feature, the Filbert Steps, a San Francisco landmark that I believe does meet
WP:NGEO. An earlier article on Filbert Steps was merged into this one as superfluous - unfortunately, this was backwards, as Filbert Street itself is a non-notable feature. I would Propose to Merge, but that creates a redirect for "Filbert Street" to "Filbert Steps", which has its own set of problems. I am proposing to manually merge the content on Filbert Steps into another article, either Filbert Steps itself, or better, the
Telegraph Hill, San Francisco article, with a newly added section on the step streets of Telegraph Hill, including the Filbert, Greenwich, and Vallejo steps.
Peter G Werner (
talk)
06:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This is what I lean towards. It also allows some discussion of the nearby Greenwich Street and Vallejo Street steps without creating separate articles.
Peter G Werner (
talk)
22:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, simply. IMHO the deletion nomination should not have been made. The nominator basically wishes to move the substantial topic back to Filbert Steps, from which it came (or from which the most notable info came). That should have been submitted as a
wp:RM. Offhand, that doesn't make sense to do, because "Filbert Street" is the geographically larger topic and it is fine to cover Filbert Steps as a relatively huge section within that. Allowing for additions of more info about notable happenings, history, buildings, etc. at other places along Filbert Street which add to the notability of the street. But the reverse doesn't work, it doesn't make sense to be covering the street and various places along it, within an article about the steps. It is also logically possible to have two articles, as if Filbert Street is a historic district (and in fact it is, but not yet listed as such on the National Register of Historic Places) and Filbert Steps is an individual place (like a contributing building or object in an NRHP historic district, or like a place separately listed on the NRHP which happens to be within the district. In NRHP writing, it would never be done, to relegate a big historic district's coverage into a section of an article about one place in the district. Also, I think many long historic streets in San Francisco probably deserves explicit coverage eventually, either as an article or a section in a neighborhood or historic district article. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Doncram, I'm curious about what content you think this article could have besides the Filbert Steps. In addition, what would the sources be for that content? As it stands, the article does not have any references for the street itself and I am not able to find any.
Lamona (
talk)
05:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Well, one thing it could cover is registered historic places (which is what I edit most about in Wikipedia) along the street. At
National Register of Historic Places listings in San Francisco, I don't see any places with Filbert address which are individually NRHP-listed. But do any of the historic districts in that list span Filbert? If so then there is detailed info available about Filbert buildings. Also there may be coverage of Filbert buildings in any City of San Francisco local historic registry program. Another thing I'd do is "take a walk" down the street in Google Streetview, and inspect for apparently notable monuments or other objects, buildings, etc. --
Doncram (
talk)
20:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Okay, echoing those and adding a few more, please see numerous landmarks along Filbert Street all in a map by clicking on "Map of all coordinates using OpenStreetMap" to the right of this page. The several landmarks along the street, whose coordinates I have just identified and labelled, are:
And please compare this info to what's covered in
Lombard Street article. That article has a table indentifying the street's end points and additional major intersections, which this could have too. It mainly (only?) talks about the one block with the curvy roadway, besides mentioning the intersections. The Lombard Street article has no landmarks besides intersections along the street.
I am not the one to write interesting text about these spots, but there's more to say than can comfortably be merged into Telegraph Hill (and much simply does not apply there). And I think this is adding up to be better than the
Lombard Street article. --
Doncram (
talk)
01:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was originally considered as part of the clean-up of Iranian "company towns", but removed from the list due to the additional sourcing. The issue here is that it is not clear at all whether the sources are referring to the same place. The census just refers to "Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan" as a refernce-point for counting the people around it, without it being clear what this is (part of a village? a grouping of more than one village?). On the face of it this is a
WP:CORP.
The additional sources are:
neshan.org, which appears to be a wiki-like source and thus unreliable. The
location it points to is an industrial complex within a location that, based on address of other companies in the area (e.g.,
this,
this) is called "Zayanderud". This is the name of a local river and thus not a surprising name for the actual location.
A
one-sentence news story on
https://sahebnews.ir/ dated 24 May 2014 about the burial of "martyrs" in a place called Shahid Namjoo Industrial City. Nothing indicates that this is the same place as "Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan". Not sigcov, cannot sustain a
WP:GNG pass, does not show evidence of legal recongition for a
WP:GEOLAND#1 pass.
A imna.ir
news story about the burial of an unknown "martyr" at "Zarin Khodro industry in Zarin Shahr, located in the Defense Industries of Lanjan region". Nothing indicates that this site is the same as the previously-mentioned sites. The real town discussed here appears to be
Zarrin Shahr, a place we already have an article about, and this is just a factory complex located within it. The date of the news story is February 1396 (i.e., 2018) so it is not the same story as the one-sentence story above.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously deleted via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit12:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - as there are some citations to confirm its existence. We should keep it. I believe that geographic locations can be kept with minimal citations, but I am unable to find the actual policy to refer to.
Lovewiki106 (
talk)
02:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - Citations confirming it exists are not enough to establish notability. Per
WP:NBUILDINGThe inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Notability is not established in this case.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
20:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Sirfurboy: in this case I believe Lovewiki106 is actually referring to
WP:GEOLAND - it's not (just) a commercial development but would be more of an inhabited location in the company town sense. Geoland does use a much lower threshold.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
14:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
You may be right -
WP:NBUILDING may not be the most appropriate as this complex is clearly sizeable, but still it would come under commercial developments (for some sense of 'commercial') which would be
WP:NBUILDING. But regardless of what it is, the question is whether there is anything notable here. I found 3 mentions in sources and some web hits. As I said, these confirm existence but nothing I have found describes it in detail. Yet perhaps an article could be written about it. I have not found enough for a notable article yet, but that does not mean it is impossible. What is clear, however, is that the page asis does not seem to know what it is about. Per the nom, the 4 sources say 4 different things, and the very brief information on the page appears to be in error. If nothing else, I think this one needs
WP:TNT.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
17:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - Can anyone !voting keep/draftify explain why and how this is supposed to be notable?
"It Exists" is a well-known fallacy, and as explained above it is not clear that the thing described in the sources is either the same thing, or the thing discussed in the article. It is not clear how this is supposed to meet
WP:GEOLAND#1 since it is not clear that this is not just a factory so simply invoking
WP:GEOLAND#1 is not sufficient. There is no
WP:NBUILDING or
WP:NCORP pass made out here because there is no significant coverage.
As an alternative to keeping I am prepared to accept draftification, primarily because I think it will just end up with this article being deleted under
WP:G13 after six months.
FOARP (
talk)
14:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I am plumping down on the side of delete here. My thinking is as the title is derived from a census, it is a census tract and I do not think we regard census tracts as being notable. Certainly, there are no substantive sources about a place with this title. I'm aware that it has been said that it has an alternative name of 'Shahid Namjoo' but without good sources saying so, this is OR. If substantive sources exist for 'Shahid Namjoo' then an article can be created for 'Shahid Namjoo' (but it needs more than a news story about burials). Zarin Shahr (and the nearby steel mills) is readily found on Google maps and we have an article on it; I see no sources that connect 'Zarin Shahr' to the name 'Defense Industry Complex' or to 'Shahid Namjoo'. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
20:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Fails GNG. Reception is literally all listicles and trivial coverage. Would be much better off as a section in the list of characters than split off to a separate, non-notable article.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
21:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: The Game Informer and Venture Beat sources cited in the article give some important details on the character, as does Syfy, the former two being completely dedicated to her. The character's voice actress has also won two awards. There's quite a few listicles cited, and while they might not be enough on their own to build the article (per
WP:WHYN), I would argue they are when supplementing the aforementioned sources.
MoonJet (
talk)
10:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I took the liberty of removing the VentureBeat community writer-cited material from the article, as well as a couple of other definitively unreliable sources, lest they contribute to the false appearance of notability.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
12:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
To be fair, I wasn't too sure about VentureBeat. Though some of the "community writers" used to work for Bitmob. As for Gamenguide, which I noticed you also removed, I've kind of been under the assumption its reliable, due to its privacy policy, and the fact its used in a number of GAs on here. A discussion of it at
WP:VG/RS might be warranted.
Even if we're not counting these sources, I still stand by my keep vote. After searching for some more sources, I just found a review of her as DLC from an
archived Fearnet. That's the thing about DLC characters, they tend be reviewed by a site or two.
The Fearnet source barely squeaks by SIGCOV, I guess, but the site itself says nothing about an editorial staff. As a very likely to be unreliable source, I am dubious that it can be used. Even if it were reliable I still don't think it's reaching the bar for GNG but there is no evidence that it is.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
10:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Fearnet was a US-based media network and video on demand service owned by
Comcast. My impression is that it was a professionally run outfit with editorial staff throughout its existence, as opposed to being an enthusiast site run by a group of fans. Whether the review article itself, taken together with the other cited sources, constitutes significant coverage is debatable.
Haleth (
talk)
11:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
That is grasping at straws without proof that the site was run with an editorial staff. I'd like to see actual proof of that rather than just vague assertions. In terms of the actual content of the review, it's pretty basic and doesn't go into much depth. All it mentions about her backstory is bookended by a nod to jokes about her blood powers and menstruation... need I say more, it reads like it was written by a teenager.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
23:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Read what I wrote again, carefully. I said whether it counts as adequate significant coverage is debatable, because I personally found the review a little short for my liking. What I also said, that "Fearnet was a US-based media network and video on demand service owned by Comcast", as opposed to a long-running webzine that is clearly operated by enthusiasts like say this
site, is also fact. I'd be more surprised if a submitted article published by a subsidiary of a major multinational corporation was never reviewed by an editor, but then again, blunders like US Today's retraction of a story about EA being acquired by Amazon do happen.
Haleth (
talk)
23:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of Mortal Kombat characters. This is yet another example of how a character being mentioned in a video game website headline and in listicles does not necessarily mean that there is anything substantial to say about the character that couldn't be sufficiently covered within the parent article. Following
summary style, we should only split to a separate article when there is an overabundance of coverage that warrants the split and would create undue weight in the parent list article. czar16:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
"Independent notability" is not a thing. The term "independent" as defined by
WP:GNG or
WP:SIGCOV explicitly refers to sources, that means any material produced by the article's subject or an entity affiliated with the subject do not count towards establishing the presumption of suitability for a stand-alone article about the subject. The correct question to deliberate on, is whether the aggregated coverage about the subject is adequately "significant". Another important point to consider, is whether its prose is a
content fork that more or less duplicates the material contained in another article that is better established in terms of notability, because that would justify the AfD approach.
Haleth (
talk)
11:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
You are incorrect to seem to suggest there is wrong doing here. It's a completely valid editorial decision to say that, if something receives virtually all of its coverage in the context of a parent subject, that it doesn't need to be split out into its own article
Sergecross73msg me13:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
You're missing my point here. I am not disagreeing with the suggestion that this article should be merged and redirected. Without opening a can of worms that has little bearing on the current discussion, all I am saying is, the notion of "independent notability" has no basis on guidelines or policies and makes no sense especially when any given number of related topics are never truly independent from each other in terms of discussion and scope. The primary issue to determine in most AfD cases is the alleged lack of significant coverage from independent RS, which is not a question of editorial decision, and I am not at all incorrect on that point.
Haleth (
talk)
16:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I think that they meant "standalone" notability, i.e. being its own page. It's the height of Wikilawyering to seize on a typo as evidence of bad faith of some kind, I think most of us know what they mean and it doesn't need multiple paragraphs refuting a nonexistent issue.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
17:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Sergecross73: When did I say I am arguing against a merge? I said I am ok with a merge and redirect for this article, if that isn't clear already. I simply decided to speak up over what came after, which in my opinion is a misinterpretation and misapplication of Wikipedia guidelines and policies.
@
Zxcvbnm: It isn't a typo. It's not the first time someone used the terms "independent notability" or "independently notable" as if it is an established and vetted norm, much like how another prominent editor often repeated the concept of "real world notability" in deletion discussions which has no basis in any consensus. It is as misleading as some editors who parrot
WP:THREE, merely an editor's personal observation, in discussions as if it is a guideline or policy that everyone is obliged follow. Pointing out a misleading statement that is not endorsed by existing guideline or policy isn't Wikilawyering because it is no different then telling an AfD nominator that they have not provided a deletion rationale or perhaps that they are using AfD as an inappropriate cleanup drive for clearly notable topics. And if you are butting into conversations that aren't actually addressed at you and insinuating that there is bad faith editing involved, then perhaps it says a lot more about you then it does me.
Haleth (
talk)
23:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I can't imagine I'm alone in being surprised that you agree with Axem with your comments. I was reading this as an argument against his stance. If you agree with merging then I won't comment further.
Sergecross73msg me23:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Wow, uhhh, I guess this happened while I was enjoying my weekend. FWIW, I think "independent" and "standalone" basically mean the same thing semantically. If it helps, you can replace independent with standalone in your head. It's what I meant when I said it.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
03:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
"Standalone notability" is still...not an actual guideline or policy. We have concepts like standalone "sequels/prequels", or standalone pages I suppose. But WP:N is pretty clear. Either something is notable for inclusion and mention on Wikipedia, or not at all. Most of the time, the fundamental question is still whether a topic is entitled to its own page, or covered in various proportions as part of a page about a broader topic.
Haleth (
talk)
03:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Then the guidelines do not reflect the de facto reality of how notability is applied and should be updated. The fact that you keep running into experienced editors employing the concept of "standalone notability" in AFDs so often is evidence that the concept is supported and should be enshrined in PAG somewhere. "Either something is notable for inclusion and mention on Wikipedia, or not at all." I don't think this is true. Notability is applied to articles, not individual sentences in articles. There are plenty of sourced sentences/facts in articles that are mentioned in Wikipedia that do not and should not get their own articles, despite their inclusion being perfectly reasonable within articles.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
18:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I've took it upon myself to expand the article with some new sourcing, including the Fearnet source I posted above and the
IGN source, as well as expanding upon the Game Informer source. Right now, we have at least
three non-listicles in the reception and a couple more elsewhere. Not to mention, her voice actress winning two awards.
MoonJet (
talk)
12:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Her voice actress won a minor industry award, an accolade for the voice performance, but it is not among the
major annual gaming awards we take note of. It does suggest that Beata Poźniak is probably a notable or distinguished individual, but does little with establishing the presumption of a standalone Wikipedia article for the character she played. It certainly isn't
Outstanding Achievement in Character, where the character itself is the subject of the accolade.
Haleth (
talk)
16:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I mean, on their own, yeah, they don't mean much. I was just adding that for a little something extra. Either way, my main point was the sources I brought up, not her voice winning awards. I still think it would pass without the awards.
MoonJet (
talk)
18:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of Mortal Kombat characters - A dozen or so pieces of trivial entries in routine coverage of the MK games or listicles does not constitute significant coverage nor denote any kind of stand alone notability. The closest we have out of all of these sources of actually valid coverage is that the voice actress won a minor industry award, which as mentioned above, is not sufficient for establishing notability for the fictional character she portrayed.
Rorshacma (
talk)
18:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I thought the DLC reviews and impressions came the closest to in depth coverage of the topic, but overall, there isn't enough significant coverage.
Haleth (
talk)
23:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of Mortal Kombat characters. Although there are two reliable sources covering the character in detail (Game Informer and
IGN) it either barely passes
WP:GNG or is just an article reliably sourced to the subject indirectly or in passing mention. It's hard to decide, but merging (and/or redirecting) might be the better option here.
Sparkltalk14:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
What do you think of the
Fearnet and
Syfy sources? Both cover her too, neither of which being listicles, and are both media networks, suggesting their reliability, like Haleth talked about above.
MoonJet (
talk)
14:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm curious, but where did you get that Syfy is RS, or is it just your opinion? It might be possible that
Fearnet, with a WP page, could be reliable, but could you find any editorial policies (apologies if I can't find any) that indicates the reliability of these sites, instead of an assumption?
VickKiang (
talk)
03:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry to say, but I don't think both sources are decently reliable, at least from what I've seen. I couldn't find any credentials for both Fearnet and Syfy, and they are both nowhere to be found at
WP:VG/Sources. I'm not sure if this is mentioned before or if I forgot, but the author of the Syfy article, Jenna Busch, could be
this person, but again, that's just speculation.
Sparkltalk15:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. If merge is done, please ensure MERGE IS DONE, not just a redirect. The reception section is worth preserving in its entirety somewhere. I concur it suffers from mostly passing mentions, but that doesn't mean it should be discarded. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 - Article appears to fail
WP:GNG. I tried searching the name with and without the diacritics and other than routine stats pages, nothing came up. In the article, the first two references are literally just stats with no context and are absolutely trivial. The third reference on the article wasn't loading but I was able to get it working
via archive.org and it is absolutely a trivial mention: Medzi ženami bola najrýchlejšia na trati s prevýšením 1200 m Anna Pažitná. which in Slovakian says Among the women, Anna Pažitná was the fastest on the track with an elevation of 1200 m. That's as far as it goes into detail, other than listing a completion time of 3:33 for her amongst the stats of others. -
Aoidh (
talk)
21:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Appears to fail both
WP:GNG and the former and current standards of
WP:NBASE. The only sources are an archive of a now-defunct blog and a dead link for his obituary, neither of which are reliable or independent of the subject. Wiggins played briefly in the dying days of the
Negro league, long, long after they were anything resembling major league caliber. Couldn't find any hits for Wiggins during his playing career on newspapers.com, and any hits from post-career where brief mentions of autograph signings, reunions, and one
brief interview in the Chicago Tribune where he says he didn't even get paid for playing in 1959 and 60, his only years in the
Negro American League.
Penale52 (
talk)
19:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
If there was a copy of it, it might help, but usually obituaries have information supplied from the family, so I'm not sure how it could be completely independent of the subject. Even if it supports his brief career, his tenure happened so far removed from major league quality competition, I'm not sure it would even matter.
Penale52 (
talk)
19:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I'd consider this independent, but minor coverage. He was associated with a charity, and they have a profile of him,
[2]. And whatever else is given in the article, keep I guess. I'd prefer if we kept ALL baseball articles, but we have notability guidelines.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. I've rescued the dead
Chicago Sun-Times article, the article is
here. It's a real article independent of the subject, entitled, "Outfielder, passed up by Sox, made his mark in the old Negro Leagues." Based on that and the other couple of non-trivial mentions, I think this passes. Andre🚐06:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - Article fails
WP:GNG and more specifically
WP:ORG (especially when viewing the trade papers through
WP:ORGIND). While their "HYD 25 testing apparatus" and "Beam-Flex" are somewhat popular in multiple asphalt-related research papers cited in Google Scholar and compilation works in Google Books, they are discussing a specific product used in testing, not the company that makes it; any mention of the company itself in these instances is trivial. Newspapers.com returned exactly 1 result, which again
is a trivial mention. -
Aoidh (
talk)
22:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Appears to be worker housing on the edge of Isfahan proper. No evidence of either official recognition or significant coverage to establish notability. –
dlthewave☎16:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:NBUILDING has three criteria, the second of which is relevant here: "Buildings...may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."
The importance here is both social (being some sort of main student building, as I gather from university sources) and architectural (rationalist architecture). However, I can't find in-depth coverage from third-party sources; those given on this page and in the Italian analog of the page are either affiliated, passing, or both. Searches for 'edificio sarfatti' and 'edificio leoni bocconi' turn up no in-depth third-party coverage. It may be significant, but I can't find the requisite sources to back it up.
Iseult Δx parlez moi21:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi, I created the article. The building is actually featured, together with other Bocconi University buildings, in the Lombardia Beni Culturali website, which collects all the recognized and protected monuments in Lombardy region.--
Plumbago Capensis (
talk)
21:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Plumbago Capensis: As for the first, I reviewed that when I nominated this for deletion, and don't consider that to be substantial coverage, but I can see an argument for notability when taken together with the whole university complex. However, this is one of many buildings in the complex. As for the second, that might be significant coverage, but that's one source, so not substantial enough.
Iseult Δx parlez moi05:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello @
Iseult:. I do believe that the combined sources point to a significant notability of the building. There are some which are same-party, but others include a catalog of Architectural monuments in Lombardy which itself features a very long list of references, a well-known and highly esteemed tourist guide (Touring Club) and an in-depth description article created by the Ordine degli Architetti di Milano (an official institution reuniting all architects in Milan).
Plumbago Capensis (
talk)
09:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Plumbago Capensis: I don't doubt that you believe that; after all, those were the sources in the Italian version of the article, which you created, when I nominated this for deletion. Again, this is not significant: the catalog is not a significant mention, as it mentions the building itself in passing, and the references as a rule do not seem to refer to the building itself but the university. The same is for the guide. I'll only concede the architects' thing, but then we're at one third-party source, which isn't enough per
WP:NBUILDING.
Iseult Δx parlez moi15:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Being "a masterpiece" of that kind of architecture is a significant claim. It was built in 1937, and i would think it is the kind of building that, in the U.S., would be listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its architecture. In the English Wikipedia though, we don't seem to have coverage of any corresponding Italian registry (see
wp:HSITES).
Here is a 2010 article bemoaning lack of formal historic preservation in Italy. It seems that Italy only recently, in 2016, created laws and a government department for such (
[4]), a "Ministry for Cultural Assets and Activities (MCAA)". The law sets a 50-year minimum age for listings, the same as the U.S. National Register has. Wikipedia does have an article
Ministry of Culture (Italy) which suggests that a previously-existing department, at least somewhat related, was renamed to become that. But that article, when it mentions "historic monuments", links to
Monument historiques, Wikipedia's page on the formal program in France. So this is a sad situation, I don't see how I can easily look up if this Sarfatti Building has been immediately registered, and it likely hasn't yet, although it seems to me that it almost certainly will be, based on what I can see about this building and what i know about many other countries' heritage registry systems. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Searches should try "Edificio Sarfatti", or it seems to be known also as "Edificio Sarfatti 25". The deletion-targeted page seems to be a close translation of an Italian Wikipedia article, not yet noted in this article or its (non-existent) Talk page. (However there is a small link over to the left to go to the Italian wikipedia version). But that articulolio was created earlier this month by
Plumbago Capensis, and I think has only been edited by them. (Hey, Plumbago, when you translate an article from another language's Wikipedia, there are requirements for what the new page must have in its edit summaries and what it should say on its Talk page, in order to ensure proper attribution is given to the original authors in the other language. Here, IMO there is no issue, since it's just you who wrote the Italian page. I'm not up to speed on the details, but I suggest you look into this and create a Talk page for this article and put the right stuff there.). Plumbago, I am glad you are contributing, and I think/hope this AFD should not be allowed to discourage you. There are often/always AFDs opened when anything looking different comes up. If this AFD does result in the article's deletion, please let's chat; I would be very motivated to help you get set to be able to contribute along these lines. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I am not sure if the "Lombardia Beni Culturali" is an official governmental registry listing or not. But the Lombardia Beni Culturali page mentioned, apparently
this about Università Luigi Bocconi, has a LONG list of good-looking-to-me substantial sources. Plumbago, it is true that a Wikipedia article does not have to include and cite reliable sources that are independent of the topic. They merely need to exist, for an article to be justified and to survive an AFD. But using such sources upfront avoids AFD troubles. Do you have access to any of those / can you add any information or quotes sourced to any of them? --
Doncram (
talk)
22:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doncram: Regarding your first comment, Wikipedia isn't a
WP:CRYSTALBALL, and we can make the article if the registry ever gets created. But not before, not based on speculation. As for your second and third, if you'd reviewed my nominating statement, you'd find that I've already been there.
Iseult Δx parlez moi05:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks
User:Iseult. But if there's significant coverage, the article can be created, whether or not the topic is listed in any official registry. But if the topic is listed in a registry that we understand to be "good enough" in terms of ensuring there exists documentation, then we can cut short any AFD discussion and educate AFD editors to avoid similar nominations. Like for a Level I or a Level IIa
Listed building in England, or for an individually listed
NRHP-listed building in the US (but there are lower levels in those registers where having an article is usually not justified). Currently I/we don't know about Italian heritage registries; I'd like to help fix that. --
Doncram (
talk)
06:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doncram: First, I'm a bit confused, because two 'but' sentences that adjoin each other are usually used to complement each other; however, your points there seem to contradict each other. In any case, regarding the first, as I've tried to establish in my nominating statement and in my other replies, I have found no significant third-party coverage of the building. Regarding the second, per
WP:NBUILDING, this registry has to be of the national level. If you don't know of any, then we're done here, and it's a delete. I personally don't know of any either.
Iseult Δx parlez moi08:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - I spent a while trying to find the "masterpiece" claim in
this source and as far as I can tell it is the sentence L'edificio è una delle più raffinate opere del razionalismo italiano... which Google Translate calls "finest works" rather than "masterpiece" but I think it's fair to say that's close enough, considering that I do not speak Italian and am not about to argue the nuance of the language when I'm basing it off of machine translation; I will
take the author at their word that masterpiece is a proper translation there. The source itself I linked also itself refers to other sources, so I think it's fair to say there is "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources" required by
WP:NBUILDING. Unfortunately in the English language I wasn't able to find any third-party sources that discuss the building, so I have to rely on the Italian sources which again, I do not speak Italian. However, there does appear to be coverage and the building does appear to be historically significant, so I think there's enough notability there to keep the article. -
Aoidh (
talk)
22:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment per Todesco, Fabio (December 12, 2016).
"When Architecture Tells the Story of a University, an Era and a City". Via Sarfatti 25. Retrieved August 25, 2022. Seventy-five years ago, on December 21, 1941, the Bocconi building in via Sarfatti 25 was inaugurated. It had been designed by Giuseppe Pagano...The building has left an imprint not only in the history of the University, but also in Italian architecture and in the development of Milan. In the difficult years between the '30s and '40s, with Italy ready to go to war and the Fascist regime influencing intellectual life, the construction of the building was so tormented, that Pagano himself defined it "a drama in three acts".
Yes, and the university magazine is also called Via Sarfatti 25 (the address of the building): "THE BOCCONI BUILDING IN VIA SARFATTI TURNS 75 AND IS CELEBRATED BY A CONFERENCE AND A BOOK ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF THAT TIME, THE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP WITH GIOVANNI GENTILE AND THE ARCHITECT GIUSEPPE PAGANO, FASCIST, ANTIFASCIST AND MARTYR, WHO DIED SHORTLY THEREAFTER IN MAUTHAUSEN."
Djflem (
talk)
15:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Clearly a heritage-listed building, so meets
WP:GEOFEAT. While Italy as a whole is not great at listing such things, Lombardy is much better, and as far as I know, Lombardia Beni Culturali is an official listing. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
No sources, no indication of notability. No verification that this "stable" name is actually used. It's not mentioned in the ELs for the three members.
MB19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Can't find good enough coverage for
WP:NBIO. There's a USA Today interview, cited in the article, but that's of course not independent at all. On newspapers.com I only found passing mentions and brief quotations from him cited as an aviation guy.
Ovinus (
talk)
18:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete While the subject may be frequently consulted for aviation-related media, this doesn't make him notable. My own search didn't turn up anything that could be used to augment this article.
A loose necktie (
talk)
01:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
To be honest, I'm surprised that the creation of this page was even controversial. How is John Cox any less notable than, say,
Greg Feith? In fact, one can argue that Cox is even more notable and decorated than Feith. I think this should be assessed by people who are more in tune with the aviation industry than Wikipedians who are less familiar with Cox's omnipresence within aviation-related media.
Electricmaster (
talk)
02:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I took a look at Feith's article to compare, and I'll respond. In its current state, Feith's article is in sorry shape. I could go and slap a fair number of citation needed tags on there. But looking at the list of awards, and putting things in the best, most optimistic light, I would expect to find some coverage in Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine for his Laurel Award, even though it's not currently cited. Same goes for the Embry-Riddle Distinguished Alumni Award, even though it's not cited. Looking at Cox, none of the awards are cited either, but none of them seem to be especially likely to have been widely reported in anything other than press releases. (I think "distinguished alumni award" trumps "outstanding MBA graduate" in significance). Finding non-PR coverage of at least a couple of them might tip the arguments towards keep.
RecycledPixels (
talk)
00:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
i understand that what i wrote above might be slightly derogatory, and i apologise for that. However, i still think that this person is just not notable enough, and stand by my original vote.
Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (
talk)
23:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 result was delete. The discussion as whether this should have been listed at RFD or AFD is interesting and perhaps can continue elsewhere. However, as it is here and I see a consensus for deletion, delete it is.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
16:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
This is a micronation in one of the pockets of alleged terra nullis on the Croatia-Serbia border.
Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Liberland mentions a notable and three non-notable micronations claiming one or more pockets of land. The mentioned micronations are, on a brief check, verifiable as claimed micronations in reliable sources but I cannot find a single mention in reliable sources of this micronation, let alone in-depth coverage. A day after creation in 2017,
Pichpich redirected this to the border dispute article, but as it is not mentioned there I don't think the redirect is useful. As the content has never been discussed and is not speedy deletable, RfD would rightly conclude to revert and send it to AfD for discussion so I've just done that.
Thryduulf (
talk)
15:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Wrong forum. The status quo is a redirect, so this needs to be discussed as a redirect at RfD. When someone redirects article content and then immediately nominates the redirect at RfD, consensus is that the article should be restored and taken to AfD because the nominator is gaming the system by trying to delete an article as a redirect. This is no different. This was never established as an article and unreferenced garbage like this
should never be restored. Furthermore, the nominator's claim that only "speedy deleteable" content should be deleted at RfD does not enjoy consensus. This was discussed at length
here. --
Tavix(
talk)03:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree, I see little point in restoring an unsourced article created over 5 years ago which was an article for less than a day. If it seems controversial, someone actually thinks it needs to be discussed at AFD or specifically asks then yes but otherwise I don't see a problem with deleting articles that were short lived years ago where no one objected to redirecting in the sense of they thought it should remain a full article. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
20:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I believe and (barring occasional exceptions) consensus strongly agrees, that articles that are not speedy deletable should be discussed at AfD before being deleted and that the correct response to a BLAR that results in a bad redirect is to revert the redirect and discuss the article at an appropriate forum. AfD is an appropriate forum to discuss the deletion of an article. So yes, someone (i.e. me) does think this needs to be discussed at AfD.
Thryduulf (
talk)
22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The central question (and the whole reason you want the redirect deleted) is ...as it is not mentioned there I don't think the redirect is useful and that is a question for RfD, not AfD. Many RfD discussions hinge on the mentionworthiness of a topic and is something that RfD editors are experienced to handle. No rational editor will want to keep the rubbish you have restored, so trying to backdoor-delete the redirect through AfD would naturally have a higher likelihood of getting your desired result. This is
gaming the system and should not be tolerated. I also find it—interesting—that you have alluded to a consensus multiple times now without showing evidence of it. --
Tavix(
talk)23:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't have time to find all the links right now to demonstrate the consensus (I'll add them when I do), but restoring and sending to AfD is very common following a BLAR nominated at RfD. My main concern here is not that it is completely unverifiable in reliable sources - indeed only in unreliable sources was I even able to verify its existence (to the extent that micronations can be said to actually exist). My justification for coming to AfD is, exactly as I've explained, to get the process right not so that I am more likely to get the result I want (the result I want is either consensus that this is a verifiable (and ideally verified) thing notable enough for either an article or to be merged somewhere or consensus that it should be deleted). Merge and redirect are both appropriate outcomes of an AfD, but deleting article content is not an appropriate outcome of an RfD.
Thryduulf (
talk)
09:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Indeed, restoring and sending to AfD is common following a BLAR nominated at RfD, but this is not a
WP:BLAR situation. The key element, which is missing here, is that there is a disagreement on whether there should be an article or a redirect at that title. There is no one advocating for this article, thus no disagreement. After my review of this topic, I only see two possible outcomes: someone finds a source good enough to add to
Croatia–Serbia border dispute and the redirect is kept, or no such sourcing turns up and the page is deleted. That is an RfD issue, and a common one at that. Deleting appropriate article content is not an appropriate outcome of an RfD, but this is not appropriate article content, even by your own admission in the nomination. Restoring this content was a violation of
WP:BURDEN so proper process, even when setting aside the status quo, was not followed. --
Tavix(
talk)12:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Whether content is appropriate for the encyclopaedia or not requires consensus at a venue suitable for discussing article content, RfD is not such a venue so it would need to come to AfD anyway.
Thryduulf (
talk)
19:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
RfD is absolutely the correct venue for discussing any page whose status quo is a redirect, no matter its history. RfD editors are more than competent to make a determination on whether or not article content is appropriate and act accordingly. To that end, I have never seen appropriate article content deleted at RfD, it has always been junk like this. --
Tavix(
talk)19:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
No, RfD is the appropriate venue only for discussing:
The correct target of any redirect
The existence of redirects without history as something other than a redirect
The existence of redirects with history as something other than a redirect when:
That content would be speedily deletable if restored, or
That content has previously been subject to a consensus discussion an appropriate venue.
This has always been the case throughout the more than 18 years I've been on Wikipedia, baring a circa single digit number of exceptions article content that does not meet one or both the requirements is simply not deleted at RfD because it is not AfD (RfD and AfD are separate for a reason). This is despite how much you have argued for the contrary over the years.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. This is one of them. --
Tavix(
talk)20:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. what we are discussing here is content that was submitted as an article and is currently an article. The article content was boldly redirected, I objected to that redirect and so reverted it and have started a discussion about it in an appropriate venue.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
You are five years too late making that argument, the status quo is not an article. In the intervening time it had become established as a redirect. On the other hand, it was never established as an article. Because you also object to the article content (as evidenced by starting this discussion), restoring it was not appropriate. You are more than welcome to object to the blanking-and-redirecting of an article, but that objection needs to be because there is acceptable article content under the redirect. --
Tavix(
talk)15:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This is not a hoax. There is enough information in unreliable sources to be sure that this is an accurate reflection of a real but non-notable thing. A11 is closer than G3, but I'm not convinced it definitely meets the requirements of that criterion (specifically the close connection between article creator and article subject). I did carefully check whether this met any speedy deletion criterion but while it's close it doesn't quite match any of them and CSD explicitly only applies in the most obvious of cases, which means that where there is doubt it does not apply.
Thryduulf (
talk)
19:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
When the subject of the article is a claim that something exists (which is what a micronation is), evidence that people have claimed that that thing exists is sufficient evidence to show that the article is not a hoax for the purpose of speedy deletion. Whether or not it shows anything else is irrelevant for the purposes of G3.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As far as I can tell there really is no notability here--the company exists, this is true, but seems to not be anything special, and any notability seems derived from a lawsuit filed in 1993 and settled in 2003. I don't think they meet NCORP.
Update: I just noticed this is the second nomination--see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coit Cleaners (really a third--deep dive into Wikipedia history!). But our standards for discussing deletion have changed a bit, and we should now require evidence of notability rather than just claims of notability, which is what we find in those two discussions from 2005.
Drmies (
talk)
15:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Ahem. Bob Vila is a TV host. His website is not a reliable secondary source. I've never been very impressed with Bizjournals.com, but OK, there's an article then. Anyway, the idea that one hit on a TV host's website and an article in a business journal is enough is kind of silly.
Drmies (
talk)
21:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - I have fond memories of watching Bob Vila, but his website is questionable in terms of establishing notability. For one thing, Mr. Vila certainly did not write that article, a freelance writer did. Second, the BobVila.com website earns a commission on the listed cleaners, so there is a conflict of interest there, as defined by
WP:IIS: "Independent sources have...no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)" It's not an independent reliable source. While
this BizJournal article does go into some detail about COIT, what's there is honestly trivial because to be clear, the article is about "COIT Kentuckiana franchisee Krish Inc." not about COIT itself. Americanfreedom's comment about only needing one source is inaccurate, as
WP:GNG requires multiple reliable third-party sources, and even if you were to include BizJournal piece (which we shouldn't, as
parent notability should be established independently), that's still just one article, and that's not sufficient for an article on Wikipedia. With that in mind, and with what I was able to find online, there are no reliable third-party sources that have significant coverage of the article's subject; it fails
WP:GNG. -
Aoidh (
talk)
23:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete sources aren't really useful. Bob Vila is 75 or so, I really don't think he's active on his website and rating companies; likely people running it and paying to use his name.
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: A
heavily promotional BLP that fails the GNG going away, even after removing a fair bit of uncited puffery. The subject's only mentions in the sources provided are casual namedrops, or quotes from the subject (which explicitly cannot support the notability of the subject). The article creator is a SPA for whom creating this article, and promoting the subject in others, is the sole Wikipedia activity.
Ravenswing 22:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BASIC. Aside from
this which is a local piece, everything that mentions him is a trivial mention, and articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Notability's just not there. That local piece does say "Doan Nguyen made headlines around the state earlier this year..." which made me think there would be something out there in terms of reliable sources, but aside from
an interview everything I could find was either related to the press release found in the article, or mentioned him in passing. -
Aoidh (
talk)
00:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Possibly TOOSOON? Some media coverage that could imply meeting criteria 7 of
WP:Notability(academics) but he might be well producing those in his function as a journalist not as an academic. The article would need more evidence of notability - either general, or as an academic or author.
JamesKH76 (
talk)
08:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I added two references as evidence of notability, this might meet criteria 7 of WP:Notability(academics): substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
Andreas Tuffé (
talk)
18:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
You added a youtube video which has 168views and is likly non-rs because of that and a 40 documentatry short where he presents is not evidence of an academic. The real problem there is no mainstream evidence. Its all patched together. It should be immediately visible by a 2 minute search. scope_creepTalk06:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Unclear how being able to swim e.g. humans and Crab-eating macaques makes something semiaquatic. Perhaps examples on
Semiaquatic could be lengthened, but this list is far too vague.
Reywas92Talk16:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems to violate
WP:INDISCRIMINATE by being a list that isn't necessarily about an encyclopedic intersection, i.e. "List of runners with brown hair" or "List of old ladies with green cars".
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
21:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy, G4, if an admin can verify it's close enough for
WP:G4, otherwise, this should be deleted anyways. No evidence of notability, one of the sources used is deprecated, and the addition of "Dr" is because the page
Vivek Bindra (check the deletion log there...) is salted.
ASUKITE14:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
I am not convinced that this company meets
WP:NCORP. Coverage appears to be typical PR output, mostly in a local weekly newspaper. The awards do not appear to be significant, and being 3,441 in a list, or 258th in a list, or number 45 in a list of 50 doesn't make a company worthy of an article in an encyclopedia. This seems to be a run-of-the-mill company going about its business.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
13:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 unreferenced non-article has been sitting as an orphan since its creation in 2014.
Bashkortostan has a demographics section that is working fine. This page fails notability and sourcing requirements. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
12:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - The content of the article isn't even worth merging to the parent article, and the demographics section of
Bashkortostan is not so expansive that it needs its own article, nor does the size of the parent article warrant a split. I say delete over redirect because it doesn't seem to be a viable search term for the parent article. -
Aoidh (
talk)
00:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. The Directions Magazine source is an
WP:INTERVIEW. The ESRI award is not a major award as far as I can tell (it doesn't have it's own Wikipedia article) and the podcast's parent company won the award, not the podcast.
TipsyElephant (
talk)
12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - While it has won an award from
Esri, there's no article for the award, so that doesn't meet
WP:WEBCRIT #2 as it doesn't otherwise appear to be a "well-known" award, and the article fails
WP:GNG outright. One interview and one niche industry award do not create notability for the article's subject. Considering how long the podcast has been running, an impressive 16 years, you'd think there would be coverage in all that time, but there's nothing that can be found to support notability for the subject. -
Aoidh (
talk)
00:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unusual one this. This was set as a redirect back in 2012 as non-notable, which is certainly appears to be. Obviously A7 doesn't apply to schools else it could have gone then.
The redirect was then raised as a speedy this week, which I had to decline as it's clearly not a recent redirect. I've rolled back to the article's substantial content so that a discussion can be had here on notability. A quick search by me couldn't find anything about this school outside of directory listing and the like.
GedUK11:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - Primary schools are rarely notable enough to merit an article of their own, and I do not see any evidence that this case is an exception at the moment.
Dunarc (
talk)
22:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Woody Woodpecker shorts have been integrated in
Woody Woodpecker filmography; a few still remain. Some correctly so, as they are notable, but this one does not appear to be so. All we have is a stubby plot summary and infobox catalogue-like data. The ref to "The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons" is misleading, so no, it's not "two page of coverage", it's two pages in it that have
WP:SIGCOV-failing passing mentions (and incorrectly so, this short is mentioned on p. 148 and 153, at lest in my edition). Anyway, the short is never discussed, it's just listed in the two separate lists of WW's shorts. Given that, I suggest redirecting this to
Woody Woodpecker filmography. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Woody Woodpecker filmography. Ref
1 is online, but clearly a non-reliable SPS blog. I'm unsure on how long the coverages of the printed refs are, but considering that ref 2 only supports one sentence (assering the film is the 24th animated cartoon short subject in the Woody Woodpecker series), and ref 3 another two sentences, with a link that can't be opened, I'm inclined to agree with
Piotrus that the book doesn't cover this film for two pages. So, with none of the refs being reliable, independent, and significant, neither
WP:GNG nor any
WP:NFILM criteria are met.
VickKiang (
talk)
01:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Tagged for notability 2 years ago, still no reception section, just a plot summary and publication history. That said, while some Dredd story arcs have ended up as redirects to
Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines, others made it through AfDs in the past, so let's discuss. Can we find sources to rescue this, or should it be redirected? My BEFORE isn't showing much. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Judge Dredd#Major storylines as suggested by the nomination. I was unable to find any kind of real coverage or reviews in reliable sources, just in a few fan sites and blogs. The suggested target probably needs to have a good cleanup itself (its completely unsourced, with nothing actually supporting which listed stores are in fact, "major" storylines"), but that's a different issue and for now, would be the best target for the nominated article.
Rorshacma (
talk)
19:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a suitable dab page, one item is clearly the primary topic while there is only one other entry. This situation should be handled with hatnotes per WP:ONEOTHER (
t ·
c) buidhe07:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: Nom's rationale is sound; I don't see how the article can go beyond stats and meet the GNG. "rugby matches between France and Japan" has zero Ghits and zero TWL hits. —
Danre98(
talk^
contribs)09:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Tiktok trend unworthy of an article. IF this content is worth keeping, I suggest moving to be a section within a more relevant page, like
2020s in fashion or something of that nature. If this becomes a larger known thing and continues beyond a fad of summer 2022, then articledom can be re-discussed, but at this point, it's only worth a section within an article, if that.
Zinnober9 (
talk)
22:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a stub article, but based upon the sourcing, there is more than enough to demonstrate that there is enough material to make a standalone article. This article looks like the
Indie sleaze article before it was recently expanded.
Thriley (
talk)
21:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can people arguing sources please discuss the sources and how they meet the gng pleAse? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug!07:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 SNOW Keep. This article has had a rather tumultuous history. Its
first AfD was closed as redirect and a later
deletion review (with an intervening edit war (and full protection) between restoring and expanding the article and redirecting it based on the prior AfD) endorsed the outcome and sent the article back here. Ordinarily, that would counsel letting the AfD run its full course. However, it appears that the
consensus has changed in a somewhat dramatic manner (while not dispositive, I note that a number of participants from the prior AfD have also participated here and argued in favor of keeping the article) given a large amount of recent news coverage in reliable sources of the article's subject such that this AfD is
clearly going to be closed as keep as the subject now passes
our general notability guideline.
Mifter (
talk)
05:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep If she was not notable before, she certainly is after beating Liz Cheney in the primary. She has major features on her in NYT, NPR, etc. as of last week.
Chagropango (
talk)
07:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Meets
WP:GNG, especially due to the nature of the political win and the amount of coverage in reliable sources (even though it's not something that meets
WP:NPOL). -
Aoidh (
talk)
00:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Totally obvious keep, anybody who has gotten to the point of running for political office is notable enough for a Wikipedia page.
Joe (
talk)
22:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Eh. You may be right. I should say that most people who've gotten to the point of running for political office will be notable enough for a Wikipedia page, and this is an obvious case of that.
Joe (
talk)
00:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Snow keep per all above. A lot has changed in the last two months since the last AFD as evidenced by comments in the DRV and this discussion. Very clear pass of GNG and NPOL now.
Carson Wentz (
talk)
03:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
In compliance with
WP:N, this article does not meet requirements for notability. The subject of this article is not discussed outside of guidebooks or trip reports and has (as best I can tell) never been mentioned in any mainstream news
¡Ayvind!(talk)03:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I don't see why good guidebooks or climbing books should be considered less worthy than "mainstream news." News outlets are not the only reliable sources. That said I would want to see *significant* mentions in more than one such source, by different authors, to consider a climbing route notable. Not sure yet if this route meets that standard. A secondary note that this seems to be one of a number of very short articles sourced primarily to Fifty Classic Climbs of North America (see
East Buttress (Middle Cathedral),
Northeast Face (Pingora), and many others at
Category:Climbing routes), so whatever happens here may have relevance for them as well.
—Ganesha811 (
talk)
13:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
delete - Relevant material already covered at
Wolfs Head.
—Ganesha811 - Certainly climbing routes can potentially be notable as
WP:GNG passes, and two reliable, independent sources could be enough to substantiate that, even if they are specialist climber press/books, but in this case, even if that were the case, we already have an article on the Wolf's Head that is not very long and the relevant subject matter is already there, so why do we need a separate article on it?
FOARP (
talk)
09:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree, as it is I don't see any reason to keep the climbing route articles split from the articles on the peaks/mountains except in very rare cases (like some Everest routes).
—Ganesha811 (
talk)
11:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect. I don't think there's enough sourcing to support
Characters in the Realm of the Elderlings and would redirect it (possibly to
Robin Hobb bibliography § The Realm of the Elderlings). Other comments: GAs do not require a character list. See
MOS:CHARACTERS: "Most articles do not need this section. Instead, a finely crafted plot summary is used to introduce the characters to the reader." I doubt if The Farseer Trilogy would benefit from such a section, as it has just one primary character. On the other hand the Liveship Traders has 7–8 POVs, so I can see how a character glossary would help there.
Olivaw-Daneel (
talk)
06:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC) (updated 07:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC))reply
@
Olivaw-Daneel We are a bit off topic here, but I'd suggest adding a note to Farseer that there is just one major character somewhere. Frankly, even a short section on characters saying so, with some analysis of the main character, would be good there (if sources exist). If I was a GA reviwer I'd likely make such a request. Just saying. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect - The current article fails both GNG and LISTN. It can maybe be salvaged to merge, but that can be decided at a late time.
TTN (
talk)
13:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree that
Realm of the Elderlings is feasible to write, although some of the sources you list are Masters theses and aren't suitable. I went through this search a year ago and have compiled the usable ones at
Robin Hobb § Sources. (I meant to write it at some point, but I had to take a break after expanding the trilogy pages. If anyone wants to, they're welcome to do so.)
Olivaw-Daneel (
talk)
00:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Masters' theses are a bit like Wikipedia: Not necessarily sufficient or reliable, but often a great place to find references to other, better scholarship.
Jclemens (
talk)
16:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Delete, Keep, Merge, Redirect, the only thing clear here is that there is no consensus thus far. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Lack in-depth coverage in RS. There is nothing remarkable stated in the article that would suggest notability and the sources are all minor mentions.
MB01:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep (or merge) -- The article has three newspaper sources, which may well be the sources for the book (I do not know). However, I would like to hear more of the vessel's history: was its grounding fatal to it? Unlikely.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The three newspapers sources are trivial happenings, not in-depth coverage:
"The Bishop, Right Rev. Dr. Harmer, arrived here on Saturday in the mission launch Etona, and on Sunday he held services in the Mission Hall, being assisted by the Rev. H. H. Wylie (the Incumbent) and the Rev. Mr. Bussell" - minor mention
"owing to the steamer Etona grounding on a sandbank, and remaining there for six or seven hours." - minor mention
"During the year the boiler of the launch Etona gave way entirely, and has been replaced by a new one at a cost of £87" (with a little more talk of the funding).
The article even incorrectly states that "services on board" - the newspaper says in "Mission Hall" which I do not believe would be a room on the ship.
MB17:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider option of Merging article Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge per North America. I suspect there are more sources (offline) available for this, but merging will protect the existing content rather than outright deletion.
Deus et lex (
talk)
04:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Airline union/labor functionary. Only RS are passing mentions in The Independent and Bizjournals. Other available sources are primary, unreliable (Forbes contributor posts), or otherwise doesn't contribute to notability (Bloomberg standard profile page).
Vermont (
🐿️—
🏳️🌈)
02:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This wikipedia entry was created to promote Insler in his campaign for Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) President. It is pretty obvious he doesn't warrant a wikipedia page. I would not oppose deletion of the entire entry.
Norco3921 (
talk)
14:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)reply
He is actually an important figure in the labor movement and responsible for thousands of jobs beings saved. That being said, the page is constantly vandalized and should be deleted.
Greydog1! (
talk)
11:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
His is only important in the labor movement in that he has betrayed it. I can completely understand why a supporter of his or he would describe adding the truth to his wiki page as 'vandalizing' it and would want it deleted now that the truth is being added.
Norco3921 (
talk)
13:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The resolution referred to was out of order. It was libelous and violated both the LMRDA and ALPA Constitution & Bylaws, therefore, it will never be in any official meeting minutes. Since there is no valid source to reference the resolution, it needs to be removed from this Wiki page.
Calguppyguy (
talk)
02:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
It was ruled out of order, but the members overwhelmingly overruled the Chair's ruling with a challenge so it was 'in order'. How convenient that you left that out. Perhaps you should brush up on your Robert's Rules of Order.
Norco3921 (
talk)
13:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Resolutions must be permissible under federal labor law. Resolutions which violate the LMRDA are properly ruled out of order. If the body overturns the chair's ruling, it doesn't change the fact that even if the resolution passes it is still in violation of the LMRDA and will not appear in the minutes or be acted on. Robert's rules don't take precedence over federal law.
Calguppyguy (
talk)
16:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Fortunately, the resolution didn't violate LMRDA and ALPA Constitution & Bylaws, but feel free to cite the specific portions of these regs that you are citing. Otherwise, nice try.
Norco3921 (
talk)
17:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
A mirror resolution was passed in the Houston Local Council. It was not ruled out of order and passed overwhelmingly. The resolution does not violate the LMRDA and the ALPA Constitution & Bylaws and will be included in the minutes of the meeting. As the maker of the resolution, I am confident of this information.
96.94.152.89 (
talk)
11:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This page has been continually vandalized with uncited information. The community has allowed this vandalization and has frozen the page in its vandalized state. VOTE TO DELETE
Greydog1! (
talk)
11:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete not interested in the brouhaha above in the AfD discussion; I don't see anything reliable on which to create an article. Union functionary and a pilot, that's about it. all I can find is a one line mention in the NYT
[5].
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Added full-length review from Zamin Ryot given above, and a restrospective
article from India Herald. Although the latter is not a newspaper, it's a registered company (rather than a blog) per it's
about us page, therefore going for weak keep. --
Ab207 (
talk)
12:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete A copy and paste from the NJCAA website, an interview and two match reports don't go to GNG. The MVP award article contains a few lines on her but nowhere near enough for a GNG pass. Searching for sources didn't bring up anything useful.
Dougal18 (
talk)
15:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, I could not find enough coverage to reach a GNG pass. Of the sources available from a search,
this is a student newspaper at the
Dallas College Brookhaven Campus, and is therefore not reliable,
this is just a quote and a passing mention. The only source that looks half-decent I could find was
this, which is not enough for a GNG pass by itself.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
04:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per Pburka. Besides the sources they found, I found
7 and
8 among many many other sources from bernews.com and royalgazette.com etc. She is clearly significant figure in Bermuda women's and international football and helped Brookhaven College win their first national championship. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another 20 will probably be deleted. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
15:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Royal Gazette
#1 ("dazzles"),
#2 ("final"),
#3 ("MVP"),
#4 ("fruit"), some very positive "hometown girl makes it big"-style commentary on her performances at D3 junior college matches and the NJCAA Division III Women's Championship, all by the same author. Together they amount to non-trivial coverage, but each is essentially a routine recap with almost nothing of encyclopedic value, N.
#5 ("scholarship") is another press release, N. I think Bermuda might be the number 1 source for this Texas community college's sports news! Nevertheless, the hyperlocal focus without any broader attention suggests limited appetite for a standalone page of global interest.
JoelleJay (
talk)
00:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Could you please let me know, what notability do you require? Is there anything bigger than Sahitya Akademi in India? He is Sahitya Akademi Awardee. On the day, he was awarded Sahitya Akademi award, the very next day this article was proposed to be deleted? If a Sahitya Akademi winner can't be in wikipedia then who will be?
Shivamco19 (
talk)
11:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 The Weird Al song mentioned is from a different song and band than the one listed. So inaccurate information. Also most of his songs are parodies of other songs, so that'd fill up its own list. Is this list suppose to be full parody songs, or those that just borrow a brief bit from the original? Do reliable sources cover this anywhere?
DreamFocus19:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, although "Trapped In the Drive-Thru" is a parody of "Trapped in the Closet", Weird Al's version also interpolates "Black Dog" at around 6:25.
TomasNotThomas (
talk)
16:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - There are some sources, although in the lede, it says "References can be found in the articles of either the interpolated song or the interpolating song, or both." So really the sources in the actual song articles should also be included in the List of interpolated songs page for each entry listed. See also the now improved article
Interpolation (popular music).
Hiddenstranger (
talk)
01:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)reply
When I have time I'll start adding reliable sources to prove the entries listed, but remove ones where sources are lacking. "
Sampling" is not the term to be used here, as all the songs listed contain interpolations, not direct samples (although both direct samples and interpolations can appear together in one song) – it doesn't matter if songs contain interpolations even for a few seconds or throughout a whole song, they're all interpolations anyhow. Though related, there is a distinct difference between sampling and interpolation.
Hiddenstranger (
talk)
10:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)reply
without clear RS sourcing, everything you have just stated is
WP:OR, anything unqualified needs to be excised, and if there is nothing left after that, there is nothing to keep.
Acousmana18:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We need some editors who are knowledgeable about music to chime in here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Giving it one more round to accommodate the improvements done in the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃(
ICE-T •
ICE CUBE)05:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - I already voted above. Over at the related
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpolation (popular music) we ended up with a "no consensus", which will probably be the case here too. Kudos to the editor who has expanded this list article, but I am still very skeptical on whether a working definition of "interpolation" has been narrowed down, not just here but in the various magazine articles that are being used as sources. All of these interrelated Wikipedia pages need to figure that out or admit that there is no precise definition of the term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 14:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 can't find sources to prove WP:GNG. As it is, the article has a very promotional tone that would be more appropriate in a blog post comparing different softwares for consumers than a Wikipedia article, and I can't find enough information to improve it.
Chagropango (
talk)
04:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can't seem to find sources about this thing either. Results for '"H-sphere"' show that it's some sort of geometric concept, but searches for '"h-sphere" software' show a bunch of manuals and guides. Best thing I could find was
this. Hope others may uncover other sources because this can't be it.
SWinxy (
talk)
19:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - added sources. I'd also like to draw people's attention to the comment from the closer on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination): "As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries." This purge of Oceanian sportspeople really looks like
WP:BIAS.--
IdiotSavant (
talk)
05:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per @
IdiotSavant:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
16:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment The 2 keep votes do say something i can agree with, however, we must be extra carefull, because, if we start accepting mostly-unsourced articles just because they are not from an english-speaking country, we may accidentally open the floodgates for spam.
Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (
talk)
16:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: GNG doesn't include a minimum number of sources for establishing notability, and there are clearly multiple sources available for this player.
Seany91 (
talk)
19:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sourcing has not been shown to exist, and neither a pointer to a closing statement at a contested AfD nor an argument that other projects have fewer deletions is a policy based reason to keep. StarMississippi02:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - added sources. I'd also like to draw people's attention to the comment from the closer on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination): "As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries.". --
IdiotSavant (
talk)
05:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per @
IdiotSavant:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, only one secondary source has been found which gives the subject significant coverage, therefore they still fail
WP:GNG. English is extremely widespread in Fiji in any case, so there is clearly no indication that sources in the language would be particularly rare.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
23:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Fails
WP:GNG and lacks
WP:SIGCOV. I searched under the article title and found this
[8]. Not sure if this is the same person, but even if it was, one article would not equal SIGCOV. Her full name only brought up trivial sources such as
[9] and
[10] among others.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
04:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 think
this might be a source, but the last name is different. This is the camp which selected the OFC team,
other reporting around it makes it clear that the Laijipa Daini at the camp was selected, but there's nothing to pin it down (and not a lot else to go on).--
IdiotSavant (
talk)
06:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm sorry to say none of the "keep" arguments directly pertain to this page. If there are issues with mass nominations (and there may be; I make no judgement either way) this ought to be raised at a noticeboard that can handle it. Vanamonde (
Talk)18:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per @
Pburka: and @
Ortizesp:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
05:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, unfortunately I could not find any additional coverage outside of the Fiji Sun article, a search under both variants of his name brought up only a couple of passing mentions within match reports.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
12:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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've added sources, including a large article from the National.
[19] There's likely more there - I got bored paging through it all. And I didn't look for rugby material. I'd also like to draw people's attention to the comment from the closer on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination): "As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries." This purge of Oceanian sportspeople really looks like
WP:BIAS, especially when targeting teams off to the women's world cup.--
IdiotSavant (
talk)
07:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep as per
IdiotSavant, we have one good source:
[20], and the online coverage of news in this country is not as high as the Western World (and lots of newspapers don't feature prominently on Google search), so reasonable to presume other sources exist. No
WP:BEFORE looks to have been done.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per @
IdiotSavant: and @
Joseph2302:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
19:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via
WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit03:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 an "I got nothing'" case: I can find nothing out about this place besides what GNIS says, and the topos and aerials are not at all illuminating. About as non-notable as anything gets.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Newspapers.com, especially the Martinsville Reporter-Times, has thousands of results. Everything I looked for was passing coverage, such as a Man from Turkey Track was shot, someone from Turkey Track died, entertained guests, etc. Many referred to the rest park, the hill, the road, a church, guests in a home or an outbreak of flu. The paper had a regular Turkey Track news column and even a story about a correspondent. It's plenty to prove the place exists and was populated, but I couldn't find anything I would call SIGCOV.
Jacona (
talk)
12:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:Nactor. Only did a notable role in one film, not multiple. No update on that Hindi film since. Not many sources other than upcoming Bollywood debut, which never happened.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
User:Belyny brought this to my attention. I apparently had declined a draft, but the article was added to mainspace anyway. I can't find any mention of this family. It's possible the family did run a diamond factory, but if so, it wasn't a notable one.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
02:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
A little more has been added to the article, but in terms of establishing this as a notable family, I note that none of the cited sources appear to indicate that any of the three mentioned people were related to each other. --
Metropolitan90(talk)01:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment If you check the German and Dutch versions of the page, there are at least 7 or 8 sources, and apparently the family is documented in a museum somewhere in Europe. I don't know if that makes it notable, but the information and sources from the Dutch and German pages could be imported.
Chagropango (
talk)
04:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
If someone wants to use the sources cited in the German or Dutch versions, they would have to look up those sources and cite specific facts to specific citations. For example, one of the sources cited in
nl:De la Montagne is cited there as "Detlev Schwennicke, European Family Tables. Detlev Schwennicke, European Family Tables." This appears to be a reference to the set
Europäische Stammtafeln edited by Rev. Detlev Schwennicke, but someone is going to have to locate where the family is mentioned in one of those 29 volumes if they want to use that source. --
Metropolitan90(talk)16:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. The author of the article (Philip.anno.1976) is responsable in different Wkipedias (German, Dutch and French versions) of a hoax about this family La Montagne (of which he seems a member) that he presents with fake sources linked to the
House of Faucogney (became extinct in the 14th Century). When you remove everything that is a hoax (link between La Montagne family and House of Faucogney) there is only a La Montagne family working in the diamond industry in Antwerp in the 19th centurym but without any notoriety and with rigged sources which do not provide the information indicated. This international hoax is a waste of time for others. --
Belyny (
talk)
16:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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: criticizing the three extant sources used in the article:
Of Mandaluyong city official website — no mention of the circle, nothing to prove the correlation between the circle and the prior development supposed to stand on the site before the roundabout's inception.
2016 ABS-CBN News article — the circle is secondary topic; main topic of this news article is about the drainage project that was then being constructed in the roundabout.
Merge: While Maysilo Circle is a vital commercial area of Mandaluyong and the location of its city government center, I do agree that the circle itself is not inherently notable. In fact, the history section talks more about
Barangay Plainview and as such can easily be moved to that article instead, which actually lacks any information at the moment.
Ganmatthew (
talk •
contribs)
06:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
. -
DVdm (
talk)
14:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
; Ber News
Meet Bermuda Football Player Deshae Darrell: pure Q&A interview, 
Comment: criticizing the three extant sources used in the article: