![]() |
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 17:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Globally blocked user User:Dorian Gray Wild, created the article in order to make public relationship to Alex Fridman and to promote him outside Israel. He completely owned this article, and prevented another wikipeds from editing it, by reverting their edits in such edit summaries like "A stable version" without explaining his revertions. Also: This article is of no encyclopedic importance.
Because of this, I'm asking the deletion of this article and also the deletion of related pictures and videos.
Your opinions? זור987 ( talk) 16:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Keep: just because user Dorian Gray Wild apparently had a problematic history for this page, it does not follow that it should be deleted. "This article is of no encyclopedic importance" according to which metrics exactly? The article seems in-depth, it is well sourced, it contains information that's relevant and recent. I don't understand why this needs to be deleted at all? Just improve the parts that Dorian Gray Wild allegedly prevented users from doing, not like that's a problem since he's blocked now. -- Dynamo128 ( talk) 09:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Keep Seems well-sourced with notability established. Why delete?-- Geewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Handball at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Women's team rosters. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability through a WP:BEFORE search. She competed at the 2004 Summer Olympics but didn't medal. Could be redirected to Handball at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Women's team rosters or Greece at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Suonii180 ( talk) 15:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Editors remain closely divided on whether coverage of the subject is sufficiently sustained to establish notability. signed, Rosguill talk 01:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Poast is a website running pleroma software. They are one of many websites where the webmaster allows shady stuff. The only sources (that count) are about the leak of direct messages from this website. JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs) 04:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance. It seems to me that we have here the somewhat unusual case of a website that we are able to discuss in an encyclopedic manner because of a brief event, since that brief event (the breach) exposed (and led to widespread discussion in reliable sources about) a significant political enterprise. -- Visviva ( talk) 04:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notabilityis a fair point, but is phrased in intentionally cautious terms. On balance, I would still lean on the rationale of RAPID here, since we are just a month and half out. (Although I'll admit, on reflection, that the speed with which any discussion of Poast faded away is rather striking.) On a gut level it seems unlikely to me that the networks exposed here will end up being of only momentary significance, but of course that's ultimately a question that only time and reliable sources can resolve. I would be happy with a merge if we had a good target, but I'm not seeing it here, as the relationships with Kiwifarms and Truth Social seem too attenuated to support a merger and the relevant lists don't really support this kind of coverage. If we're back here in a year and Poast has succeeded in remaining un-discussed in any reliable sources for that time, I guess I'll switch to a weak delete. -- Visviva ( talk) 04:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:REFBOMBing with WP:FICTREFerences to conceal lack of notability. One source cites only as a passing mention. It also fails WP:ORG as a production house or organisation. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 18:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources about the company itself. No inherent notability. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 20:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Westfield may not be accurately described as a neighbourhood; rather, it comprises only two streets known as Westfield Avenue and Westfield Road. As such, it does not fulfil the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. 1keyhole ( talk) 21:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. but a further discussion focused on a possible Merge can occur on article talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Seems like a non-notable book series. Effectively unreferenced (one footnote to an article by the books author) entry about a fictional universe - the book series gets a single sentence, 99% of the content is plot summary WP:FANCRUFT. My WP:BEFORE failed to locate anything, pings on the talk page also failed at producing anything useful. At best I can recommend redirecting this to Paratime series (although that page is no better and will likely end up here shortly, after I do my BEFORE for it), or safer, John F. Carr or H. Beam Piper. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The article notes on page 73: "As his legacy to science fiction, he left a just completed novel, Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen. Fans were gratified to see Piper returning to his established "Paratime" series, his tales of the Paratime Police who protect their time-line from discovery of the means by which they exploit other time-lines for the resources necessary to sustain their exhausted resource-sparse home. This story of a policeman from Rambo country ... quickly became famous; then as contracts expired and the book fell out of print, a lost classic."
The article notes on page 74: "Control of the Piper estate fell into the hands of Jerry Pournelle, who, back when he was actually writing his own books, wrote very much in the style of Piper. It's not surprising, therefore, that Pournelle should want to continue the stories. ... The continuation of the Lord Kalvan story, however, was passed to Pournelle's associates John F. Carr and Roland Green."
The article notes on page 78: "We now fast-forward some twenty years, to the year of 1985. Heartening and joyful news came from Ace Books: they released Great Kings' War by John F. Carr and Roland Green, the long hoped-for sequel and continuation to Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen. There had been hints that the things to come to Kalvan after the events of the earlier book might not all be good, above and beyond the requirements of having enough conflict to make a worthwhile novel. Not only does Kalvan's introspection at the end (Chapter 19, Section 2) give some hints of problems to come, but in a letter he wrote to Campbell Piper himself said as much ... Great Kings' War begins with a nasty description of a nasty winter, but the nasties tossed Kalvan's way by Lytris the Weather Goddess are nothing as to the nasties tossed by Styphon the Gunpowder God. Or, anyway, his mundane followers."
The entry notes: "A second distinct sequence, the Paratime Police/Lord Kalvan tales, most of which were published originally in Astounding, are assembled as Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (November 1964, November 1965 Astounding as "Gunpowder God" and "Down Styphon!"; fixup 1965; vt Gunpowder God 1978) and Paratime (coll 1981). The series was continued in Great Kings' War (1985) and Siege of Tarr-Hostigos (2003), both by Roland Green and John F Carr; the latter also edited The Worlds of H. Beam Piper (coll 1983) and presented his work in other contexts. As a series of Alternate-History variations linked by the eponymous Time Police, the sequence showed Piper in perhaps excessively argumentative vein, the alternate-world structure allowing him great latitude to express his political feelings. Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen remains the most successful and enjoyable of all these tales."
The review notes: "John F. Carr has set himself a difficult task with the novel Kalvan Kingmaker, and it is one at which he is only partly successful. The novel is a continuation of the Lord Kalvan stories written by H. Beam Piper. These tales, which grew out of Piper's Paratime Police stories, follow a Pennsylvania state trooper into a world in which North America was colonized from west to east and only bears a geographical resemblance to the North America of our own world. Carr does an excellent job of capturing Piper's style and stories in his world, but... ...but Kalvan Kingmaker is not just a sequel to Piper's widely-read stories. It is also the sequel to Carr's own continuation, Great King's War (written with Roland Green). Because Great King's War sets up the action for Kalvan Kingmaker and has been out of print for more than a decade, much of Kalvan Kingmaker is spent providing some of the information readers need in order to follow the labyrinthine plots in the novel."
The book notes: "H. Beam Piper's Paratime sequence of stories is collected in Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (1965) and Paratime (1981), both of which are made up of short stories or novelettes originally published in science fiction magazines from the late 1940s until 1965 (Piper killed himself in 1964). John F. Carr and Roland J. Green wrote several sequels to Piper's Lord Kalvan stories, including Great Kings' War (1985) and "Kalvan Kingmaker" (1989). I do not discuss these two texts. Paratime is simply Piper's term for parallel worlds. Lord Kalvan tells stories about Calvin Morrison, a police officer presumably from our world who accidentally gets caught in a Paratimer machine that dumps him into a parallel world, where his superior knowledge and abilities allow him to quickly become an important ruler. The Lord Kalvan stories are about an unsavory theocracy, Styphon's House, that controls the manufacture of gunpowder and thus rules a low-technology world; Piper tells how Kalvan beats the theocracy. The stories in Lord Kalvan and Paratime all take place in the same reality: one time line has discovered the secret of moving from one parallel world to the next, and these Paratimers exploit all the other time lines to support themselves."
The review notes: "Considering the comparatively small amount of work that he produced during his lifetime, H. Beam Piper has an enviable following. Among his more popular creations was the Paratime series, and more specifically the adventures of Calvin Morrison, a one time police officer who becomes a ruler in an alternate reality. Now John Ford returns to that universe and that character for a new chronicle, a direct sequel to Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen. Although the armies of the theocracy have been defeated, the church remains a powerful force."
Cunard -- Much thanks for adding solid facts in place of Piotrus's sometimes problematic and tendentious edits. Unfortunately, my skills are simply not in the area of bibliography, but I can appreciate the work of those who do have such skills. I'm not absolutely opposed to merging this with "Paratime series", but it should be kept in mind that the Kalvan timeline is just one world within the Paratime multiverse (though since the 1980s, I guess it could be said that the Kalvan tail has been wagging the Paratime dog). AnonMoos ( talk) 23:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources in the discussion and also the suggestion of Merge that was buried here in the comments. It doesn't look like there is support for straight-out deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Here are sources about the Paratime series (which I am also copying to Talk:Paratime series):When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes.
The book notes: "H. Beam Piper's Paratime sequence of stories is collected in Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (1965) and Paratime (1981), both of which are made up of short stories or novelettes originally published in science fiction magazines from the late 1940s until 1965 (Piper killed himself in 1964). ... In "Time Crime," the Paratime Police investigate a cross-belt Paratime slave trade, fixing the home time line of the slaves by close hypnotic questioning of the captured slaves, ferreting out which slaves came from a world where a woman killed herself and which came from a world where she was captured alive. ... The stories in Paratime do not focus on any one alternate world but explore a number of them; my favorite is "Last Enemy," which takes place in the Akor-Neb civilization, a Second Level civilization in which reincarnation is a fact. ... Piper's Paratime works, like Poul Anderson's Time Patrol works discussed in chapter 7, create worlds policed by a force charged with protecting its own identity and keeping that identity secret. The culture that created the Paratime Police exploits the alternate time lines it can reach, treating these other worlds as endless sources of raw materials and other resources while upholding strict codes that do not allow anyone to reveal the secret to others. ... Piper discusses the simultaneity of the people inhabiting the worlds only briefly; in "Police Operation," a guard examines Verkan Vall's blood under a microscope to make sure he is the right Verkan Vall. ..."
The book notes: "The Paratime series has for its settings some parallel time-line to Earth in which a civilization is based on Mars. The Martians are descendants of terran colonists who have had to survive after a nuclear war destroys Earth. The survivors discover the "Ghaldron-Hesthor Transposition Field" which facilitates travel between parallel time lines (hence the name para-time, or paratime). This leaves a lot of room for playing "what if" history, in which Piper shows himself to be an expert, recombining historical events and coming up with new and fascinating variations of what might have happened if.... Whether a story is part of the Paratime or Future History series, Piper's plots rely on the self-sufficient human."
The book notes: "Summary: All of the stories in Piper's Paratime series lare collected in this omnibus volume. The Paratime Police travel through time to prevent anyone from changing the course of history. Generally they find discrepancies and have to act to restore the original time track. The stories were originally published between 1948 and the 1960s."
The book notes on pages 163-164: "H. Beam Piper, in the July issue, began his popular Paratime series with a novelette, "Police Operation." ... "Police Operation," and the other stories in the series had to do with a highly organized and complex police force operating in paratime, across probable time lines. The primary purpose of the paratime police is to police the multidinous probable time lines at all levels in an effort to keep them separated and unknowing of each other and if, as occasionally happens, something or someone from one time line appears in another the Paratime Police show up to take care of the problem as quietly as possible, and to take corrective action to restore reasonable normality and to provide an acceptable explanation of the event."
The book notes on page 164: "The Paratime Police stories were entertaining tales not intended to be taken too seriously which provided one possible answer to such Fortean mysteries as unexplained disappearances, strange visitations, apparent violations of natural physical laws, etc. Piper admittedly got his idea for the Paratime Police from Charles Fort: "...there may be something in the nature of an occult police force, which operates to divert human suspicions, and to supply explanations that are good enough for whatever, somewhat in the nature of minds, human beings have-or that, if there be occult mischief makers and occult ravagers, they may be of a world also of other beings that are acting to check them, and to divert suspicions from themselves, because they, too, may be exploiting life upon this earth, but in ways more subtle, and in orderly, or organized fashion." (Charles Fort: Lo!)"
The article notes on page 172: "The majority of Piper's stories are represented in the Paratime Police series and one Future History series. The Paratime Police stories have the theme of parallel worlds. Piper used this theme to answer some of the unexplained phenomena described by Charles Fort. The Future History stories are the description of the rise, fall, and rise again of galactic civilization. Using this background, Piper wrote some of his most memorable stories and books."
The book notes on pages 175- 176: ""Last Enemy." Astounding, August 1950, pp. 5-60. The last enemy is death. A Paratime Police story in which Verkan Vall has to rescue a scientist investigating reincarnation. Since reincarnation is a proven fact, death holds no fears and assassination is an honorary profession. ... "Police Operation." Astounding, July 1948, pp. 8-35. The first of the Paratime Police stories. There is a large amount of explanation about the Paratime theory with a minor plot concerning Verkan Vall hunting for an extraterrestrial animal in an alternate world where it is unknown. ... "Temple Trouble." Astounding, April 1951, pp. 6-34. A Paratime Police story in which the exploitation of the alternate world is controlled through the organized religions. The plot is concerned with conflicts created by the decline of the Paratime-supported religion."
The book notes on page 177: ""Time Crime." Astounding, February and March 1955, pp. 8-49, 85-131. A serial concerning the Paratime Police discovering the existence of a large criminal organization of their own First Probability Level people. 1053"
The book notes: "In the very next year, however, Piper began work on a concept of multiple presents which was totally to dwarf the modest trilineal system of "Time and Time Again." Though he was to work at the paratime concept through four short stories and a novel fixed up out of three others' over a period of sixteen years, the scheme seems pretty thoroughly developed in 1948 in the first paratime story, "Police Operation." Some 75,000 to 100,000 years ago, Piper's scenario has it, the Martians, having exhausted their planet with overpopulation and over-industrialization, colonized Earth, which was occupied by no life higher than ape-men. All the possible results of this colonization have come to pass, on one level of probability or anther; and all these levels of probability, the number of which Piper fixes at 10100,000, are equally real."
The book notes on page 112: "In July, H. Beam Piper began a series of stories with "Police Operation," based on an assumption that time not only goes forward and backward but also sidewise; beside our world are an infinity of other worlds in which events have not proceeded quite the same. Those nearby are almost identical, but those farther away differ greatly. One world has learned to traverse through this "paratime" and to exploit other worlds and cultures. But in doing so, the rulers must police all the worlds and prevent any accidental discovery of the secret by others. This permitted Piper to use almost any setting or culture for his background without step- ping out of his basic situation, and the stories were usually excellent."
The book notes on page 172: "And in August, H. Beam Piper had a Paratime story, "Last Enemy," in which a world gains positive proof that any man can be reincarnated. It is one of Piper's best stories."
The book notes on page 324: "Paratime: H. Beam Piper's universe in which time extends not only forward and backward, but crosswise, with many earths lying side by side, like pages in a book. Each earth differs slightly from the others; thus a panorama of histories is available for exploiting by those who can travel through paratime."
The book notes: "In about half of these short stories Piper develops the "paratime" concept with special emphasis placed on the necessity of policing across alternate worlds. Piper's paratime idea is based on the imaginative conception that there are at any given instant (not in the future or in the past) lateral time dimensions-worlds of alternate probability parallel to our own. Although there could conceivably be an infinity of such worlds, in his stories Piper posits the existence of five, which he calls Time Levels. Lateral time-travelers, then, make corresponding shifts in time. "Police Operation" (1948) alternates between descriptions of an adventurous hunt for an elusive monster and explanations of the various levels of time-travel. In "Time Crime" (1955) the paratime police search out criminals who attempt to meddle with the timetracks. Alternate historical outcomes during the Napoleonic Wars are the focus of "He Walked Around the Horses" (1948). The two stories "Gunpowder God" (1964) and "Down Styphon!" (1965) were expanded to form 'Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (1965)."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors appear to be cohering around merge, but relisting as consensus could be clearer and there has been very recent discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate. Not notable as either a physician or a politician, and all the coverage is routine for a candidate. St Anselm ( talk) 21:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep with a side of IAR. A brand new user doesn't just find AfD and declare "information manipulation". Any established user is welcome to nominate this if there is merit. Star Mississippi 02:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
information manipulation, and no significance to have wikipedia page Garrymove1 ( talk) 20:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Page clearly made for advertising purposes, it has posted fake information such as person educated at Oxford etc. Unclear significance of a living person to create a biography on Wikipedia. Will be more relevant to include bio on the official websites of the organizations the person is associated with.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:EVENT. This is a non-notable event. The article lacks encyclopedic value and it cannot be re-shaped into something that is. At the time its occurrence, this probably wouldn't even have been appropriate for Wikinews. Dawnseeker2000 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous
WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
20:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Politzer has not had a large influence in his field (digital media), and there is largely unsourced material in the article. The New York Times source in the article which is prominently featured only mentions Politzer in a passing mention of an otherwise minor art exhibition. The Houston Center for Photography Carol Crow Fellowship Award, which is the only award mentioned in the article, is not enough to make the case for WP:ACADEMIC. GuardianH ( talk) 20:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails the notability standard; WP:GNG ( WP:ARTIST). No widespread sources in WP:RS. A search of sources doesn't find much beyond Paddofi's personal websites. The article was created by a WP:SPA. GuardianH ( talk) 20:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
New York Magazine ( https://nymag.com/guides/summer/2010/66749/) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ Yes |
New York Times ( https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/dining/jono-pandolfi-ceramics.html) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ Yes |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
There limited evidence that a full fence along the border existed, although there was a clear separation, furthermore, components of this article should be moved to either the Martyrs' Day article or the Panama Canal Zone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Nonymous ( talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CLYDE
TALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't
mention me)
20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Keep: the article appears well sourced and well documented, even if the importance of the fence may be not even remotely compared to the Berlin Wall (although such a comparison is understandable at the local level), I think the article as it is is fine. I don't see why the information presented here also shouldn't be added to the other articles without needing to delete this one. -- Dynamo128 ( talk) 20:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Couldn't find any mention of him in RS, only press releases. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Now that WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:FPL are no longer used for notability, I'm struggling to see a case for keeping this article. The match reports provided do not address Chit San Maung in any significant detail and my own WP:BEFORE searches in both Burmese (ချစ်စမ်းမောင်) and English are not finding anything about the footballer of this name but plenty about Chit San Maung (guitarist) instead. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Actualcpscm (
talk)
20:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable incident, no sustained coverage. Thousands of Palestinians are arrested by Israel yearly.
The information the IDF extracted from the two was that Palestinian militants were planning to infiltrate Israel through tunnels so they could take IDF soldier captives. This indeed happened the next day, leading to the notable abduction of Gilad Shalit, but the detention of the Muamars arguably had nothing to do with it, so there is nothing that sets their arrest apart from the hundreds/thousands of other similar arrests each year. Mooonswimmer 12:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
information the IDF extracted from the two) from the Muamar brothers, so that's currently WP:OR.In any case, WP:NOTPAPER. The long-term significance of the event may only be known in another 20 or 50 years when the Arab Spring 3.0 or 6.0 has led to more thorough historical analysis based on the evidence. There's no point hiding this from the encyclopedic record. Boud ( talk) 16:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CLYDE
TALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't
mention me)
20:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable episode, sources in article are IMDb and a database website with plot summaries. BEFORE searches give where to watch and a few passing mentions when describing the TV series this stems from. Karnataka ( talk) 19:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Actualcpscm (
talk)
20:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
All passing mentions. Video interviews do not count towards notability if not transcribed. Was nominated for an award at 8th_South_Indian_International_Movie_Awards#Film but did not win it. DareshMohan ( talk) 02:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Withdrawn but can't be closed since someone !voted delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CLYDE
TALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't
mention me)
20:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I understand that it is likely there might be some disagreement about this closure but I see a consensus to Keep this article. Suggestions of changing the scope of the article can be discussed on the article talk page or by BOLD edits. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
As a general rule, losing candidates in elections are not regarded as notable. I suspect this article was created with the expectation that he would become an MP. PatGallacher ( talk) 01:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CLYDE
TALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't
mention me)
20:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails every aspect of WP:ACADEMIC. No widespread coverage in WP:RS, not too different from a regular university professor. GuardianH ( talk) 19:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Doctor Who items. Note that it may have been more appropriate to discuss this in a merger discussion on article talk pages per Wikipedia:Deletion_process. The nominator or any involved editor may implement the merge per Wikipedia:Merging#Merge_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 21:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
While generally notable in universe, I couldn't find any sources that cover the Matrix in any depth. The article already cites no sources to begin with. Thus, the article doesn't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV. Given some of the information may be worth retaining, the best alternative to straight deletion would be to merge it with the List of Doctor Who Items article, where the Matrix is already listed, though it lacks relevant information there. Pokelego999 ( talk) 19:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails pretty much every single standard in WP:GNG. No coverage widespread coverage in WP:RS. This article was created by a WP:SPA. GuardianH ( talk) 19:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails the notability standard; WP:GNG. As of 2023, Kergil is a YouTuber with 110,000 subscribers on Youtube. This article was created by a WP:SPA in 2014, and the case for notability at its creation was essentially nil, with him having an even smaller platform then. Not much has evolved since its creation. This article is saturated with unsourced material and possible WP:NOR; it reads as a WP:PROMOTION. Outside of one Boston Globe article, it relies entirely on primary sources/sources that are exclusively local. A search does not reveal any widespread coverage in WP:RS. GuardianH ( talk) 19:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The subject played 18 minutes of professional soccer. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was really the only piece of real coverage I found, and it's from a school newspaper. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails the notability guideline; WP:GNG ( WP:ARTIST). Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. A search of WP:RS sources doesn't find much beyond Mattison's personal websites. The article was created by an IP and WP:SPA. GuardianH ( talk) 19:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Peeragarhi metro station. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This India location is unreferenced since 23 December 2013. After Proposed deletion removed, unable to find references to verify this place and to establish notability. JoeNMLC ( talk) 19:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable photographer. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Sabih omar 17:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
She is a television actress since around 10 years playing character roles. Does not satisfy GNG or NACTOR, and the closest to a significant role is for the show Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal? where it is of one of the five wives of the titular character.
She is also a beauty pageant winner. But while we have two articles on the Mrs. India pageant (
Persona,
Haut Monde), the one that she won in 2014 -
Gladrags
Mrs. India had its article deleted in 2015 with no assertion of notability
.
The actress article was created and majorly edited by an SPA who may have a COI, or may be AUTOBIO. I did ask at the user's talk page but got no response. The image at the article was uploaded and linked by a sock (see investigation) whose first edit was also to the actress page.
I would recommend deletion. Jay 💬 16:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I was unable to find any good sources on the web, and there are currently no sources in the article. QuicoleJR ( talk) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I don't see a resolution here in a dispute on whether or not a source should be considered local or regional. Before considering sending this article on a return trip to AFD (that could easily be a repeat of this discussion), I encourage a discussion on an appropriate policy talk page that can hash out the prime sticking point which is whether or not newspapers that are not national in scope can be considered adequate sources to establish GNG for an article subject. Does it rest on the circulation numbers? The size of their coverage area? Come to an understanding about this first before nominating similiar articles which will start another repeat unresolvable dispute that wears out the main participants. Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
All the coverage supplied and what I found in a gnews search is local Seattle coverage. Fails GNG due to WP:AUD. LibStar ( talk) 03:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to focus on sources and policy. There seems to be an ongoing disagreement in these AFDs about regional vs. local sources, one being sufficient and the other not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
(e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)satisfying AUD. Portland media coverage is a nice added bonus. — siro χ o 09:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis and stop personalising the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz
Humbug!
15:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NSPORT, WP:NGYMNAST or WP:GNG. No secondary sources found in the article or elsewhere. Let'srun ( talk) 15:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Two potential sources are listed in the article text from a German tech/software magazine, but both are inaccessible (see Gleich and Nebelo et al). Gleich appears to be a very brief (2-paragraph) review, evidently of the product under a previous name. Nebelo et al. appears to be a list of 125 pieces of software with very brief descriptions of each as part of an article celebrating the publication, based on the preview, which would not constitute significant coverage. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 15:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Article is a glorified advertisement for the engine; no currently notable games use this engine and it isn’t notable enough to have its own article in the first place; it should be deleted as soon as possible.
NanaOn-Sha (
talk) 07:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC) sock puppet
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
03:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:GNG, and I don't think there's any SNGs that would apply. Maybe WP:WEBCRIT? But it also fails that. Actualcpscm ( talk) 17:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. In retrospect this could have been kept before. Spartaz Humbug! 17:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Programming language, with no serious claims to notability. Was sent to draft by NPP, banged back into mainspace with the claim of multiple RS. I don't see them here and WP:BEFORE shows no record of enduring influence or prominence/notability as a language tool. And the article's promotional, to boot. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Complex/
Rational
18:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
make[] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub. This in-depth review from The New Stack, a source I'm not familiar with but which is cited in a number of Wikipedia articles, also seems fine. At least on the surface all three of these appear to meet WP:SIRS. And there's certainly nothing surprising about such an initiative attracting this level of attention in the current environment. That said, if there are genuine and substantial problems with the sources, I'd suggest merging to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo. -- Visviva ( talk) 05:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
"Syndicated brand material or custom featured stories are great ways to share your viewpoint."
developer marketing writer[8]
developer marketing writeris very questionable), so I don't think it's a reliable source. Likewise, Analytics India lacks a clear editorial process and the branded content program and other info in the abouts/advertising section doesn't give me much confidence. I would be more inclined to think it's reliable had there been clear subject-matter-expertise among its stuff or widespread USEBYOTHERS that I'm not seeing here, though I am not 100% sure whether this is unreliable or not as I'm not especially familiar with Indian technology-related sources. Otherwise, my search on Google mainly found blogs and developer sites that doesn't seem to meet the requirements of GNG or NPRODUCT, so to me (albeit weakly) this doesn't meet GNG. However, there's some sourced info from RS (Infoworld) that would warrant a merge/redirect to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo as an ATD. VickKiang (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!*
20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz
Humbug!
14:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
No apparent notability apart from an award Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 14:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This has been marked as needing sources since 2013, and it has none at all. 331dot ( talk) 13:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails the notability standard; WP:GNG. I found no widespread evidence of significant coverage by WP:RS. There is only one source; most of the article's actually relevant organizational information is unsourced with a large amount of WP:NOR. It reads as a promotional showcase to a minor college program. GuardianH ( talk) 13:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 13:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The page was created and has been significantly edited by a user who is likely to be the subject of the article. Their username is the name of the subject, and the article fails WP:NPOV, as it is not written from a neutral point of view. The article has a small number of independent references, but the majority are from the website of the subject and the article also fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, as the subject has only competed in championships of minor notability without much success. Sizewell ( talk) 13:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that this is a borderline case for notability per WP:NPROF Mason ( talk) 23:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Many academics have been faculty members (such as professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics have held research positions at academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc.). However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Black Kite (talk)
11:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Barely any coverage, fails the notability guidelines for schools and organisations . Ratnahastin ( talk) 11:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
No indication of notability, fails WP:NSCHOOL . Ratnahastin ( talk) 11:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Completely unsourced and fails WP:NSCHOOL Ratnahastin ( talk) 11:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Completely unsourced, no indication of notability. Ratnahastin ( talk) 11:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL ,overtly relies on primary sources such as school's own websites for citations. Ratnahastin ( talk) 11:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails notability guidelines for schools, see WP:NSCHOOL. Ratnahastin ( talk) 11:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie ( talk) 01:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG Ratnahastin ( talk) 10:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
"In an effort to rationalize its supervision of institutions of higher learning, CHED has also prescribed guidelines for granting privileges of autonomy and deregulation to certain schools. According to the guidelines, the general criteria examined by CHED are an institution's 'long tradition of integrity and untarnished reputation', 'commitment to excellence', and 'sustainability and viability of operations'."[19]
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a POV fork of List of terrorist incidents. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents. AlanS talk 09:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Note that
List of right-wing terrorist attacks also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that
List of Islamist terrorist attacks also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that
List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a POV fork of List of terrorist incidents. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents. AlanS talk 09:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Note that
List of left-wing terrorist attacks also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that
List of Islamist terrorist attacks also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that
List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
The result was keep. While POV-forking can be a concern with such a topic, there is consensus here that this constitutes a legitimate spinoff of the broader article on Political terrorism. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a POV fork of Political terrorism. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other political terrorism material. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to Political terrorism. This has been previously discussed at AfD and the consensus was overwhelmingly for a delete. AlanS talk 09:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Note that
Left-wing terrorism also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
The result was keep. While POV-forking can be a legitimate concern with such a topic, there is clear consensus here that this is a valid spinoff about a subtopic of the broader article on political terrorism, and as such there is no strong argument to delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a POV fork of Political terrorism. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other political terrorism material. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to Political terrorism. This has been previously discussed at AfD and the consensus was overwhelmingly for a delete. AlanS talk 08:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
commie ( talk) 14:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)The problem isn't the content per se, but that the topical description begs the question. The editors should consider restructuring things and either folding it into other articles on terrorism or creating a new one around "political pretexts for terrorism" or some such title. While I appreciate the effort of creating balance, I don't think it'll work here.
Note that
Right-wing terrorism also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
the problem with calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing" is very much issue of perspective. We're not talking about whether or not offering free school lunch or expanding Medicare is left- or right-wing. We're talking about whether Marxist-Leninist terrorists are left wing. This is only a matter of perspective if you're a) further left than Marxist-Leninists, an already quite far left position, or b) simply ignoring how "left-wing terrorism" is defined by academic sources. -- asilvering ( talk) 17:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The subject has made one appearance for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 08:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Gungrave. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 12:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Another article being sourced properly and written well, but was build up with trivia articles/sources like passing mentions from games reviews. It has zero WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 08:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Moved by NPP to draft more than once, restored to mainspace by its SPA creator, this article about a Kashmiri journalist does not pass WP:GNG, sourcing is to subject's own journalism or incidental mentions. Journalists journalling, regardless of the circumstances of their work, are not inherently notable. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 12:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
07:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 13:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFF. Should be in DRAFT, but was moved there and then was moved back by the creator. Creator also removed PROD. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't soft-delete or re-draft because of the move back to mainspace by the creator, so relisting to establish clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
07:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 13:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Nothing in the article suggests that this set or rules has stand-alone notability. BEFORE (GScholar) yields zero results, the article is referenced solely to the non-notable organization that created the rules and has just a single footnote. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. There are several various ideas herein regarding how to move forward with the article. Discussion about the article's focus, organization, rename ideas, etc. can be further discussed at Talk:Organizations of the Dune universe. North America 1000 12:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is effectively a WP:ALLPLOT, WP:NLIST/ WP:GNG failing plot summary of a fragment of the Dune universe (franchise), poorly defined as well ( Fremen are not an "organization", nor are Mentats or the "Thinking machines" - likely those are artifacts from prior AfDs closed as mergers, pushing the problem down the road...). There is some content here that is off-topic but might be mergeable elsewhere, such as the sentence from the lead that "Herbert's concepts of human evolution and technology have been analyzed and deconstructed in at least one book, The Science of Dune (2008)" , but overall this is a fancrufty mess that at best can be SOFDELETED and redirected to Dune (franchise). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 08:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Dune characters. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Nothing in this article suggest the notability of this character. Following a description of the character (plot summary), there is some discussion of how the character was portrayed in the 2003 miniseries. The latter part could be merged there, perhaps (our article here suggests her role was very well received and might even deserve a subsection the article about the series), while this could be SOFTDELETE redirected to the List of Dune characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Dune characters. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
There is no reason this is seperate from the List of Dune characters. Prior AfD ended with a weird close that implied we should merge this, but that hasn't happened. Let's try this again - I suggest merge or SOFTDELETE redirect with no prejudice to folks merging what they like from the article's history. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Dune characters. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
A common problem with lists of secondary characters is pure OR in determining who is "secondary". In the spirit of WP:SOFTDELETE, the OR issues can likely be solved by merging this to List of Dune characters. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Searches of the usual Google types and a dozen WP:TWL databases, in English and Bengali, found only the reliable sources already cited. There are two brief obituaries (67 and 72 words). How much weight should the obituaries be given with respect to notability? There's a brief mention that he was detained overnight on charges of defamation, a brief quote of him, and a link to one of the two newspapers he edited, showing his name on the masthead (the other, Dainik Kishan, had a circulation of 3,000 in the late 1970s, neither appears notable). We have inclusion criteria because enough people need to have written about a person for a full and balanced biographical article to be constructed. If the subject were notable, then he would have been written about in greater depth. Worldbruce ( talk) 05:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Created by a now blocked editor. Most of the actual diplomatic relations in the article isn't specifically about relations between Turkey and Jamaica. The only thing noteworthy is a bit of trade but that is minuscule compared to the size of the Turkish economy. Lastly the banned editor had a habit of adding extraordinary long reading list none of which refers to Turkey. LibStar ( talk) 05:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
There is no independent, significant coverage on this football player. Fails wp:gng. By the way, according to the external link, the last name is Goitom, not Goitum. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 04:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 14:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
After having done a quick scan through of this page and checking sources it seems readily apparent that this article shouldn't really exist. The only content is basically that you'd really expect to find on the "Musk (disambiguation)" page in terms of links to articles of people with the same surname with a short summary. Instead now all you see is only Elon Musk and then a link to this page, just complicating the process and in effect making other articles less prominent artificially.
So far, despite existing for more than a year, there has been little addition of content or subject scope that would necessitate the need for an article on a prominent "family", such as the Kennedys or Bushes for example where the detail of them as families stretches back into the 1800s in terms of family prominence in cultural/political life.
As a result I would suggest that this article be deleted and the list of "notable members" be instead moved to the disambiguation page. Apache287 ( talk) 01:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. These are the times when I wish I could act on my own opinion but this discussion is clearly divided right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 11:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This article was deleted in 2020 per WP:GNG and WP:BIO [33]. It had been created by a notorious sockpuppeteer, whose sock now has recreated this article. See [34] for more information.
Although Sultan Masood Dakik has allegedly received Germany's Federal Cross of Merit (cant access the cited source to verify it), I still fail to see how thats enough to warrant having an article. HistoryofIran ( talk) 00:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
well-known and significant award or honor). Although unfortunately paywalled, a contemporaneous 2015 report of the award is here, in the Neue Ruhr Zeitung. The sparsity of coverage seems a bit odd, and anyone can claim to have received a medal and hope that the reporter doesn't check. And I guess anyone motivated to engage in elaborate block evasions might also be motivated to forge a photo too. But the existence of a contemporaneous report in a legitimate German newspaper, to my mind, reduces the odds of hoax or puffery to near zero. -- Visviva ( talk) 04:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
As of 31 December 2022, the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany has been awarded 262,532 times since its foundation by Federal President Theodor Heuss in 1951.If that number is true – and it most certainly is – then the Federal Cross of Merit is arguably not a "major award" as intended by WP:ANYBIO but is a routine recognition by the state that one in every 1,000 Germans get. — kashmīrī TALK 11:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. According to
Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, 200,000 people have received this award which really deprives the award of its notability and distinction. Is that the only factor that establishes this subject's notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, thus meeting WP:NBASIC. -- Visviva ( talk) 06:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see no rough consensus, darn it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 16:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Obscure film, on which there is conflicting information in Japanese Movie and Kinenote database, no further reliable sources could be found, also notability questionable. Robert Kerber ( talk) 07:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
00:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 01:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I do not think this meets the criteria for WP:NSONG as it appears to have virtually no coverage online from any notable sources. It also appears to have only barely charted in one country. Yellowfrog81 ( talk) 18:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed, no opinions have need voiced
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
06:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 11:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
YouTuber, Twitch streamer. Nominated for an esports Brazil award, didn't win it. Not notable, fails WP:GNG - coverage owned media, self-fulfilling platforms or passing mentions in gamer titles. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Keep I didn't create the article here, but I'm the original creator on ptwiki. It clearly meets WP:GNG with presence of significant coverage on [51] [52] [53]. Plus, he appeared on Forbes Brasil's 30 Under 30. Skyshifter talk 23:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With only one keep !vote I'd like a little more input before closing one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!*
00:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete as a copyright violation Whpq ( talk) 20:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Recently re-created after draftifying. As written, violates WP:NOTADVERT and would require WP:TNT even if sources are found. Current sources do not meet WP:NCORP. A quick WP:BEFORE shows a lot of routine coverage, nothing that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH/ WP:SIRS. — siro χ o 04:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete I do not find the keep arguments persuasive, especially in the face of the strongly-argued responses to them. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
No in-depth, significant coverage; this was a tragedy, but the encyclopedia is not an obituary page. There was some (mostly local) news coverage of the suicide in 2017. If you look at the revision history, the page was created to promote disinformation: namely, false claims that that Mr. Whisenant was murdered. As one short article briefly notes some far-right posters on "Reddit and 4chan" promoted this claim/innuendo. WP:PROD was declined a few years back by a user spewing the same innuendo. Neutrality talk 03:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
the "Conspiracy theory" lasted only till the causes of death was finalized. That's the definition of a flash-in-the-pan, not a significant long-lasting event that would qualify for an article. The creation of the article suffered from recentism, and now we're stuck cleaning up the mess. The argument that it's a bad thing articles can be deleted
over 4 years after they are made and many have editedis irrelevant. We still occasionally stumble across articles from Wikipedia's early cowboy days that wind up getting deleted because they're just not suitable. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 12:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret ( talk) 13:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Per similar rationale as this: [57] Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 03:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret ( talk) 13:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
merge to main NES article, as Variations of the Sega Mega Drive simply redirects to a condensed Sega Genesis#Variations, helpful if NES wants to gain GA status. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 03:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret ( talk) 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Has very little notable stuff in it, better to merge it to the main NES article. A lot of cruft that few people in the general public that the encyclopedia serves would be interested in it. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 03:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret ( talk) 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Per similar rationale to this: [58] Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 03:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret ( talk) 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The vast majority of article is just technical stuff that few would care about, I would suggest moving it to the main GBA article. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 03:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Karnataka talk 06:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Surely, district attorneys in individual counties of US states are not inherently notable. Surely. I mean, come on. HiDrNick! 02:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Former professional soccer player who played a total of 270 minutes of gametime. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This and this is not enough, and I believe this local piece fails WP:YOUNGATH. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Falls into WP:BLP1E. Let'srun ( talk) 00:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:ORG or any WP:GNG. Sources in the article are either primary or are about individuals competing in beauty pageants, not the organization itself. Let'srun ( talk) 00:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged from this discussion. North America 1000 11:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable list of websites, sourced to 1 company's rankings. Does not seem to be a useful list. Natg 19 ( talk) 21:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. I don't see how either one of those applies, let alone would warrant deletion of the article. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, which this source absolutely does. Also, you don't need to respond to every single keep rationale presented; we get fully that you disagree, and that's fine. You've made your point, and for one I do not agree with any of the rationales presented in any way; the rationales you're giving are a surmountable problems that do not warrant deletion of the article. Neither WP:GNG nor WP:NLIST require the types of sources you're expecting with methodology and such; this is not a WP:GAN that requires broad coverage of each aspect of the subject, it is WP:AFD, and no part of the notability guidelines require those types of sources just to show notability of the subject. - Aoidh ( talk) 17:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
"The article's subject unambiguously meets WP:NLIST ...". No, it does not. As I stated in multiple places, the article's subject is not "most visited websites"; it is "copy of Similarweb's list of top 50 websites". If you want it to be the former, there is no sourcing, because we have no way to measure that other than this one company's opaque tallying. If the latter, then there's no way it can possibly pass any sort of notability guideline. You say the rationales I've given are surmountable. But a complete lack of sources and notability is not surmountable. There is no reporting on Similarweb's data collection whatsoever. This is not surmountable. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
But a complete lack of sources and notability is not surmountable" that is true, but also inapplicable to this article since it has both. Your response is very simply not borne out by the sources. The "coverage of methodology" standard you're trying to apply is not found in any applicable notability guideline. - Aoidh ( talk) 21:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
15:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: still seems to be a split between delete and keep, both with valid arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Taking Out The Trash (
talk)
00:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Their user agreement for those creating an account forbids- That doesn't necessarily mean it's a copyvio. It does mean whoever copies it in breached the ToS but that's usually not our concern.
extensive creative work that SimilarWeb put into creating the dataWhat is the extensive creative work, though? They receive numbers from some places, scrape other places. "200 data scientists" doesn't mean they're involved in producing the top lists -- most of their efforts are going into their paid products. I'm not saying it definitely doesn't qualify for copyright, but it's not obvious that it does (based on what I've seen be kept/deleted in the past). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Former college soccer player who has made at least one appearance for the Jamaica women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete per above.-- Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 03:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 17:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Globally blocked user User:Dorian Gray Wild, created the article in order to make public relationship to Alex Fridman and to promote him outside Israel. He completely owned this article, and prevented another wikipeds from editing it, by reverting their edits in such edit summaries like "A stable version" without explaining his revertions. Also: This article is of no encyclopedic importance.
Because of this, I'm asking the deletion of this article and also the deletion of related pictures and videos.
Your opinions? זור987 ( talk) 16:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Keep: just because user Dorian Gray Wild apparently had a problematic history for this page, it does not follow that it should be deleted. "This article is of no encyclopedic importance" according to which metrics exactly? The article seems in-depth, it is well sourced, it contains information that's relevant and recent. I don't understand why this needs to be deleted at all? Just improve the parts that Dorian Gray Wild allegedly prevented users from doing, not like that's a problem since he's blocked now. -- Dynamo128 ( talk) 09:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Keep Seems well-sourced with notability established. Why delete?-- Geewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Handball at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Women's team rosters. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability through a WP:BEFORE search. She competed at the 2004 Summer Olympics but didn't medal. Could be redirected to Handball at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Women's team rosters or Greece at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Suonii180 ( talk) 15:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Editors remain closely divided on whether coverage of the subject is sufficiently sustained to establish notability. signed, Rosguill talk 01:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Poast is a website running pleroma software. They are one of many websites where the webmaster allows shady stuff. The only sources (that count) are about the leak of direct messages from this website. JackFromWisconsin ( talk | contribs) 04:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance. It seems to me that we have here the somewhat unusual case of a website that we are able to discuss in an encyclopedic manner because of a brief event, since that brief event (the breach) exposed (and led to widespread discussion in reliable sources about) a significant political enterprise. -- Visviva ( talk) 04:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notabilityis a fair point, but is phrased in intentionally cautious terms. On balance, I would still lean on the rationale of RAPID here, since we are just a month and half out. (Although I'll admit, on reflection, that the speed with which any discussion of Poast faded away is rather striking.) On a gut level it seems unlikely to me that the networks exposed here will end up being of only momentary significance, but of course that's ultimately a question that only time and reliable sources can resolve. I would be happy with a merge if we had a good target, but I'm not seeing it here, as the relationships with Kiwifarms and Truth Social seem too attenuated to support a merger and the relevant lists don't really support this kind of coverage. If we're back here in a year and Poast has succeeded in remaining un-discussed in any reliable sources for that time, I guess I'll switch to a weak delete. -- Visviva ( talk) 04:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:REFBOMBing with WP:FICTREFerences to conceal lack of notability. One source cites only as a passing mention. It also fails WP:ORG as a production house or organisation. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 18:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources about the company itself. No inherent notability. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 20:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
22:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Westfield may not be accurately described as a neighbourhood; rather, it comprises only two streets known as Westfield Avenue and Westfield Road. As such, it does not fulfil the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. 1keyhole ( talk) 21:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. but a further discussion focused on a possible Merge can occur on article talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Seems like a non-notable book series. Effectively unreferenced (one footnote to an article by the books author) entry about a fictional universe - the book series gets a single sentence, 99% of the content is plot summary WP:FANCRUFT. My WP:BEFORE failed to locate anything, pings on the talk page also failed at producing anything useful. At best I can recommend redirecting this to Paratime series (although that page is no better and will likely end up here shortly, after I do my BEFORE for it), or safer, John F. Carr or H. Beam Piper. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The article notes on page 73: "As his legacy to science fiction, he left a just completed novel, Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen. Fans were gratified to see Piper returning to his established "Paratime" series, his tales of the Paratime Police who protect their time-line from discovery of the means by which they exploit other time-lines for the resources necessary to sustain their exhausted resource-sparse home. This story of a policeman from Rambo country ... quickly became famous; then as contracts expired and the book fell out of print, a lost classic."
The article notes on page 74: "Control of the Piper estate fell into the hands of Jerry Pournelle, who, back when he was actually writing his own books, wrote very much in the style of Piper. It's not surprising, therefore, that Pournelle should want to continue the stories. ... The continuation of the Lord Kalvan story, however, was passed to Pournelle's associates John F. Carr and Roland Green."
The article notes on page 78: "We now fast-forward some twenty years, to the year of 1985. Heartening and joyful news came from Ace Books: they released Great Kings' War by John F. Carr and Roland Green, the long hoped-for sequel and continuation to Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen. There had been hints that the things to come to Kalvan after the events of the earlier book might not all be good, above and beyond the requirements of having enough conflict to make a worthwhile novel. Not only does Kalvan's introspection at the end (Chapter 19, Section 2) give some hints of problems to come, but in a letter he wrote to Campbell Piper himself said as much ... Great Kings' War begins with a nasty description of a nasty winter, but the nasties tossed Kalvan's way by Lytris the Weather Goddess are nothing as to the nasties tossed by Styphon the Gunpowder God. Or, anyway, his mundane followers."
The entry notes: "A second distinct sequence, the Paratime Police/Lord Kalvan tales, most of which were published originally in Astounding, are assembled as Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (November 1964, November 1965 Astounding as "Gunpowder God" and "Down Styphon!"; fixup 1965; vt Gunpowder God 1978) and Paratime (coll 1981). The series was continued in Great Kings' War (1985) and Siege of Tarr-Hostigos (2003), both by Roland Green and John F Carr; the latter also edited The Worlds of H. Beam Piper (coll 1983) and presented his work in other contexts. As a series of Alternate-History variations linked by the eponymous Time Police, the sequence showed Piper in perhaps excessively argumentative vein, the alternate-world structure allowing him great latitude to express his political feelings. Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen remains the most successful and enjoyable of all these tales."
The review notes: "John F. Carr has set himself a difficult task with the novel Kalvan Kingmaker, and it is one at which he is only partly successful. The novel is a continuation of the Lord Kalvan stories written by H. Beam Piper. These tales, which grew out of Piper's Paratime Police stories, follow a Pennsylvania state trooper into a world in which North America was colonized from west to east and only bears a geographical resemblance to the North America of our own world. Carr does an excellent job of capturing Piper's style and stories in his world, but... ...but Kalvan Kingmaker is not just a sequel to Piper's widely-read stories. It is also the sequel to Carr's own continuation, Great King's War (written with Roland Green). Because Great King's War sets up the action for Kalvan Kingmaker and has been out of print for more than a decade, much of Kalvan Kingmaker is spent providing some of the information readers need in order to follow the labyrinthine plots in the novel."
The book notes: "H. Beam Piper's Paratime sequence of stories is collected in Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (1965) and Paratime (1981), both of which are made up of short stories or novelettes originally published in science fiction magazines from the late 1940s until 1965 (Piper killed himself in 1964). John F. Carr and Roland J. Green wrote several sequels to Piper's Lord Kalvan stories, including Great Kings' War (1985) and "Kalvan Kingmaker" (1989). I do not discuss these two texts. Paratime is simply Piper's term for parallel worlds. Lord Kalvan tells stories about Calvin Morrison, a police officer presumably from our world who accidentally gets caught in a Paratimer machine that dumps him into a parallel world, where his superior knowledge and abilities allow him to quickly become an important ruler. The Lord Kalvan stories are about an unsavory theocracy, Styphon's House, that controls the manufacture of gunpowder and thus rules a low-technology world; Piper tells how Kalvan beats the theocracy. The stories in Lord Kalvan and Paratime all take place in the same reality: one time line has discovered the secret of moving from one parallel world to the next, and these Paratimers exploit all the other time lines to support themselves."
The review notes: "Considering the comparatively small amount of work that he produced during his lifetime, H. Beam Piper has an enviable following. Among his more popular creations was the Paratime series, and more specifically the adventures of Calvin Morrison, a one time police officer who becomes a ruler in an alternate reality. Now John Ford returns to that universe and that character for a new chronicle, a direct sequel to Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen. Although the armies of the theocracy have been defeated, the church remains a powerful force."
Cunard -- Much thanks for adding solid facts in place of Piotrus's sometimes problematic and tendentious edits. Unfortunately, my skills are simply not in the area of bibliography, but I can appreciate the work of those who do have such skills. I'm not absolutely opposed to merging this with "Paratime series", but it should be kept in mind that the Kalvan timeline is just one world within the Paratime multiverse (though since the 1980s, I guess it could be said that the Kalvan tail has been wagging the Paratime dog). AnonMoos ( talk) 23:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources in the discussion and also the suggestion of Merge that was buried here in the comments. It doesn't look like there is support for straight-out deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Here are sources about the Paratime series (which I am also copying to Talk:Paratime series):When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes.
The book notes: "H. Beam Piper's Paratime sequence of stories is collected in Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (1965) and Paratime (1981), both of which are made up of short stories or novelettes originally published in science fiction magazines from the late 1940s until 1965 (Piper killed himself in 1964). ... In "Time Crime," the Paratime Police investigate a cross-belt Paratime slave trade, fixing the home time line of the slaves by close hypnotic questioning of the captured slaves, ferreting out which slaves came from a world where a woman killed herself and which came from a world where she was captured alive. ... The stories in Paratime do not focus on any one alternate world but explore a number of them; my favorite is "Last Enemy," which takes place in the Akor-Neb civilization, a Second Level civilization in which reincarnation is a fact. ... Piper's Paratime works, like Poul Anderson's Time Patrol works discussed in chapter 7, create worlds policed by a force charged with protecting its own identity and keeping that identity secret. The culture that created the Paratime Police exploits the alternate time lines it can reach, treating these other worlds as endless sources of raw materials and other resources while upholding strict codes that do not allow anyone to reveal the secret to others. ... Piper discusses the simultaneity of the people inhabiting the worlds only briefly; in "Police Operation," a guard examines Verkan Vall's blood under a microscope to make sure he is the right Verkan Vall. ..."
The book notes: "The Paratime series has for its settings some parallel time-line to Earth in which a civilization is based on Mars. The Martians are descendants of terran colonists who have had to survive after a nuclear war destroys Earth. The survivors discover the "Ghaldron-Hesthor Transposition Field" which facilitates travel between parallel time lines (hence the name para-time, or paratime). This leaves a lot of room for playing "what if" history, in which Piper shows himself to be an expert, recombining historical events and coming up with new and fascinating variations of what might have happened if.... Whether a story is part of the Paratime or Future History series, Piper's plots rely on the self-sufficient human."
The book notes: "Summary: All of the stories in Piper's Paratime series lare collected in this omnibus volume. The Paratime Police travel through time to prevent anyone from changing the course of history. Generally they find discrepancies and have to act to restore the original time track. The stories were originally published between 1948 and the 1960s."
The book notes on pages 163-164: "H. Beam Piper, in the July issue, began his popular Paratime series with a novelette, "Police Operation." ... "Police Operation," and the other stories in the series had to do with a highly organized and complex police force operating in paratime, across probable time lines. The primary purpose of the paratime police is to police the multidinous probable time lines at all levels in an effort to keep them separated and unknowing of each other and if, as occasionally happens, something or someone from one time line appears in another the Paratime Police show up to take care of the problem as quietly as possible, and to take corrective action to restore reasonable normality and to provide an acceptable explanation of the event."
The book notes on page 164: "The Paratime Police stories were entertaining tales not intended to be taken too seriously which provided one possible answer to such Fortean mysteries as unexplained disappearances, strange visitations, apparent violations of natural physical laws, etc. Piper admittedly got his idea for the Paratime Police from Charles Fort: "...there may be something in the nature of an occult police force, which operates to divert human suspicions, and to supply explanations that are good enough for whatever, somewhat in the nature of minds, human beings have-or that, if there be occult mischief makers and occult ravagers, they may be of a world also of other beings that are acting to check them, and to divert suspicions from themselves, because they, too, may be exploiting life upon this earth, but in ways more subtle, and in orderly, or organized fashion." (Charles Fort: Lo!)"
The article notes on page 172: "The majority of Piper's stories are represented in the Paratime Police series and one Future History series. The Paratime Police stories have the theme of parallel worlds. Piper used this theme to answer some of the unexplained phenomena described by Charles Fort. The Future History stories are the description of the rise, fall, and rise again of galactic civilization. Using this background, Piper wrote some of his most memorable stories and books."
The book notes on pages 175- 176: ""Last Enemy." Astounding, August 1950, pp. 5-60. The last enemy is death. A Paratime Police story in which Verkan Vall has to rescue a scientist investigating reincarnation. Since reincarnation is a proven fact, death holds no fears and assassination is an honorary profession. ... "Police Operation." Astounding, July 1948, pp. 8-35. The first of the Paratime Police stories. There is a large amount of explanation about the Paratime theory with a minor plot concerning Verkan Vall hunting for an extraterrestrial animal in an alternate world where it is unknown. ... "Temple Trouble." Astounding, April 1951, pp. 6-34. A Paratime Police story in which the exploitation of the alternate world is controlled through the organized religions. The plot is concerned with conflicts created by the decline of the Paratime-supported religion."
The book notes on page 177: ""Time Crime." Astounding, February and March 1955, pp. 8-49, 85-131. A serial concerning the Paratime Police discovering the existence of a large criminal organization of their own First Probability Level people. 1053"
The book notes: "In the very next year, however, Piper began work on a concept of multiple presents which was totally to dwarf the modest trilineal system of "Time and Time Again." Though he was to work at the paratime concept through four short stories and a novel fixed up out of three others' over a period of sixteen years, the scheme seems pretty thoroughly developed in 1948 in the first paratime story, "Police Operation." Some 75,000 to 100,000 years ago, Piper's scenario has it, the Martians, having exhausted their planet with overpopulation and over-industrialization, colonized Earth, which was occupied by no life higher than ape-men. All the possible results of this colonization have come to pass, on one level of probability or anther; and all these levels of probability, the number of which Piper fixes at 10100,000, are equally real."
The book notes on page 112: "In July, H. Beam Piper began a series of stories with "Police Operation," based on an assumption that time not only goes forward and backward but also sidewise; beside our world are an infinity of other worlds in which events have not proceeded quite the same. Those nearby are almost identical, but those farther away differ greatly. One world has learned to traverse through this "paratime" and to exploit other worlds and cultures. But in doing so, the rulers must police all the worlds and prevent any accidental discovery of the secret by others. This permitted Piper to use almost any setting or culture for his background without step- ping out of his basic situation, and the stories were usually excellent."
The book notes on page 172: "And in August, H. Beam Piper had a Paratime story, "Last Enemy," in which a world gains positive proof that any man can be reincarnated. It is one of Piper's best stories."
The book notes on page 324: "Paratime: H. Beam Piper's universe in which time extends not only forward and backward, but crosswise, with many earths lying side by side, like pages in a book. Each earth differs slightly from the others; thus a panorama of histories is available for exploiting by those who can travel through paratime."
The book notes: "In about half of these short stories Piper develops the "paratime" concept with special emphasis placed on the necessity of policing across alternate worlds. Piper's paratime idea is based on the imaginative conception that there are at any given instant (not in the future or in the past) lateral time dimensions-worlds of alternate probability parallel to our own. Although there could conceivably be an infinity of such worlds, in his stories Piper posits the existence of five, which he calls Time Levels. Lateral time-travelers, then, make corresponding shifts in time. "Police Operation" (1948) alternates between descriptions of an adventurous hunt for an elusive monster and explanations of the various levels of time-travel. In "Time Crime" (1955) the paratime police search out criminals who attempt to meddle with the timetracks. Alternate historical outcomes during the Napoleonic Wars are the focus of "He Walked Around the Horses" (1948). The two stories "Gunpowder God" (1964) and "Down Styphon!" (1965) were expanded to form 'Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (1965)."
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors appear to be cohering around merge, but relisting as consensus could be clearer and there has been very recent discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate. Not notable as either a physician or a politician, and all the coverage is routine for a candidate. St Anselm ( talk) 21:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep with a side of IAR. A brand new user doesn't just find AfD and declare "information manipulation". Any established user is welcome to nominate this if there is merit. Star Mississippi 02:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
information manipulation, and no significance to have wikipedia page Garrymove1 ( talk) 20:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Page clearly made for advertising purposes, it has posted fake information such as person educated at Oxford etc. Unclear significance of a living person to create a biography on Wikipedia. Will be more relevant to include bio on the official websites of the organizations the person is associated with.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:EVENT. This is a non-notable event. The article lacks encyclopedic value and it cannot be re-shaped into something that is. At the time its occurrence, this probably wouldn't even have been appropriate for Wikinews. Dawnseeker2000 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous
WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
20:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Politzer has not had a large influence in his field (digital media), and there is largely unsourced material in the article. The New York Times source in the article which is prominently featured only mentions Politzer in a passing mention of an otherwise minor art exhibition. The Houston Center for Photography Carol Crow Fellowship Award, which is the only award mentioned in the article, is not enough to make the case for WP:ACADEMIC. GuardianH ( talk) 20:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails the notability standard; WP:GNG ( WP:ARTIST). No widespread sources in WP:RS. A search of sources doesn't find much beyond Paddofi's personal websites. The article was created by a WP:SPA. GuardianH ( talk) 20:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
New York Magazine ( https://nymag.com/guides/summer/2010/66749/) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ Yes |
New York Times ( https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/dining/jono-pandolfi-ceramics.html) | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ Yes |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. |
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
There limited evidence that a full fence along the border existed, although there was a clear separation, furthermore, components of this article should be moved to either the Martyrs' Day article or the Panama Canal Zone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Nonymous ( talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CLYDE
TALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't
mention me)
20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Keep: the article appears well sourced and well documented, even if the importance of the fence may be not even remotely compared to the Berlin Wall (although such a comparison is understandable at the local level), I think the article as it is is fine. I don't see why the information presented here also shouldn't be added to the other articles without needing to delete this one. -- Dynamo128 ( talk) 20:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Couldn't find any mention of him in RS, only press releases. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Now that WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:FPL are no longer used for notability, I'm struggling to see a case for keeping this article. The match reports provided do not address Chit San Maung in any significant detail and my own WP:BEFORE searches in both Burmese (ချစ်စမ်းမောင်) and English are not finding anything about the footballer of this name but plenty about Chit San Maung (guitarist) instead. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Actualcpscm (
talk)
20:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable incident, no sustained coverage. Thousands of Palestinians are arrested by Israel yearly.
The information the IDF extracted from the two was that Palestinian militants were planning to infiltrate Israel through tunnels so they could take IDF soldier captives. This indeed happened the next day, leading to the notable abduction of Gilad Shalit, but the detention of the Muamars arguably had nothing to do with it, so there is nothing that sets their arrest apart from the hundreds/thousands of other similar arrests each year. Mooonswimmer 12:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
information the IDF extracted from the two) from the Muamar brothers, so that's currently WP:OR.In any case, WP:NOTPAPER. The long-term significance of the event may only be known in another 20 or 50 years when the Arab Spring 3.0 or 6.0 has led to more thorough historical analysis based on the evidence. There's no point hiding this from the encyclopedic record. Boud ( talk) 16:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CLYDE
TALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't
mention me)
20:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable episode, sources in article are IMDb and a database website with plot summaries. BEFORE searches give where to watch and a few passing mentions when describing the TV series this stems from. Karnataka ( talk) 19:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Actualcpscm (
talk)
20:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
All passing mentions. Video interviews do not count towards notability if not transcribed. Was nominated for an award at 8th_South_Indian_International_Movie_Awards#Film but did not win it. DareshMohan ( talk) 02:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Withdrawn but can't be closed since someone !voted delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CLYDE
TALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't
mention me)
20:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I understand that it is likely there might be some disagreement about this closure but I see a consensus to Keep this article. Suggestions of changing the scope of the article can be discussed on the article talk page or by BOLD edits. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
As a general rule, losing candidates in elections are not regarded as notable. I suspect this article was created with the expectation that he would become an MP. PatGallacher ( talk) 01:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CLYDE
TALK TO ME/
STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't
mention me)
20:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails every aspect of WP:ACADEMIC. No widespread coverage in WP:RS, not too different from a regular university professor. GuardianH ( talk) 19:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Doctor Who items. Note that it may have been more appropriate to discuss this in a merger discussion on article talk pages per Wikipedia:Deletion_process. The nominator or any involved editor may implement the merge per Wikipedia:Merging#Merge_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 21:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
While generally notable in universe, I couldn't find any sources that cover the Matrix in any depth. The article already cites no sources to begin with. Thus, the article doesn't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV. Given some of the information may be worth retaining, the best alternative to straight deletion would be to merge it with the List of Doctor Who Items article, where the Matrix is already listed, though it lacks relevant information there. Pokelego999 ( talk) 19:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails pretty much every single standard in WP:GNG. No coverage widespread coverage in WP:RS. This article was created by a WP:SPA. GuardianH ( talk) 19:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails the notability standard; WP:GNG. As of 2023, Kergil is a YouTuber with 110,000 subscribers on Youtube. This article was created by a WP:SPA in 2014, and the case for notability at its creation was essentially nil, with him having an even smaller platform then. Not much has evolved since its creation. This article is saturated with unsourced material and possible WP:NOR; it reads as a WP:PROMOTION. Outside of one Boston Globe article, it relies entirely on primary sources/sources that are exclusively local. A search does not reveal any widespread coverage in WP:RS. GuardianH ( talk) 19:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The subject played 18 minutes of professional soccer. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was really the only piece of real coverage I found, and it's from a school newspaper. JTtheOG ( talk) 19:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails the notability guideline; WP:GNG ( WP:ARTIST). Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. A search of WP:RS sources doesn't find much beyond Mattison's personal websites. The article was created by an IP and WP:SPA. GuardianH ( talk) 19:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Peeragarhi metro station. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This India location is unreferenced since 23 December 2013. After Proposed deletion removed, unable to find references to verify this place and to establish notability. JoeNMLC ( talk) 19:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable photographer. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Sabih omar 17:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
She is a television actress since around 10 years playing character roles. Does not satisfy GNG or NACTOR, and the closest to a significant role is for the show Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal? where it is of one of the five wives of the titular character.
She is also a beauty pageant winner. But while we have two articles on the Mrs. India pageant (
Persona,
Haut Monde), the one that she won in 2014 -
Gladrags
Mrs. India had its article deleted in 2015 with no assertion of notability
.
The actress article was created and majorly edited by an SPA who may have a COI, or may be AUTOBIO. I did ask at the user's talk page but got no response. The image at the article was uploaded and linked by a sock (see investigation) whose first edit was also to the actress page.
I would recommend deletion. Jay 💬 16:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I was unable to find any good sources on the web, and there are currently no sources in the article. QuicoleJR ( talk) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. I don't see a resolution here in a dispute on whether or not a source should be considered local or regional. Before considering sending this article on a return trip to AFD (that could easily be a repeat of this discussion), I encourage a discussion on an appropriate policy talk page that can hash out the prime sticking point which is whether or not newspapers that are not national in scope can be considered adequate sources to establish GNG for an article subject. Does it rest on the circulation numbers? The size of their coverage area? Come to an understanding about this first before nominating similiar articles which will start another repeat unresolvable dispute that wears out the main participants. Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
All the coverage supplied and what I found in a gnews search is local Seattle coverage. Fails GNG due to WP:AUD. LibStar ( talk) 03:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to focus on sources and policy. There seems to be an ongoing disagreement in these AFDs about regional vs. local sources, one being sufficient and the other not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
02:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
(e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)satisfying AUD. Portland media coverage is a nice added bonus. — siro χ o 09:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis and stop personalising the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz
Humbug!
15:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:NSPORT, WP:NGYMNAST or WP:GNG. No secondary sources found in the article or elsewhere. Let'srun ( talk) 15:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. Two potential sources are listed in the article text from a German tech/software magazine, but both are inaccessible (see Gleich and Nebelo et al). Gleich appears to be a very brief (2-paragraph) review, evidently of the product under a previous name. Nebelo et al. appears to be a list of 125 pieces of software with very brief descriptions of each as part of an article celebrating the publication, based on the preview, which would not constitute significant coverage. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 15:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Article is a glorified advertisement for the engine; no currently notable games use this engine and it isn’t notable enough to have its own article in the first place; it should be deleted as soon as possible.
NanaOn-Sha (
talk) 07:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC) sock puppet
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
03:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:GNG, and I don't think there's any SNGs that would apply. Maybe WP:WEBCRIT? But it also fails that. Actualcpscm ( talk) 17:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. In retrospect this could have been kept before. Spartaz Humbug! 17:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Programming language, with no serious claims to notability. Was sent to draft by NPP, banged back into mainspace with the claim of multiple RS. I don't see them here and WP:BEFORE shows no record of enduring influence or prominence/notability as a language tool. And the article's promotional, to boot. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Complex/
Rational
18:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
make[] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub. This in-depth review from The New Stack, a source I'm not familiar with but which is cited in a number of Wikipedia articles, also seems fine. At least on the surface all three of these appear to meet WP:SIRS. And there's certainly nothing surprising about such an initiative attracting this level of attention in the current environment. That said, if there are genuine and substantial problems with the sources, I'd suggest merging to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo. -- Visviva ( talk) 05:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
"Syndicated brand material or custom featured stories are great ways to share your viewpoint."
developer marketing writer[8]
developer marketing writeris very questionable), so I don't think it's a reliable source. Likewise, Analytics India lacks a clear editorial process and the branded content program and other info in the abouts/advertising section doesn't give me much confidence. I would be more inclined to think it's reliable had there been clear subject-matter-expertise among its stuff or widespread USEBYOTHERS that I'm not seeing here, though I am not 100% sure whether this is unreliable or not as I'm not especially familiar with Indian technology-related sources. Otherwise, my search on Google mainly found blogs and developer sites that doesn't seem to meet the requirements of GNG or NPRODUCT, so to me (albeit weakly) this doesn't meet GNG. However, there's some sourced info from RS (Infoworld) that would warrant a merge/redirect to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo as an ATD. VickKiang (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!*
20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz
Humbug!
14:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was Keep ( non-admin closure). Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
No apparent notability apart from an award Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 14:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This has been marked as needing sources since 2013, and it has none at all. 331dot ( talk) 13:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails the notability standard; WP:GNG. I found no widespread evidence of significant coverage by WP:RS. There is only one source; most of the article's actually relevant organizational information is unsourced with a large amount of WP:NOR. It reads as a promotional showcase to a minor college program. GuardianH ( talk) 13:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 13:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The page was created and has been significantly edited by a user who is likely to be the subject of the article. Their username is the name of the subject, and the article fails WP:NPOV, as it is not written from a neutral point of view. The article has a small number of independent references, but the majority are from the website of the subject and the article also fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, as the subject has only competed in championships of minor notability without much success. Sizewell ( talk) 13:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that this is a borderline case for notability per WP:NPROF Mason ( talk) 23:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Many academics have been faculty members (such as professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics have held research positions at academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc.). However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Black Kite (talk)
11:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Barely any coverage, fails the notability guidelines for schools and organisations . Ratnahastin ( talk) 11:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
No indication of notability, fails WP:NSCHOOL . Ratnahastin ( talk) 11:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Completely unsourced and fails WP:NSCHOOL Ratnahastin ( talk) 11:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Completely unsourced, no indication of notability. Ratnahastin ( talk) 11:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL ,overtly relies on primary sources such as school's own websites for citations. Ratnahastin ( talk) 11:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails notability guidelines for schools, see WP:NSCHOOL. Ratnahastin ( talk) 11:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie ( talk) 01:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG Ratnahastin ( talk) 10:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
"In an effort to rationalize its supervision of institutions of higher learning, CHED has also prescribed guidelines for granting privileges of autonomy and deregulation to certain schools. According to the guidelines, the general criteria examined by CHED are an institution's 'long tradition of integrity and untarnished reputation', 'commitment to excellence', and 'sustainability and viability of operations'."[19]
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a POV fork of List of terrorist incidents. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents. AlanS talk 09:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Note that
List of right-wing terrorist attacks also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that
List of Islamist terrorist attacks also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that
List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a POV fork of List of terrorist incidents. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents. AlanS talk 09:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Note that
List of left-wing terrorist attacks also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that
List of Islamist terrorist attacks also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
Note that
List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
The result was keep. While POV-forking can be a concern with such a topic, there is consensus here that this constitutes a legitimate spinoff of the broader article on Political terrorism. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a POV fork of Political terrorism. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other political terrorism material. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to Political terrorism. This has been previously discussed at AfD and the consensus was overwhelmingly for a delete. AlanS talk 09:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Note that
Left-wing terrorism also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
The result was keep. While POV-forking can be a legitimate concern with such a topic, there is clear consensus here that this is a valid spinoff about a subtopic of the broader article on political terrorism, and as such there is no strong argument to delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a POV fork of Political terrorism. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other political terrorism material. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to Political terrorism. This has been previously discussed at AfD and the consensus was overwhelmingly for a delete. AlanS talk 08:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
commie ( talk) 14:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)The problem isn't the content per se, but that the topical description begs the question. The editors should consider restructuring things and either folding it into other articles on terrorism or creating a new one around "political pretexts for terrorism" or some such title. While I appreciate the effort of creating balance, I don't think it'll work here.
Note that
Right-wing terrorism also has a
discussion in Articles for Deletion.
the problem with calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing" is very much issue of perspective. We're not talking about whether or not offering free school lunch or expanding Medicare is left- or right-wing. We're talking about whether Marxist-Leninist terrorists are left wing. This is only a matter of perspective if you're a) further left than Marxist-Leninists, an already quite far left position, or b) simply ignoring how "left-wing terrorism" is defined by academic sources. -- asilvering ( talk) 17:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The subject has made one appearance for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 08:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to Gungrave. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 12:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Another article being sourced properly and written well, but was build up with trivia articles/sources like passing mentions from games reviews. It has zero WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 08:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Moved by NPP to draft more than once, restored to mainspace by its SPA creator, this article about a Kashmiri journalist does not pass WP:GNG, sourcing is to subject's own journalism or incidental mentions. Journalists journalling, regardless of the circumstances of their work, are not inherently notable. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 12:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
14:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
07:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 13:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFF. Should be in DRAFT, but was moved there and then was moved back by the creator. Creator also removed PROD. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't soft-delete or re-draft because of the move back to mainspace by the creator, so relisting to establish clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
07:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
07:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 13:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Nothing in the article suggests that this set or rules has stand-alone notability. BEFORE (GScholar) yields zero results, the article is referenced solely to the non-notable organization that created the rules and has just a single footnote. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. There are several various ideas herein regarding how to move forward with the article. Discussion about the article's focus, organization, rename ideas, etc. can be further discussed at Talk:Organizations of the Dune universe. North America 1000 12:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This is effectively a WP:ALLPLOT, WP:NLIST/ WP:GNG failing plot summary of a fragment of the Dune universe (franchise), poorly defined as well ( Fremen are not an "organization", nor are Mentats or the "Thinking machines" - likely those are artifacts from prior AfDs closed as mergers, pushing the problem down the road...). There is some content here that is off-topic but might be mergeable elsewhere, such as the sentence from the lead that "Herbert's concepts of human evolution and technology have been analyzed and deconstructed in at least one book, The Science of Dune (2008)" , but overall this is a fancrufty mess that at best can be SOFDELETED and redirected to Dune (franchise). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 08:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was redirect to List of Dune characters. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Nothing in this article suggest the notability of this character. Following a description of the character (plot summary), there is some discussion of how the character was portrayed in the 2003 miniseries. The latter part could be merged there, perhaps (our article here suggests her role was very well received and might even deserve a subsection the article about the series), while this could be SOFTDELETE redirected to the List of Dune characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Dune characters. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
There is no reason this is seperate from the List of Dune characters. Prior AfD ended with a weird close that implied we should merge this, but that hasn't happened. Let's try this again - I suggest merge or SOFTDELETE redirect with no prejudice to folks merging what they like from the article's history. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Dune characters. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
A common problem with lists of secondary characters is pure OR in determining who is "secondary". In the spirit of WP:SOFTDELETE, the OR issues can likely be solved by merging this to List of Dune characters. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Searches of the usual Google types and a dozen WP:TWL databases, in English and Bengali, found only the reliable sources already cited. There are two brief obituaries (67 and 72 words). How much weight should the obituaries be given with respect to notability? There's a brief mention that he was detained overnight on charges of defamation, a brief quote of him, and a link to one of the two newspapers he edited, showing his name on the masthead (the other, Dainik Kishan, had a circulation of 3,000 in the late 1970s, neither appears notable). We have inclusion criteria because enough people need to have written about a person for a full and balanced biographical article to be constructed. If the subject were notable, then he would have been written about in greater depth. Worldbruce ( talk) 05:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
05:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Created by a now blocked editor. Most of the actual diplomatic relations in the article isn't specifically about relations between Turkey and Jamaica. The only thing noteworthy is a bit of trade but that is minuscule compared to the size of the Turkish economy. Lastly the banned editor had a habit of adding extraordinary long reading list none of which refers to Turkey. LibStar ( talk) 05:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
There is no independent, significant coverage on this football player. Fails wp:gng. By the way, according to the external link, the last name is Goitom, not Goitum. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 04:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 14:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
After having done a quick scan through of this page and checking sources it seems readily apparent that this article shouldn't really exist. The only content is basically that you'd really expect to find on the "Musk (disambiguation)" page in terms of links to articles of people with the same surname with a short summary. Instead now all you see is only Elon Musk and then a link to this page, just complicating the process and in effect making other articles less prominent artificially.
So far, despite existing for more than a year, there has been little addition of content or subject scope that would necessitate the need for an article on a prominent "family", such as the Kennedys or Bushes for example where the detail of them as families stretches back into the 1800s in terms of family prominence in cultural/political life.
As a result I would suggest that this article be deleted and the list of "notable members" be instead moved to the disambiguation page. Apache287 ( talk) 01:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. These are the times when I wish I could act on my own opinion but this discussion is clearly divided right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 11:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
This article was deleted in 2020 per WP:GNG and WP:BIO [33]. It had been created by a notorious sockpuppeteer, whose sock now has recreated this article. See [34] for more information.
Although Sultan Masood Dakik has allegedly received Germany's Federal Cross of Merit (cant access the cited source to verify it), I still fail to see how thats enough to warrant having an article. HistoryofIran ( talk) 00:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
well-known and significant award or honor). Although unfortunately paywalled, a contemporaneous 2015 report of the award is here, in the Neue Ruhr Zeitung. The sparsity of coverage seems a bit odd, and anyone can claim to have received a medal and hope that the reporter doesn't check. And I guess anyone motivated to engage in elaborate block evasions might also be motivated to forge a photo too. But the existence of a contemporaneous report in a legitimate German newspaper, to my mind, reduces the odds of hoax or puffery to near zero. -- Visviva ( talk) 04:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
As of 31 December 2022, the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany has been awarded 262,532 times since its foundation by Federal President Theodor Heuss in 1951.If that number is true – and it most certainly is – then the Federal Cross of Merit is arguably not a "major award" as intended by WP:ANYBIO but is a routine recognition by the state that one in every 1,000 Germans get. — kashmīrī TALK 11:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. According to
Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, 200,000 people have received this award which really deprives the award of its notability and distinction. Is that the only factor that establishes this subject's notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, thus meeting WP:NBASIC. -- Visviva ( talk) 06:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see no rough consensus, darn it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm ( talk) 16:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Obscure film, on which there is conflicting information in Japanese Movie and Kinenote database, no further reliable sources could be found, also notability questionable. Robert Kerber ( talk) 07:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
00:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
00:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 01:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I do not think this meets the criteria for WP:NSONG as it appears to have virtually no coverage online from any notable sources. It also appears to have only barely charted in one country. Yellowfrog81 ( talk) 18:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed, no opinions have need voiced
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk)
06:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
10:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. North America 1000 11:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
YouTuber, Twitch streamer. Nominated for an esports Brazil award, didn't win it. Not notable, fails WP:GNG - coverage owned media, self-fulfilling platforms or passing mentions in gamer titles. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗
plicit
23:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Keep I didn't create the article here, but I'm the original creator on ptwiki. It clearly meets WP:GNG with presence of significant coverage on [51] [52] [53]. Plus, he appeared on Forbes Brasil's 30 Under 30. Skyshifter talk 23:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With only one keep !vote I'd like a little more input before closing one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!*
00:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
04:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete as a copyright violation Whpq ( talk) 20:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Recently re-created after draftifying. As written, violates WP:NOTADVERT and would require WP:TNT even if sources are found. Current sources do not meet WP:NCORP. A quick WP:BEFORE shows a lot of routine coverage, nothing that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH/ WP:SIRS. — siro χ o 04:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete I do not find the keep arguments persuasive, especially in the face of the strongly-argued responses to them. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
No in-depth, significant coverage; this was a tragedy, but the encyclopedia is not an obituary page. There was some (mostly local) news coverage of the suicide in 2017. If you look at the revision history, the page was created to promote disinformation: namely, false claims that that Mr. Whisenant was murdered. As one short article briefly notes some far-right posters on "Reddit and 4chan" promoted this claim/innuendo. WP:PROD was declined a few years back by a user spewing the same innuendo. Neutrality talk 03:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
the "Conspiracy theory" lasted only till the causes of death was finalized. That's the definition of a flash-in-the-pan, not a significant long-lasting event that would qualify for an article. The creation of the article suffered from recentism, and now we're stuck cleaning up the mess. The argument that it's a bad thing articles can be deleted
over 4 years after they are made and many have editedis irrelevant. We still occasionally stumble across articles from Wikipedia's early cowboy days that wind up getting deleted because they're just not suitable. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 12:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret ( talk) 13:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Per similar rationale as this: [57] Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 03:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret ( talk) 13:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
merge to main NES article, as Variations of the Sega Mega Drive simply redirects to a condensed Sega Genesis#Variations, helpful if NES wants to gain GA status. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 03:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret ( talk) 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Has very little notable stuff in it, better to merge it to the main NES article. A lot of cruft that few people in the general public that the encyclopedia serves would be interested in it. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 03:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret ( talk) 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Per similar rationale to this: [58] Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 03:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret ( talk) 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The vast majority of article is just technical stuff that few would care about, I would suggest moving it to the main GBA article. Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 03:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Karnataka talk 06:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Surely, district attorneys in individual counties of US states are not inherently notable. Surely. I mean, come on. HiDrNick! 02:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Former professional soccer player who played a total of 270 minutes of gametime. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This and this is not enough, and I believe this local piece fails WP:YOUNGATH. JTtheOG ( talk) 01:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Subject does not meet the GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Falls into WP:BLP1E. Let'srun ( talk) 00:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:ORG or any WP:GNG. Sources in the article are either primary or are about individuals competing in beauty pageants, not the organization itself. Let'srun ( talk) 00:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged from this discussion. North America 1000 11:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-notable list of websites, sourced to 1 company's rankings. Does not seem to be a useful list. Natg 19 ( talk) 21:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. I don't see how either one of those applies, let alone would warrant deletion of the article. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, which this source absolutely does. Also, you don't need to respond to every single keep rationale presented; we get fully that you disagree, and that's fine. You've made your point, and for one I do not agree with any of the rationales presented in any way; the rationales you're giving are a surmountable problems that do not warrant deletion of the article. Neither WP:GNG nor WP:NLIST require the types of sources you're expecting with methodology and such; this is not a WP:GAN that requires broad coverage of each aspect of the subject, it is WP:AFD, and no part of the notability guidelines require those types of sources just to show notability of the subject. - Aoidh ( talk) 17:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
"The article's subject unambiguously meets WP:NLIST ...". No, it does not. As I stated in multiple places, the article's subject is not "most visited websites"; it is "copy of Similarweb's list of top 50 websites". If you want it to be the former, there is no sourcing, because we have no way to measure that other than this one company's opaque tallying. If the latter, then there's no way it can possibly pass any sort of notability guideline. You say the rationales I've given are surmountable. But a complete lack of sources and notability is not surmountable. There is no reporting on Similarweb's data collection whatsoever. This is not surmountable. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
But a complete lack of sources and notability is not surmountable" that is true, but also inapplicable to this article since it has both. Your response is very simply not borne out by the sources. The "coverage of methodology" standard you're trying to apply is not found in any applicable notability guideline. - Aoidh ( talk) 21:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,
Rosguill
talk
15:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: still seems to be a split between delete and keep, both with valid arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Taking Out The Trash (
talk)
00:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Their user agreement for those creating an account forbids- That doesn't necessarily mean it's a copyvio. It does mean whoever copies it in breached the ToS but that's usually not our concern.
extensive creative work that SimilarWeb put into creating the dataWhat is the extensive creative work, though? They receive numbers from some places, scrape other places. "200 data scientists" doesn't mean they're involved in producing the top lists -- most of their efforts are going into their paid products. I'm not saying it definitely doesn't qualify for copyright, but it's not obvious that it does (based on what I've seen be kept/deleted in the past). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Former college soccer player who has made at least one appearance for the Jamaica women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete per above.-- Grandmaster Huon ( talk) 03:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)