The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia
is not a dictionary nor
a "How To" guide. Apart from trying to be both, these two connected articles contain no encyclopaedic information, nor have a potential for any IMO. Much like we don't create articles on "walking", "eating", "living", "moving homes", etc. —
kashmīrīTALK22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Not every English word is an encyclopedic topic; the sources are quite thin. As a second choice, redirect to
Relocation (personal), but honestly if such a redirect happened then there'd be basically 0 content to port over anyway, since this is just a phrase describing one very specific type of relocation.
SnowFire (
talk)
00:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete While an article such as this COULD have merit, this is a DICDEF, perhaps a bit longer than a simple def, but I can't see the need for this.
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
Analysis
The concept of "downsizing" property has been studied by numerous peer-reviewed journals. The studies discuss numerous aspects of downsizing:
how downsizing can reduce energy demands (
Huebner & Shipworth 2017 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHuebnerShipworth2017 (
help))
the controversy about the facts around downsizing (
Banks et al. 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBanksBlundellOldfieldSmith2010 (
help))
the socio-cultural meanings about downsizing and the (in)voluntariness of downsizing (
Sandberg 2017 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSandberg2017 (
help))
downsizing behaviours among older Australians (
Judd et al. 2014 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJuddLiuEasthopeDavy2014 (
help))
recommendations for downsizing houses to improve quality and resource efficiency in the United States (
Boehland 2008 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBoehland2008 (
help))
downsizing as a policy goal in England (
Burgess & Quinio 2022 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBurgessQuinio2022 (
help))
the factors that increase or decrease the chances of downsizing (
Painter & Lee 2009 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPainterLee2009 (
help))
the reproduction of gender norms through downsizing (
Addington & Ekerdt 2012 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAddingtonEkerdt2012 (
help))
downsizing's appeal to Finnish residents with certain characteristics (
Gibler & Tyvimaa 2015 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGiblerTyvimaa2015 (
help))
The nominator wrote, "Much like we don't create articles on "walking", "eating", "living", "moving homes", etc.". There are articles about
walking,
eating,
personal life, and
relocation (personal).
The article notes: "Residential energy consumption is one of the main contributors to CO2 emissions in the UK. One strategy aimed at reducing emissions is to increase retrofitting rates of buildings. In this paper, an alternative approach is discussed and its potential impact on energy use assessed, that of downsizing (moving to smaller homes)."
The book notes: "In this chapter we will document and model the housing transitions of the elderly in two countries—England and the United States. One important form of these transitions involves downsizing, but there remains considerable controversy even about what the facts are about downsizing at older ages."
The abstract notes: "This study analyzes socio-cultural meanings about downsizing as well as norms about dwelling size. The study analyzes naturally occurring, cultural texts (media texts and corporate communications about small-sized dwellings). The study offers a view on how the meaning of downsizing is negotiated, the (in)voluntariness of downsizing emerging as the main point to be negotiated."
The executive summary notes: "Much urban policy is premised on the assumption that an ageing population will require more diverse (implying smaller) housing stock into which older people will (or should) downsize. However, little is known about older people’s downsizing behaviours (Judd et al. 2012)."
The abstract notes: "This article examines some of the trends in single-family house building in the United States and provides recommendations for downsizing houses to improve quality and resource efficiency."
The abstract notes: "This paper looks into this mismatch between observed housing choices and the construction of downsizing as a policy goal. It suggests that theoretically speaking, the very notion of downsizing is problematic and difficult to define and is an over-simplistic concept which in reality applies to a heterogeneous group of people."
The abstract notes: "At the same time, very few life changing events immediately lead a homeowner to become a renter, although they do influence the decision to downsize or consumer home equity. Finally, living next to one's children lowers the probability of becoming a renter or downsizing, and having richer children increases the probability of downsizing and thereby consuming one's housing wealth."
The article notes: "For this circumstance, the social relations of gender offer solutions for possession distribution and downsizing labor. Between male and female, who does what and who gets what may not be equitable, but the reliance on gender at least expedites the work."
The abstract notes: "This article examines how key contours of the experiences of place during residential downsizing are infused with unexpectedly heightened awareness and cultivation of one's sense of place in multiple timeframes."
You PRODDED with Wikipedia should not be turned into a dictionary nor a "How To" guide. Apart from trying to be both, this article contains no encyclopaedic information of any value to the reader. I DEPRODDED with edit summary improve, don't delete flawed articles. You can't seriously argue that's not a deletion discussion. ~
Kvng (
talk)
18:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't feel like arguing about the obvious. You did not comment on the content, and you were not pinged because of your knowledge of the subject matter. You're just in the business of mass PROD removal, as your edit history demonstrates, and you were pinged only because Cunard felt you would support their standpoint. —
kashmīrīTALK19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Responding to
your message on my talk page and here.
Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification says: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following" including "On the user talk pages of concerned editors". The editor who removed the proposed deletion tag from the article before the article was nominated for deletion is a "concerned editor". My pinging of a single concerned editor does not violate the
Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline. I routinely have pinged editors who have removed the proposed deletion from articles in the subsequent AfDs and will continue doing so. If you continue to think that this is canvassing, I recommend that you post at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree. I am fine with my actions being open to community scrutiny.
Cunard (
talk)
06:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A company whose only claim to notability are being the recipients of two minor awards. The coverage from
Mumsnet was clearly promotional in nature, and the coverage from
UK Business Tech Awards did not establish how the company is notable either. Searching online, I only located one ad on the Telegraph and multiple trivial mentions. Does not seem to pass
WP:NCORP.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit23:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Unfortunately, no sources found for this entity. They seem like a decent outfit, I just can't find any supporting documents.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
KeepDelete. I found numerous sources discussing the opening of new branches (
[2],
[3]), an interview (
[4]), a somewhat non-trivial mention on an article about tuition (
[5]) and some bdaily articles (
[6][7][8]). I'm unsure of the reliability of bdaily as it seems to be a form of content marketing site, but the reference to the company being on the Sunday Times "Best Big Company To Work For" list starts to build a picture of notability. But none of these are what led me to my vote, as they are all a little schmoozy. Instead, I'm voting keep because of
this Telegraph article which is not only non-trivial coverage, but also critical, which ameliorates the promotional tone of the others.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
07:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded. The Keep !voters above appear to have based their !voters on; 1) The quantity of sources; 2) Sources based on announcements, interviews and PR; 3) Source that rely entirely on information provided by the company/execs; and 4) Mere mentions and/or inclusions in a list. None of those references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing++ 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The Times "article" in an infomercial for the most part which relies totally on a "customer" testimonial and an interview with the CEO. There's no "Independent Content" and it fails ORGIND
The Guardian article is mostly a series of anecdotes from parents who are "customers" and information from the company itself. There is insufficent in-depth information, outside of the anecdotes and the information about one of their locations, there's nothing that isn't available on their website, no independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
The Telegraph article has no in-depth information about the company which wasn't provided by the CEO in his rebuttal of a criticism. Also fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
HighKing++ 22:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Apologies, I meant to say it was
advertorial (although infomercial isn't exactly wrong either) for the most part. It uses "customer" testimonials to promote a positive view of the company as well as quotes/info from the company. I use quotes around the word "customer" to highlight that the parents of the children attending the school are customers providing a positive testimonial and are therefore not unconnected to the subject company. Rather than taking umbridge at my wording, I think you'll agree the article fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability as it contains no in-depth information which is "Independent Content" (as per
WP:SIRS).
HighKing++ 13:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't see any evidence that the article is an advertorial. Giving a positive account of a subject doesn't imply that money changed hands. I also don't agree that an interviewee having a customer relationship with the subject implies that the article is not independent. It doesn't seem unusual that an article about a company should interview customers of that company, and if the customer gives a positive testimonial, that doesn't automatically taint the independence of the article. It would be a problem if the author of the article interviewed many customers and only selected the positive ones, but we don't have any evidence either way on that, and the fact that The Times is generally treated as a reliable source with editorial standards should indicate a degree of integrity in content published as an article.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
16:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Customer testimonials are considered Primary sources. In the "Secondary Sources" subsection of ORGIND, it says A primary source is original material that is close to an event, and is often an account written by people who are directly involved. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include: and goes on to list customer tesitominials or complaints. The Times is of course a reliable source, but that reliability and integrity extends to faithfully reproducing the material, whether an interview or quotation or information from a website. It does not imply the content meets our criteria for "Independent Content" or other content that meets our criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing++ 12:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
But we’re not using a primary source to establish notability, we’re using a secondary source that quotes several primary sources and puts them in context.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
15:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You're missing the point. I'm saying there's no "Independent Content". You're saying you think a customer testimonial is independent. I'm pointing you to a part of the Guidelines which shows you that customer testimonials are not independent - so much so they are considered primary sources, that's how un-independent they are. I am not saying the article is a Primary source. I'm saying that the article doesn't contain Independent Content and customer testimonials are not Independent Content.
HighKing++ 10:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying customer testimonials are independent, I'm saying the Times article is independent. We're not using the customer testimonial as the source. We are using the Times article as the source. The Times article uses several primary sources, not all of which are customer testimonials, to which the author adds her own observations and analysis, seemingly based on a visit to the centre. The article combines the primary sources, including the non-independent ones, puts them in context and offers points and counterpoints from two headteachers.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I think you've wrapped your head around Alpha3031c's explanation below better than mine. He is correct and it is what I was trying to help you understand but I think my advertorial label threw you into a different thought process.
HighKing++ 16:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Not really satisified with the current THREE wrt CORPDEPTH, even if they are much better than "new branches opening" which might be the most "standard notices" of standard notices, but I intend review in more detail if there are any plausible sources not yet linked tommorow, so reserving my judgement until then.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
14:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Barnards, I think one of the sticking points here is that you are looking at independence primarily from a functional perspective (i.e., editorial and authorial) whereas for
WP:ORGIND we do want the content to be independent as well. My interpretation would be closer to HighKing's for that reason. Once you take out the direct quotes and other clearly attributed content, well... there just isn't very much left is there? From the Times article, I'd say the two paragraphs (the ones before and containing the second mention) are maybe usable from that perspective if we squint a little, and that's 6 sentences, but it doesn't really have enough context to extract much. Like, yes ok we'll write something about SuccessMaker into the article, what will be the actual content? They do computer stuff? I haven't found anything better either so far,
this Guardian article might have been worth taking a look at but I'd say the ones you've found are better.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
15:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
We only need enough to establish notability. Article content can come from sources that we haven't put forward as notability-establishing, such as
[10] and
[11] (archive link:
[12]). There are lots of little articles like these - not SIGCOV by themselves, but coverage is sustained across decades. We can even use the non-independent content as article content
with caution (noncontroversial details).
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
18:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A qualifying source is required to address the subject directly and in detail, it is not possible to use a source to establish notability if it does not provide sufficient context to write some content. The sources I've found do not meet
WP: CORPDEPTH so this is a delete from me.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
01:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
PROD removed with the contention that this *may* meet
WP:GNG. It doesn't. Also fails
WP:NASTRO. As per the PROD, the article was created on the weak assumption that this was an exceptionally large star, as shown in a database rather blindly assuming it was an LMC star rather than a more conventional foreground object.
Lithopsian (
talk)
20:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep @Lithospian, you seem to be one of the primary authors who made most of the contributions to this page. Someone else proded it, but you took it upon yourself to AfD it? Why? you are unhappy with your work? What made you change your mind?
67.198.37.16 (
talk)
00:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I didn't create it. I tried to improve it but at the end of the day it still doesn't meet the grade. I felt the PROD was appropriate and was disappointed to see it rejected on such weak grounds.
Lithopsian (
talk)
13:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry my
WP:DEPROD was disappointing. I was under the impression this was reported as one of the largest known stars. That's not correct but I assumed the claim and the correction may have garnered enough coverage to meet
WP:GNG. I apologize that, since we have only 7 days to review and
WP:PRODPATROL is understaffed, I don't have time to do comprehensive research on all the PRODS I review. Thanks for bringing this to
WP:AFD for discussion. ~
Kvng (
talk)
20:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, you summarised it very well. The article claimed the star was one of the largest known, but nobody else ever really made that claim and it very probably isn't true. Just an outlier in a large dataset with limited sanity checking.
Lithopsian (
talk)
21:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer. The weak keep vote should be discounted about because it gives no reasoning besides asking the nom questions. Should have been a comment instead. JML1148 (
talk |
contribs)
02:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit23:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
PROMO for a non-notable individual. Gsearch goes straight to social media sites, with nothing written about the person in RS.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable individual - bio article stub based on single event. —
User:Mccapra 21:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Removed PROD after renaming article. I agree that as a person he is not, but as a event it may be notable and has sustained coverage —
User:MarkZusab 06:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
article lacks information and sourcing, is not relevant enough for wikipedia page to exist —
User:BusterBuster123 18:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment I'm going to recuse myself from voting here, because he was a (very distant) acquaintance. A small amount of Googling for "Carrim Alli murder" reveals that case received coverage over a period of years in multiple
WP:RS, indicating it meets
WP:GNG.
WP:NOTCLEANUP and
WP:WORLDWIDE apply as well.
[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. I'm surprised that there are no hits on Google News, but that's more a reflection of the Google News algorithm than anything else: the main Google search seems to bring forth a lot of information. Also found an academic article that mentions his murder
[26] in the context of Whistleblower protection in South Africa, and another that discusses his murder in the context of police corruption.
[27]. A South African Police newsletter states that the "whole country was shocked by Capt Carrim Alli's brutal murder"
[28] (whether that newsletter is an RS is open to debate, but it does capture the level of coverage of the murder).
Park3r (
talk)
06:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I added some links on to the page and i think we can keep this article page, the event is very significant and it doesn't happen much, am sure it went down in the history of South Africa's police department.
Nenerue (
talk)
11:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Murders of non-notable people are almost never notable. All
WP:SIGCOV of this event is based on
breaking news and updates. This is a textbook example of an event that saw coverage while it was ongoing but did not generate
WP:SUSTAINED sigcov after the dust settled. If someone can find retrospective articles that analyze the sequence of events after the fact, or maybe a book about the murder, then I will change my !vote. An event like this is better suited for an article like
Timeline of Pretoria, where I've just added it.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
18:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I’m not sure if “timeline of Pretoria” is the the appropriate place for a murder of a South African police captain, since South Africa has a national police force, not local forces like the US. He happened to be killed in Pretoria, but the killing was not specifically related to Pretoria, it was related to a probe into large-scale corruption in the South African Police headquarters
[29]. I also specifically provided two academic articles above that discuss his murder in the context of whistleblowing and police corruption in South Africa. At some point, despite
WP:OTHER being a thing, one has to wonder why articles like
Shooting of Ralph Yarl are deemed notable, but an event like this murder (that was, unlike most such incidents in South Africa, covered over a period of years by multiple RS) is deemed non-notable.
Park3r (
talk)
21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Going by
WP:EVENT the Yarl shooting probably fails, but it would be hard to argue that it doesn't meet
WP:GNG, and any nom would probably fail for that reason. Which is why I mentioned GNG above in the context of the Alli killing. Unless GNG is to be tacitly disregarded for events, or events outside the Core Anglosphere.
Park3r (
talk)
23:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Notability requires sustained secondary coverage. News reports covering the event as it is unfolding do not count toward notability. I agree that any nomination would likely fail, but it's because several !voters would come in and disregard that requirement, and no closer would be brave enough to handle the backlash of discarding those erroneous !votes.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
03:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
"News reports covering the event as it is unfolding do not count toward notability." I haven't seen that as a requirement for
WP:GNG. Where does it come from?
Park3r (
talk)
04:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm curious about your of a secondary coverage, and why news reports aren't that. It sounds like you want coverage from tertiary sources? In any case, some of those sources do actually analyse the Alli case.
Park3r (
talk) 06:08, 7 June 2023 (::::::I'm talking about secondary sources as defined at
WP:SECONDARY. News sources are not secondary,
they are primary sources that document a sequence of events as it is unfolding.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
14:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
interesting, thanks. I would consider (and have during my time editing Wikipedia and prior to that, (probably going back to when I learned this at library period in primary school) that a primary source would be something like a court transcript, a press release, an interview, or an eyewitness account. Your claim that “news sources are not secondary” doesn’t seem to align with
WP:SECONDARY, and
WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay that seems to have a rather elitist idea of what constitutes a secondary source. I’d be curious to know which of the 15 or so sources I added above would qualify as secondary sources in your mind. In the instance of this murder, I’d see a transcript of the murder trial or appeal, an eyewitness account from someone who saw his body, a legal judgement, a report made into the alleged corruption that led to his death, by the victim, a primary source, since those would require
WP:SYNTH to come to meaningful conclusions. Not the various reports discussing the murder published in RS by journalists. I’d also be curious about what other editors think about this issue in general, and how the concept of “news sources are not secondary” aligns with exisiting site policy.
Park3r (
talk)
15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I think we need some additional assessments of the sources added to this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Source 1 is a various mix of quotes related to the incident and the subject. There are twelve lines in total, with six being quotes by an individual related to the subject/event. Out of the six non-quote lines, only three only tell news, whereas the other three introduce a quote by an individual related to the subject/event.
Source 2 is routine commentary about the court hearing.
Source 3 is once again routine commentary and timeline about the court hearing.
Source 4 is once again routine commentary about the court hearing.
I can't access source 5, and archives aren't loading for me for some reason.
Source 6 also seems to be routine coverage about this event.
Comment I put up 15 sources above though, including 2 academic articles that mention the murder in the context of police corruption. But given the media coverage over an extended period in WP:RS, I’d like to know how it doesn’t meet GNG.
Park3r (
talk)
06:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
After the clean up, there seems to be nothing for Mona Sax. This is an Old GA, the standards before were isn't big (GA has no bearing with notability). There are sources that amount to
WP:REFBOMB going on with small quotes from reviews and/or passing mentions. Cannot find a single
WP:SIGCOV, since the GameZone source is dead.
GlatorNator (
ᴛ)
22:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge the new rule for VG characters is “merging is cheap” since most of them are not notable and it’s easier to merge sourced info rather than try and salvage an entire article.
Dronebogus (
talk)
04:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Admittedly that's coming across like "purge because lol VG character" which *shouldn't* be the mindset we go into over these. We should be genuinely trying to figure out which subjects can and can't work as an article, regardless of if its a character or not.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
08:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, everything needs evaluation on a case by case basis. Just because a lot of video game characters are being re-evaluated as non-notable doesn't mean all of them are.
WP:BATHWATER applies.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
15:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I respect your opinions and input on these discussions, but I'd really rather this not be the default mindset people enter these discussions with. It already feels a bit like we're merging some that could have been salvaged, but aren't because people are burned out on the constant stream of these discussions. There's a lot of junk articles out there, but there's a lot of decent ones too.
Sergecross73msg me16:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per analyses found at
[30] pp. 24, 27,
[31] p. 116,
[32] p. 117,
[33] p. 91, and according to the preview possibly
[34] as well, that one's a bit harder to sift through. But if what's there is better fleshed out it should be able to make a decent reception section.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
08:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree with Kung Fu Man's analysis of the available sourcing. While Dronebogus is entitled to their opinion, there certainly is no "new rule for VG characters" as such.
Haleth (
talk)
13:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Very weak keep The mention in the first source Kung Fu Man cited is really impressive. That, combined with the GameZone article asking for a Mona Sax-centric game, and "Noir Affect" saying she "subverts male predatory behavior", seems to satisfy GNG even if the other sources are less so. The problems in this article seem
WP:SURMOUNTABLE.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
14:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a published name for any plant species. Habanera® is a trademark for a series of Bellis perennis cultivars; Habanera® Red, Habanera® Rose, Habanera® White and Habanera® White Red Tips (I believe
this is the website of the trademark holder). The individual cultivars are not notable, and there's really nothing that can be said about the collective trademark they fall under.
Plantdrew (
talk)
21:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not a valid species name, which is the bar for
WP:NSPECIES. As Plantdrew mentioned, cultivars (or in this case trademark branding trying to masquerade as a species), do not have inherent notability. While it's possible for a cultivar or variety to be notable, this one would have a long ways to go.
KoA (
talk)
21:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
delete: Since it's not a published name, and the source cited to justify the article is confusing it with another species, then we should delete it.--
Mr Fink (
talk)
21:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a published name for any plant species. Perhaps somebody thought there was a new species and had some intent of describing it; "species nova" (usually abbreviated "sp. nov.") is a phrase associated with describing new species, but it is impossible to determine what species name was proposed, if any from just "nova". 'Sierra Medina' is apparently a cultivar of Gymnocalycium bayrianum (
[35]), but the cultivar isn't notable, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to perpetuate the apparent confusion surrounding "nova".
Plantdrew (
talk)
21:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: If found no reliable references to establish notability. The one reference cited by the article links to a zipcodezoo.com page that no longer exists.
Zipcodezoo's "About us" section says: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscin elit. Morbi pellentesque vehicula magna, nec lobortis lorem sagittis ut."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a published name for any plant species. This is the name of a homeopathic preparation that is maybe prepared from Zea mays (maize/corn), according to
this homeopathic vendor, but
a homeopathic wiki lists it as being prepared from Setaria italica. The homeopathic preparation doesn't seem to be notable and it's not clear which plant is used to prepare the homeopathic remedy (if a plant is used at all;
this vendor claims to be making homeopathic remedies from a archetype/mathematical model, which is a new one to me, although I suppose that doesn't make much difference in terms of the number of plant derived molecules present in the preparation).
Plantdrew (
talk)
21:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Except for mention in some homeopathy books, there are no references. Homeopathy books are not reliable sources. See
Talk:Homeopathy - Q.4. at the top of the page makes it clear that Wikipedia views homeopathy to be a fringe science per the
Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline. There have been ArbCom cases on pseudoscience in general and homeopathy in particular that also confirm this.--A. B.(
talk •
contribs •
global count)00:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable musician, no charted singles, no awards won. Gsearch goes straight to Youtube videos and streaming sites, with very low subscriber numbers, also an indication of non-notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete cannot find any sources that meet
WP:GNG, current sources listed are their streaming pages and an unreliable source stating information about the person.
Karnataka (
talk)
16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Unless the subject is a big star and only known in Ethiopia and we're all missing it because all the sourcing about him is in Amharic and other major Ethiopian languages, I can't find much of anything. When I find good hits, it's about Lady Gaga. I'm requesting here that people who can search for sources in Ethiopian languages to assist.
Saucysalsa30 (
talk)
21:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Add Didi Gaga is notable Ethiopian musician. Unfortunately, most of the sources related to him are written in Amharic language. Rather than hastily deleting, it would be better to focus on improving. For my part, I will try to improve the article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ella Lachow (
talk •
contribs)
13:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment- Please list this on Ethiopia-related discussion. It has been listed in Bangladesh-related discussions but has no connection to Bangladesh.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
15:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Headed toward delete so far, but giving more time to see if anything comes from non-English sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
19:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - I don't think it's worth waiting for Amharic sources. From what I can tell (though I could be wrong), many Ethiopian media sources have English editions with translations to Amharic and other regional languages, or vice-versa. If this musician is in any purely Amharic sources that have never been translated into English, that would mean that he has not broken into his country's mainstream (and reliable) media. Regardless, he seems to have no trouble uploading his own songs into all the usual self-promotional and streaming sites that do not operate in Amharic. And that is all he has so far. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 01:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Hi @
Iljhgtn:, did you carry out a source search before nominating as suggested by
WP:Before, most especially part D? Just because an article doesn't currently have references, doesn't make automatically make it a candidate for deletion.
Meanderingbartender (
talk)
19:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. A better source, cited by that thesis, would be this 1977 UC Berkeley doctoral dissertation by Suthep Soonthornpasuch, which was republished in 2013 by Chiang Mai University as Islamic Identity in Chiang Mai City: A Historical and Structural Composition of Two Communities,
ISBN9789746727662. It doesn't seem to be available online anywhere, but the citations indicate that it contains in-depth coverage of the history of the Muslim community in Chang Khlan. As for the topchiangmai.com link, sorry, I should have been more careful and linked to the original source. The photos and text are from Chiang Mai University Library's Northern Thai Information Center website. Here's the write-up in English
[42]. There are further sources focusing on Chang Khlan's historic religious communities, especially Muslim, including the book Imagining Communities in Thailand[43], and Thai-language sources including this paper
[44], this Thai PBS documentary
[45], and magazine articles from the Community Organizations Development Institute
[46], Halal Life Magazine (produced in partnership with the Institute of Asian Studies at Chulalongkorn University)
[47], and the Thailand Creative & Design Center
[48]. Given that the bulk of available sources are mostly about the communities and neighbourhoods along the road, there's scope for renaming and rewriting the article (which is needed anyway) to focus more on those than just the physical road, but in any case the entities all form part of the same interrelated topic, which is notable. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
03:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
At the end of the day, we are
WP:NOT a travel guide. The information from the above sources could be used in relevant community articles, but if we can't find anything about the actual road and it's not a state/provincial/national highway, then it's not notable. --Rschen775403:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It's an urban street, so an article over it should in any case cover its neighbourhoods. This would reflect the sourcing, e.g. [3] and [7] above. But see below. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
04:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect to
Chang Khlan. I just noticed that there's also already an article on the subdistrict/neighbourhood, inside which most of the road lies. As mentioned above, the road and its neighbourhoods, considered as a single unit, are notable, and the optimal course of action would be to cover them together in the Chang Khlan article. Do not redirect toChiang Mai Night Bazaar. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
04:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Claims to have won two non-notable
professional competitions organized by unknown entities, which fails
WP:SPORTSPERSON. Participation in Bigg Boss fails
WP:1E.
Contrary to his claims, he has not "represented" India, as he is not an
amateur player eligible to compete in
IWUF-approved events. After appearing on Bigg Boss, netizens and regional media
scrutinized his claim of winning the obscure South Asian Wushu Championship and World Pro Wushu Sanda Fight as a potential hoax. There is no coverage whatsoever, except for self-reported victories to select press and circular references. He misled the press, he was mistakenly portrayed as an amateur representing India at international events without fact-checking. His PR team swiftly created an article; the draft was approved the next day by a sock. Require
WP:SALTing? Potential sockpuppetry can be expected here.
The Doom Patrol (
talk)
17:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete If it's a hoax, delete and salt it. Prior vote was delete in 2017, all that's changed since then is appearing on a TV show, with little to no sourcing about it.
Oaktree b (
talk)
18:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete and Salt There are no achievements that show he meets any SNG and the lack of quality independent sourcing for any claims is a red flag. This past January's Times of India article on his gold medal for Pro Wushu fighting is of dubious reliability. In it he says he wants to compete for India in wushu at the 2024 Paris Olympics, but that will be difficult since that event isn't, and never has been, scheduled for Paris. It will be in the 2026 Junior Olympics in Dakar, but that's irrelevant for this discussion. Appearing on a reality TV show doesn't grant WP notability. My salt vote is to prevent the continued recreation of this article by likely COI editors.
Papaursa (
talk)
23:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete possible promotional article and fails SPORTSPERSON. I oppose salting at this time as it is not a persistently re-created article (last AFD was in 2017). FrankAnchor18:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Despite a numeric majority, keep !votes fail to establish a case for the article meeting
WP:NCORP, and are based on either anecdotal claims of importance, a misapplication of
WP:USEBYOTHERS reasoning to suggest notability rather than reliability, or else rely on sources that, upon scrutiny, do not meet
WP:ORGCRITE. Various comments on either side of the discussion attesting to its prominence in internet coverage suggest that the this may be a case of
WP:TOOSOON, with a possibility that notability-establishing coverage will be written in the future if it continues to operate at its current level. Some side discussion in the AfD also suggested that its parent company,
Nazara Technologies, may already be notable. If such an article is created, it would likely be appropriate and
WP:DUE to include coverage of Sportskeeda there and turn this title into a redirect. signed, Rosguilltalk10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Fails GNG and NCORP as none of the sources meets the requirements of "subject needs to have
significant coverage by
independent,
reliable sources where by the source talks about the the subject in depth and in length and not only passing mentioned.
1.
livemint info from interview which makes the source not independent
2.
exchange4media interview peice from the CEO of the company which makes the source unreliable.
3.
gadgets360 - Just a sentence mentioned of the company.
5.
timesofindia - advertising content of the company
6.
the indus bussinessline - could not able to read the whole article, but the source covers only 5 areas - company, market, options, portfolio and economy and have member subscription - does not look reliable source to me.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep. I don't think, this article should be deleted. Sportskeeda is a renowned sports media organization with 88Mn+ MAU. They are part of the listed company Nazara technologies. Also, they have recently acquired a US based firm, Pro Football Network.
27.4.76.33 (
talk)
04:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC) —
27.4.76.33 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete. I did not manage to locate any significant coverage of the subject. Coverage in Hindi aren't any better, with only primary sources, trivial mentions and routine coverage (acquisition, company evaluations, etc).
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
22:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a global organization with India and US being their Major Markets. They bought majority stake in Pro Football network - a leading Pro football Media company. This is owned by Nazara technologies which is a
publicly traded firm.
Keep, judging based on the coverage it has received by Indian newspapers. I wouldn't consider the acquisition of Sportskeeda routine when Sportskeeda received coverage of its acquisition of an American company.
SWinxy (
talk)
03:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. For example, the reference by
VKG1985 above from TheHinduBusinessLine is entirely based on an interview, therefore no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. Acquisition coverage relies on Press Releases and similar announcements, also failing ORGIND. I'd invite any of the Keep !voters above to indicate the particular paragraphs in whatever sources meet CORPDEPTH/ORGIND, I've examined the sources listed to date and I am unable to see any content that meets the criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing++ 17:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Since the next vote seems to leverage on my brief Keep "argument", I'll add that Sportskeeda has been cited by dozens of national and international newspapers and websites. For example, as put forward by @
Lethweimaster above, it has been covered by
Hindustan Times,
LiveMint,
The Economic Times and the
Business Standard, the latter claiming it is the "largest Indian all-sports website". So it meets WP:GNG anyway. When I look for sports-related stuff online (and I'm not Indian nor living in India), especially in the Google news section, Sportskeeda often pops up, which I believe reflects its prominence among sports news websites.
Tommy Lee J. (
talk)
09:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
No, our guidelines require a lot more than being "cited" or "coverage", this isn't an exercise in volume. As per NCORP we require specific types of references - ones that provide in-depth "Independend Content" about the company as per SIRS/ORGIND/CORPDEPTH. Which references in particular do you believe meets the criteria? Please point to specific paragraphs in specific sources.
HighKing++ 15:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Many keep arguments lack merit; how popular a website is is irrelevant to notability. It also is not renowned, it has long been considered an unreliable source by
WP:PW/RS, but that is also irrelevant. Although some reliable sources have mentioned it in passing, I don't think we've achieved
WP:SIGCOV. However, I think its parent company,
Nazara Technologies, has a better chance at meeting notability guidelines, should someone want to create that article.
LM2000 (
talk)
03:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The subject passes
WP:GNG and
WP:NCORP, the subject is covered organically by the Reliable news website. As i checked it was on the correct guidelines before but it was then edited by some users and made it. It acquired an American company which gave the subject a good coverage.--
Monhiroe (
talk)
08:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need more discussion on the article in its current state having had some cleanup, ideally from established editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm surprised to be coming down on the side of delete, as I've seen this website rank highly on many google searches in the past and assumed it must be significant. However, having examined the sources, I concur with HighKing's analysis.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
21:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Sportskeeda is important for the gaming community and is renowned in other aspects as well. Sportskeeda is ranked no 1 when it comes to information about Genshin Impact. Not only does their website receive millions of view for Genshin Impact content, their SEO enables them to be at the top of the list on google when you search up Genshin Impact team guides.
2603:8000:3040:B:817C:2D85:A60:8B8 (
talk)
05:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I do not fully agree with HighKing's analysis, but deletion is still correct. The subject has a twofold nature: it does not have to pass strict criteria of
WP:CORPDEPTH, since it is eligible for
WP:NWEB as a website. If a website is a run by a company (very normal) and the company as a company doesn't pass the NCORP standard (very normal), it doesn't mean that we can't have an article about the website... and also talk about the business operations behind the website. As long as this can be understood to be an article about the website, and it can, NCORP can be entirely evaded as a redundant set of restrictions (relative to the baseline GNG). The question then is whether GNG or NWEB are met.GNG or NWEB are not met. The sources are mostly routine coverage, and the rest are not sufficiently in-depth and don't seem particularly independent either. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance ... Looking at the current article and the available sources when determining if the article does, or if it could, describe the site in the aforementioned "encyclopedic manner"—it's apparent that it does not, and due to a lack of detailed information in the sources about the website's achievements, impact, or historical significance, it probably could not. When pondering
WP:WEBCRIT, i.e. whether the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, it's important to remember that only the sources about the website as the website count, and one should see that most of the coverage is routine news about the company, and not about the "content itself"; coverage of the content itself is fairly shallow.—
Alalch E.12:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It would've mattered that Sportskeeda is a very big sports webpage if Wikipedia was an internet guide, but as things stands,
Wikipedia is not an internet guide, so this fact does not matter. The only thing that matters is notability, not size or importance. Notability.—
Alalch E.16:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll help you pin this one down. What part of my words "The article is crappy but that doesn't mean the subject is non-notable" - doesn't refer to notability?
Desertarun (
talk)
20:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks but that doesn't help. You only asserted that the article is crappy, and that, broadly speaking, an article that is crappy may or may not be about a notable subject. You didn't say that this is a notable subject and why. (See
red herring.)—
Alalch E.20:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry you can't understand. No doubt the closing admin will read your Delete vote as I did - an editor engaging in TLDR so they can try to understand policy.
Desertarun (
talk)
20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not stopping you from making a substantive assertion that the subject is notable (as opposed to saying that the webpage is "very big", and calling the article crappy).—
Alalch E.21:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, I can live with
two (multiple sources are generally expected). That is: two reliable sources independent of the subject that contain significant coverage (not just any sources).—
Alalch E.21:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Somebody added a handful of new sources. For example
this one (
WP:ROUTINE) and
this one (
WP:WEBCRIT: trivial coverage, brief summary of the nature of the content). While I gather that you would say that these are an example of SIGCOV, they really are not. Can you help me identify another source among the newly added ones that is better than the ones I have just linked?—
Alalch E.22:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
1. It was never a fork of stoicism. 2. It is not an essay but paraphrased parts of articles written by several PHD holders in philosophy, you are more then welcome to check the sources in the references tab. I and more people need to infact add direct citations for the articles from the sources given, but that takes time and you are welcome to help here.
User:Exemplo347Aboutzero (
talk)
15:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, the
User:Exemplo347 decision to contest this page for deletion is I believe done out of spite, which I believe is frowned upon on the wikipeida community. The reason I am saying this is because Exemplo contested this page for deletion only after I reverted his move of the page to draft. Why not open a discussion for deletion from the get-go, why did you he only do it after I reverted his (rather unjust) move to draft of the stoic virtues article?
Aboutzero (
talk)
15:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
In under ten minutes I found six scholarly sources covering this topic and added them to the article. @
Aboutzero: I'd recommend copying the article as you originally had it to your user space and expanding it by quite a bit, with inline citations attributing the claims you make to the sources you're consulting. The style
here could use some work but nothing here seems particularly outlandish or wrong at a glance, it's just not written in an encyclopedic tone. You might want to use the
WP:AFC process as well once you have a longer article.
- car chasm (
talk)
16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much. I appreciate your help and I agree with your comment. As I am quite new to wikipedia I hope you don't mind me asking a quick questions:
- What do you mean by Redirect to Stoicism#Ethics and how would one go about doing it?
Wikipedia:Redirect#How_to_make_a_redirect should tell you everything you need to know about making one. Doing this will send anyone who clicks a link to "Stoic virtues" to the section on the Stoicism page for ethics. This is a way of preserving the links to the article and allowing them to function correctly when your article is actually published, rather than deleting the page and re-creating it.
- car chasm (
talk)
02:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd support redirecting this and I'd withdraw this AfD. Can I first be reassured that redirecting won't just end with the author recreating the article over the redirect. Multiple editors have attempted to give the creator space to work on the article as a draft, resulting in the existence of the article and a draft article on the same subject. An Admin (maybe @
Bearcat: who was dealing with this issue) will need to combine the edit histories of both.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
00:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The reason I was against this page getting turned into a draft is because I need more people to help me write it, if its a draft, no one sees it unless they are specifically looking for it. Or so I believe. Since so many people were unhappy with me paraphrasing information from extremely reputable sources such as stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and internet encyclopedia of philosophy, and those people decided to deem this page as "written like an opinion essay", I have decided to scratch it all and rewrite it again using direct citations. But I will need help on that probably, so that's why I would like other people to see this page. Right not I think this page does not warrant any tags or Afd.
Aboutzero (
talk)
20:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The editors (neither of whom were me, despite what you said earlier) who turned your article into a Draft were trying to give you time & space to work on the article before it gets published. The Articles for Creation process means that experienced authors look over a draft article and provide helpful input. By ignoring that, you've brought us here. If your article is turned back into a draft, you would get help from people experienced in writing Wikipedia articles and it would be a positive collaborative process.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
21:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, we'll need to wait for an Administrator to do it because they will need to merge the edit history of the draft with the article you created. It'll probably take a few days so be patient.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
13:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Temperance, prudence, courage and justice... huh? Aren't these the same as the four Aristotelian virtues? jp×g17:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I think you might be referring to the
cardinal virtues which originate from Plato, but yeah, the stoics took these four basic concepts from Plato and adapted them to their own purposes, creating subdivisions of each of them and corresponding vices. A lot of our records of the Stoics' beliefs are from later Platonists like
Plutarch who were criticizing them for it.
This sourcebook has some further discussion of how they adapted them, probably helpful for writing the article as well.
- car chasm (
talk)
20:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify or redirect for the time being, until it is possible for a better article to be written. It seems to me that the topic is notable and can be written about, but what we have is not really suitanle as a mainspace article. jp×g08:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If someone can convince the article creator to accept a Redirect or Draftify, I'd withdraw this nomination. It'll need an Administrator to carry out the Redirect or Draftify though, to merge the edit history with
Draft:Stoic virtues.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
09:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As was the case with the previous version of the article, the problem is that it imparts personal opinions and does not appropriately source any of its claims. Wikipedia is written from a
neutral point of view, and all article content must be
verifiable, which usually means attribution to
reliable sources. The way the article currently exists plainly contradicts all these policies and guidelines.
More strictly relevant to this AfD is
notability. For a standalone article to exist, its subject must be notable, which means there must be significant coverage about it in multiple high-quality secondary sources. The article currently provides no sources that meet those requirements. See also
WP:BIO for the notability guideline for biographies. At least one of the sources currently provided was made by the creator of the article for the express purpose of being used in a Wikipedia article, which completely undermines any reliability it might have had (see
Talk:Raimondo_Inconis).
Note that a (as far as I can remember) substantially identical version of the article was previously deleted under
CSD G11.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
15:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, Well when your sourcing is the orchestra, the VIAF and LOC (which are databases), you have an issue. For being the world famous person he is, there is zero coverage found, like anywhere, nothing in Jstor, Gscholar, Gnewspapers... The New York Times devotes a whole zero pages to him. Something is fishy. Puffy claims and lack of sourcing, it's a delete for me.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I can’t find anything to support notability. In addition the article creator seems to have engaged in cross wiki spamming to promote this subject.
Mccapra (
talk)
17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - At the
talk page, the article's creator claims that he is trying spread knowledge of the contrabassoon. But since that instrument has been used in orchestras for centuries and already has its own
very nice article here, it is far from unknown and does not need to be propped up with a shamelessly
self-promotional article for one guy who plays it, no matter how virtuosic he may be. The self-promotional efforts here and elsewhere are pretty obvious, and perhaps are intended to drum up sales for his book:
[49]. What matters here is significant coverage of his greatness by reliable music journalists and classical music experts, which has not happened. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 14:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. By the eyes, it's a no consensus, but the keep votes are not based in policy and source analysis shows it lacking in depth. StarMississippi18:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I think a state-owned joint venture building solar panels would be notable, especially for an encyclopedia. I have expanded the article with new sources. If this does not meet the notability threshold, I vote for Merge to the
Power Division as I think it deserves mention in the parent article with a redirect as an alternate to deletion. P.S. I created this article.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
18:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep This page should not be deleted from Wikipedia as it is a notable joint venture contributing to renewable energy development, with significant projects and government ownership, making it worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.I recommend keeping it:
M.parvage (
talk)
12:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Ref 9
[60] Press-release. Fails
WP:SIRS. It is not independent. It is the same press-release as ref 1.
Ref 10
[61] Company site. Not independent. Fails
WP:SIRS.
I'm not going to do any more. This is a relatively new project and its reflected in the quality of the references. Ref 11 is a market analysis profile which is potentially decent, if it was allied with other
WP:SECONDARY source that satisfy
WP:SIRS and are not just company or a press-release. scope_creepTalk15:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - cannot see how this passes NACTOR or GNG, there is simply not enough substance and depth. Maybe later...
SeoR (
talk)
18:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Only thing I could find is a short but extremely scathing review by the Finnish music magazine Soundi[65]. I'd also be happy with a redirect to
Waltari as an alternative, even if that too ends up at AfD eventually. -
Ljleppan (
talk)
07:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - @
GiantSnowman:, he made 193 appearances in Italian fully pro
Serie C from 1970s to 1980s do deifnityl has offline sources. Clearly was significant figure in Italian lower league football. Also I found
[66],
[67],
[68],
[69], among more Italian sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
15:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
1 and 2 are the same source, and all the sources are very brief routine death announcements. Playing in the Italian 3rd division is not a claim to fame now, let alone 40/50 years ago.
GiantSnowman17:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - All of the available coverage are obituaries, with the
Il Tirreno and Notizie Prato ones derived from an A.C. Prato press release making them questionably independent of the subject. The
La Nazione obit is independent coverage, but similar to the Prato TV source it is extremely brief. Keeping in mind that this footballer played one season in Serie C1 (the third tier of Italian football) and nine seasons below that level, I don't see a justification for an IAR argument when SIGCOV isn't available (I'd prefer to see something covering him prior to his death).
Jogurney (
talk)
15:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, per Jogurney. Derivatives of press releases are not independent, and significant coverage in general is totally lacking.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Although there appear to be some database entries referring to this individual, none of them meet the requirements of
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO, particularly with regards to significant coverage. The only reference currently provided in the article (aside from the in-text external link) is also not SIGCOV, as it by no means covers the individual in any depth.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
15:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:BISHOPS. Nominator makes no suggestion that a BEFORE has utterly failed to substantiate this, although I bet he was born in 1968, not 1868. A paucity of information is likely to represent systemic bias reflecting existing coverage disparities of Filipino topics and people in general, and not a good reason to delete this article when North American/European equivalents will have plenty of obvious, easy-to-find-on-the-Internet coverage.
Jclemens (
talk)
15:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:BISHOPS is an essay, not an accepted notability guideline or policy. I personally couldn't find any high quality sources on this individual, but if you do find any, please point us to them so we can evaluate the notability of this individual.
Your claim that the lack of reliable sources is due to systemic biases of coverage may be true, but that's not really relevant. It is not our place to attempt to calculate the relative reporting biases of all reliable sources in the world, and this consideration is not a particularly good argument, because again, it's not part of how notability is evaluated on Wikipedia. We cannot and do not Keep articles based on the idea that they would meet notability criteria in some hypothetical scenario designed by individual editors. If there are no good sources on this individual (and none have been provided so far), then they are not considered notable and the article should be deleted. Any speculation on what equitable reporting practices might look like is, well, speculative and based on individual editor opinion instead of the relevant policies and guidelines.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
15:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It was explained by Jclemens and Sojourner in the earth that it really meets GNG. So, I believe it meets GNG. You can never change my mind.
SBKSPP (
talk)
02:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep The only significant coverage I can find is in articles that simply regurgitate the contents of
this Vatican announcement; but on the other hand, I tend to agree, per
WP:BISHOPS, that Mel Rey Uy is very likely to be notable by virtue of his status, even if the sources that would demonstrate this are offline or non-English.
Sojourner in the earth (
talk)
09:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Notability requires at least some verifiable evidence per
WP:NRV. If no such evidence can be provided beyond his occupation, I think it would be a stretch to call him notable. I'm aware of the issue of offline or non-English sources, but if there is nothing verifiable that establishes notability, that's a problem.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
20:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm honestly not sure what that part of the guideline means; what would constitute verifiable evidence that sources exist, other than the sources themselves? As far as online sources go, there is significant coverage in several articles such as
[70],
[71],
[72], but since these are all functionally identical I only count them as one source for notability purposes; and then there are numerous passing mentions such as
[73],
[74],
[75]. If we had little or no information on this person then I would argue for deletion; but since there's enough information available to write a decent-sized article, and since it's almost certain that there will have been plenty more written about him in local papers etc., I'm leaning keep. Note that the section you cited,
WP:NRV, also says: If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.Sojourner in the earth (
talk)
23:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Butler dynasty - per
WP:GNG,
WP:ANYBIO,
WP:NOTGENEALOGY and
WP:ATD. Subject has no independent notability. There are insufficient refs (both in the article and returned in my own
WP:BEFORE) to support even the basic facts (birth/death/etc). And all we seem to be able to say about the subject is that they lived, had children and those children had children. A name being passed along. This is about as far below the notability bar as it is possible to get. Existence is not notability. I'm personally unsure what content there is to merge...
Guliolopez (
talk)
15:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I don't the issue is a lack of notability, but the article should be speedy deleted as a copyright violation, with very close paraphrasing from
here, e.g.
Article:"However, she continued to perform at private concerts as she begin to support her family financially and funding the education of her younger sisters and brothers. According to Bilqees that she was deprived of education due to her family's financial situation so she wanted her younger siblings to achieved higher education. When television started in Lahore at that time Bilqees was already an established radio singer and didn't have to audition to get an opportunity on television. She started her singing career on Pakistan Television with a Punjabi song, and then went on to sing many national songs during the 1965 war."
Source:"However, she continued to perform at private concerts as she was supporting her family financially and funding the education of her brothers. She had been deprived of education because of her family’s financial hardship. By the time television started in Lahore, Bilqees, was an established radio singer and didn’t have to audition to get an opportunity on television. She started her singing career on Pakistan Television with a Punjabi song, and then went on to sing many national songs during the 1965 war."
Sure, why not? Either it gets speedy deleted, and the AfD closed as no longer applicable: or the speedy gets rejected, and the AfD can continue. The arguments for both are different, the AfD can't overrule the speedy, but a declined speedy wouldn't make the AfD invalid or useless.
Fram (
talk)
11:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Fine then. After all found a spam here. I am surprised that the article was patrolled by a NPP. How that NPP can be so irresponsible in patrolling the page.
Twinkle1990 (
talk)
11:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The copyvio has been removed from the article, leaving a much shorter but copyvio-free stub. I have struck my speedy delete recommendation accordingly, and the AfD can now continue on the
WP:N merits of the subject.
Fram (
talk)
12:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: (
edit conflict)
Fram is right about the copyright infringement, but that infringement does not go right back to the earliest versions of the article, and
the speedy deletion policy requires that in this situation "earlier versions without infringement should be retained". I have therefore reverted to the last version before an editor started the process of editing the copyright-infringing material into the article. That leaves the article as little more than a stub, with three references two of which are, as
Twinkle1990 says, announcements of her death, and the other is a 3-sentence expression of a point of view, and certainly not substantial coverage of her. I have not checked for other coverage of her, so I have no idea whether she satisfies the notability guidelines.
JBW (
talk)
12:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Am I personally responsible for the copyright infringement mentioned in the
notice on my talk if I had no involvement or knowledge of the copyrighted content that was added?
Ainty Painty (
talk)
12:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Ainty Painty: No, the copyright infringement was nothing to do with you, and you have no responsibility for that. You were informed of the deletion discussion because you created the article, so that you can take part in this discussion if you wish to, but that doesn't mean that every issue anyone may raise here is necessarily anything to do with you.
JBW (
talk)
12:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The reference wasn't the issue, the use of unchanged or barely changed text from that reference was a problem. Readding that source (assuming it is a reliable source) is not an issue and doesn't create a mess.
Fram (
talk)
12:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
"... Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements and you seriously think bio of this singer falls into it? The articles mentioned above have not been written by her friends or relatives, but by independent persons. You are just overlooking the facts about her notability.
Insight 3 (
talk)
13:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
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}}.
Strong keep, easily passes our notability guidelines, very good sources available. Nom doesn't seem to understand NOTMEMORIAL and the difference between family-submitted obituaries (or obits about non-notable victims of notable events), and journalistic obituaries showing exactly the notability of the subject.
Fram (
talk)
14:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You didn't include the sources I mentioned above and which you dismissed as "memorial only". Also take a look at
WP:PKRS to improve your knowledge about Pakistani sources.
Insight 3 (
talk)
15:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I do not speak or read Urdu and know that sourcing might not be online for a 1968 song, but if her death was covered it stands to reason she was a notable musician and sourcing exists. StarMississippi16:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong KEEP After looking at all the news coverage and obituaries of this Pakistani classical music singer, I am convinced she was a notable person, especially when the news coverage is by 3 different independent newspapers and a magazine.
Ngrewal1 (
talk)
01:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retain. The source assessment above is flawed. The charge that sources from ICMLPO parties are "not idependent" is a stretch. They are friendly sources that share a political orientation with APL, to be sure. But, these are independent publications from independent, individual organizations. Otherwise, it would seem that the only acceptable sources would be "neutral" or hostile ones.
Visigoth500 (
talk) 02:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Visigoth500 (
talk •
contribs)
01:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
According to policy, even an article by their competitor isn't proof for notability. Independent means third-party, meaning it has "no vested interest" in the topic (
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Independent_sources)
Because these organizations not only share a political orientation like you state, but also coordinate activities through a joint international body, they have a vested interest in the success of the APL, and thus cannot be regarded as fulfilling this criteria. To sum up, the required sources should be neutral.
Oxlong (
talk)
10:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
APL is not a full member of ICMLPO, merely an observer. You are making an unproven assumption that ICMLPO controls its observer parties and that there is no distinction between the two. The policy guideline on independent sources that you cite does not prove your assertion.
Visigoth500 (
talk)
13:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Could you please provide proof as to how specific sources do not meet these criteria:
"* Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of
peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication.
Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials.
Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective.
Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should
verify enough facts to write a
non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance."
I know that it is not a full member, it states as such on their Wikipedia page (and I went through its sources, so obviously I read it in full). My point would stand even if they would have made no declarations of any kind together. But when, by your own admission, they are "friendly sources" and "share a political orientation", they are definitely not unaffiliated, hence cannot be third-party.
Being in the same international organization, making political statements together, and having a shared direction politically is by itself irrefutable evidence of not being truly independent of each other. Furthermore, these parties share the journal Unity & Struggle together, which they publish jointly through the ICMLPO. They each send articles to it to be published.
Hence, not only are they connected internationally in the aforementioned ways, they even directly collaborate on projects.
Even if my friend is a scholar, his article would not be 'notable' in regards to me, because professional or not, he is my friend. In other words, affiliated with me, and not neutral.
From the same URL, we have:
"A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."
No, that is not "irrefutable evidence of not being truly independent of each other." "Furthermore, these parties share the journal Unity & Struggle together, which they publish jointly through the ICMLPO. They each send articles to it to be published." That point is irrelevant. By that logic, academic departments who are members of the same professional association and submit scholarly articles to its journal are not "independent" and should be rejected. You are making overarching generalizations based on unproven and highly speculative assumptions.
Visigoth500 (
talk)
17:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This is a false equivalence. If a university department would have written about the university itself, or another department within the very same university, it would indeed not be independent and should not be used as a source on Wikipedia for notability purposes.
Likewise, you claim I am making "overarching generalizations based on unproved and highly speculative assumptions", yet I provided conclusive evidence for all the points of contention I raised. However, you provided no evidence in your comments, and yet behaved in an unprofessional and rude manner, alleging I have acted in exactly such a fashion.
Even if we were to apply your example of university departments endorsing and writing on each other in exactly the same manner these political parties do, it would fail notability guidelines and therefore would not fulfil the burden of proof regarding the right of this topic to be included on Wikipedia.
Furthermore, you have neglected to answer the argument I raised on the matter. How does the present situation differ in any regard from 5 scholars, all of whom are members of a group of colleagues and friends endorsing each other to warrant Wikipedia articles for themselves? I ask that you adress these points, but this time, please refrain from the usage of non-productive language.
Oxlong (
talk)
19:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I have provided no evidence, nor is there any need to respond to your challenges, because I am not defending a position or asserting an affirmative. I am questioning your evidence and your rationale, as is my right. Neither have I behaved in an "unprofessional and rude manner," unless you consider simple disagreement with you and pointing out what I believe are the fallacies in your argument as evidence of "unprofessionalism" and "rudeness." Indeed, you oddly assert that I accuse you of behaving in an "unprofessional and rude manner," when I have said nothing to that effect. My "crime" consists in merely disagreeing with you. You claim that you have provided "conclusive evidence," I disagree for the reasons stated above, that is all.
Visigoth500 (
talk)
23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You proved my point. You claimed to question "my evidence and rationale", but this entire comment does nothing of the sort. Instead, you give primacy to attacks against my *character*. By alleging, instead, that my only reason for bringing your choice of language to your attention, is due to disagreeing with you. You violated the behavioral guideline of "assuming good faith", and accused me of acting in bad faith.
In order to facilitate more productive discussion later on from your end, I empathically recommend you read this article and apply its conclusions to your future conduct.
[82]
More importantly, however, your comment contains no mention, let alone rebuttal, of the counter-arguments I raised. I took special care to accommodate every one of your concerns, while you did not respond to my criticisms.
Neither the university example, nor the scholars example, received any attention in your latest response. The only point of contention that has received any attention from you was the character of your fellow editor.
Oxlong (
talk)
14:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, Sir. My comments were NOT about your "character," but about your method and reasoning. I am not here to debate you, answer your questions, or "rebut" you. I question your methodology, that is all. But, if you insist on making this personal, I have to ask why is it that you create a Wikipedia account on June 8th, make a user page using an AI chatbot, then immediately proceed to call for the deletion of this page? This page seems to be your only Wikipedia activity. Indeed, it appears to be the reason why you created your Wikipedia account in the first place. Could it be that you have an agenda/vendetta against this organization? Could it be that you created this page yourself, have had a falling out with this organization, and wish to enact a personal revenge be having the page you created deleted? Just asking. I shan't communicate with you any further. Let things fall where they may. You have a nice day.
Visigoth500 (
talk)
16:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You are accusing me of having "ulterior motives", but the way you handled this situation tells me you have emotional investment in keeping this article up, although it goes against Wikipedia's guidelines and makes the platform less informative overall, due to the inclusion of an article regarding a minor and unnotable party.
Accusing me on personal grounds does not qualify as 'questioning my methodology'. I requested a plethora of times to keep discussion civil and academic, but you insisted on keeping it grounded in emotion rather than reason.
Perhaps if you had not adopted an obscene, vulgar, and misogynistic joke name as your moniker ("Mike Oxlong" -- My c*ck's long) you would be taken more seriously.
Visigoth500 (
talk)
17:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I do not need to apologize for not writing my real, full name on the internet for the simple reason I do not wish to be doxxed. However, you may be surprised to know "Oxlong" is my real surname, and "Mike" is how people nickname me in my day-to-day life for over 14 years. Yes, I have been the butt of many jokes because of it. But the fact that you reopened your account after stating "I shan't communicate with you any further", and attempted to label this name as "mysogynistic", somehow, shows you lack any argument regarding the topic itself, and proves my argument, that you try to derail the discussion towards personal attacks.
Oxlong (
talk)
13:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment, if the party is covered by press outlets (regardless of their political colour) it can be used to affirm notability. --
Soman (
talk)
12:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You are right, but neither I, Oaktree, and (presumably) Visigoth could find any mentions which pass
GNG. The absence of such sources affirms the proposition that they lack notability.
Oxlong (
talk)
14:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This is an attempt of deleting a page because of its political affiliation.
Here is an example for coverage that satisfies the notability guidelines in full. The article has directly spoken about the APL and their student wing, and the source itself is more then sufficient. Its obviously sufficient to keep the article as it is, and decisive proof we neednt remove it. The head of their New Jersey Division was even mentioned by name. I am certain Oxlong could not but notice this article in their "investigation".
Andrei Zhdanov (
talk)
15:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Regrettably, it already came up in the previous nomination
[83], and the sizeable groups of participants there arrived to the consensus that it does not qualify as notable. The reference to the APL in the article amounts to a mere mention of it's participation in a demonstration and a short Quote of a member.
The standing consensus also determines that, due to the lack of proof regarding the "All Marxist-Leninist Union" truly being their student wing, as opposed to an unaffiliated friendly organization, due to not warranting an article by itself, and due to no inherited notability, this article cannot qualify as a defence for the existence of this page.
Furthermore, the article has long standing issues since its inception (as you can see on the page itself, below the deletion template). Owing to the inadequate levels of attention the organization has received, it is impossible to fix them. A deletion is the only professional course.
You should refrain from baseless accusations, such as my motivation allegedly being grounded in politics. It is a violation of Assume Good Faith
[84] My motivation is found within my arguments, and not a single one of them has been refuted yet.
Oxlong (
talk)
16:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Right. You join Wikipedia, immediately create a chatbot generated 'user page,' and the very first, one and only thing, you do is go try and delete this article. Your "good faith" is apparent.
Visigoth500 (
talk)
17:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It seems unfit for a Wikipedian to prolong an argument on the basis of assumptions about the character of a fellow Wikipedian and the circumstances of his contributions to the encyclopedia.
I therefore scrolled through Wikipedia's policies and behavioral guidelines, among others, I came across two guidelines called "No personal attacks" and "Please do not bite the newcomers".
Your recent comments have been exclusively related to my character and alleged motives, and not my editorial contributions, which is in violation of the specificities ("Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views") as well as the conclusion of the guideline ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.")
Seeing as you understand that I am a newcomer to this platform, your actions are in strict violation of at least following guidelines: 5. You repeatedly used sarcasm (e.g. "Your good faith is apparent") 6. You called my response to your argument a criminal accusation ("My "crime" consists in merely disagreeing with you").
I highly suggest that you make room in your schedule to read these articles, so that our ongoing cooperation will become more fruitful and bilaterally pleasant.
Oxlong (
talk)
21:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I have no idea what this debate is meant to be about. Although I do have some doubts about the motive of this AfD, my view is to delete the rational for deletion seems to be alright, noting how this page has been deleted two times previously through AfD, and I agree with the source analysis written by nom.
Karnataka (
talk)
21:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be good to get views from other users (in preference to further lengthy additions from those who have already contributed). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Stifle (
talk)
10:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Extensive search reveals a minor organisation, the notability of which is difficult to prove. Agree with nominator and open kudoz to Oxlong for handling the discussion in a cool-headed and civil manner. --
Ouro (
blah blah)
12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The ICMLPO and its members are distinct organisations from the APL. Its unfair to ignore their coverage of the subject for notability purposes. Also, just being relevant enough to become a part of this international organisation implies relevance.
Andrei Zhdanov (
talk)
20:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
These sources cannot assert notability precisely because the APL are associates of the ICMLPO and coordinate activities and statements with it. According to the guidelines, even their competitors cannot be used to establish notability
[87]. The source must be completely unaffiliated and neutral.
Furthermore, your latter argument conflicts with "No Inherited Notability"
[88], according to which any such association does not assert notability. It must be proven that the subject merits inclusion as its stands.
Oxlong (
talk)
18:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. This group is so obscure that a writer in very progressive American publication,
The Nation, wrote an article in 2020 titled "Should the Left Launch an American Labor Party?", not knowing a tiny party with this name already existed.[89]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Notability not established for this particular piece of sporting/gaming technology ... sources provided aren't sufficient enough. The company or person who it is named after are not notable either.
Ajf773 (
talk)
10:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
What makes you think you're qualified on this topic? Perhaps if you made some effort in establishing notability rather than criticise other users with lack of good faith.
Ajf773 (
talk)
10:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It's extremely odd to me that @
Ajf773 seems to think that a milestone in the development of our sport is somehow not notable. I suppose the problem with a user-moderated service like Wikipedia is that they don't have to know what they're talking about to pass judgement.
74.51.213.7 (
talk)
13:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)—
74.51.213.7 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Bob Long has been one of the biggest name in tournament paintball since it’s inception. He played for the Ironmen in the woodsball days of tournament paintball, modifying and shooting Autocockers at the time. He can be credited for giving the most successful tournament paintball franchise of all time, San Diego Dynasty, their professional start by forming the Iron Kids tournament team. The Gen 1 Intimidator changed the game by shooting 14+bps in a time when mechanical automags and autocockers still ruled the game. Gen 2/3 Intimidators are some of the most populat and collectable markers from the golden age of paintball, 2002-2008. Those particular markers had some of the most beautiful and detailed millings seen in paintball and even attracted Jim Eaton of Eaton Superchargers to create his own “Ripper” Intimidators(1, 2, 2.5 and 3). The Intimidator production spanned 6 generations over roughly 20 years and is widely accepted as one of the best shooting stacked tube poppet markers ever made. People still beg Field One(Dynasty bought out Bob Long) to create a seventh generation Intimidator.
2600:1003:B11A:22C5:A4D5:E7BF:C41:C6C (
talk)
20:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) —
2600:1003:B11A:22C5:A4D5:E7BF:C41:C6C (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that
2600:1003:B11A:22C5:A4D5:E7BF:C41:C6C (
talk •
contribs) has been
canvassed to this discussion. reply
Could you please give us an example of how we could establish notability for the Bob Long Intimidator?
Much of paintball's history is preserved only through oral record, out-of-print magazines, forum posts, and within the last 10 years, closed-group Facebook posts, but I insist that there is wide acceptance within the paintball community about the significance of this marker.
The Bob Long brand, which became significant in part because of the success of the Intimidator,
was still valuable enough in 2020 that the IP was acquired by professional paintball players and used to found a new company, Field One. For reference, these are 3 of the 4 most famous paintball players, of which Ryan Greenspan is notable enough to be linked in the Paintball template footer on every single paintball-series page on Wikipedia.
If we fail to agree that this article is notable under the
general notability guidelines, I propose two alternatives:
That the bulk of this article be merged into new
Bob Long article and focus be shifted towards shoring up the references for that article. (
This book writes about Bob Long on page 206.)
Replying to my own reply here - To give some concrete quantified data about the long-term historical significant of the Intimidator, the
Intimidator subforum on pbnation.com currently has 64,987 threads with 746,267 posts in it. That's just for the Intimidator. For comparison, the Tippmann subforum, who are like the Adidas of paintball brands and have created many popular markers over the last 30 years, have only 252,427 posts.
GameGod (
talk)
22:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) —
GameGod (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that
GameGod (
talk •
contribs) has been
canvassed to this discussion. reply
Also, it's circular reasoning to use the lack of a Bob Long article on Wikipedia as evidence that it's not notable. Paintball on Wikipedia clearly needs a lot of work, and you can't say that something isn't notable because it doesn't exist on Wikipedia, in the context of deletion. You're using Wikipedia as a primary source to support your own argument, which is primary founded in a lack of good references, which makes your entire nomination seem like it's in bad faith.
GameGod (
talk)
00:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)—
GameGod (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Topics needs to be notable. A couple of references to paintball fansites doesn't give me confidence that this one is.
Ajf773 (
talk)
10:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You've just repeated the same thing over again which is not advancing the discussion and you have also misunderstood my data. I didn't talk about "users", I talked about "posts". If you're intentionally misunderstanding this, then it leads me to believe you're not engaging in good faith here, but if it was not intentional, then it doesn't lead me to think you understand what we're talking about.
GameGod (
talk)
13:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC) —
GameGod (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that
GameGod (
talk •
contribs) has been
canvassed to this discussion. reply
Comment looks like there's been some
WP:CANVASSING on Reddit:
[90]. Probably explains why we have so many new accounts/IP editors with no other edits on Wikipedia except on this and the other article mentioned on that thread.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
10:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete just because it might be a reasonable sized paintball manufacturer, that doesn't mean that it necessarily passes
Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the editors on this AFD had provided any
reliable sources to significant coverage, which is what Wikipedia requires. Internet subforums aren't reliable sources for this.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
11:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Honestly, I don't give a shit about those Reddit
canvassers, they'll just get labelled as such and blocked immediately. Besides, this isn't notable either. 🌶️
Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click
this link!
07:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I thought about trying to improve/expand it, and did try a little bit, but there don't seem to be sources available to justify having the article.
WP:GNG fail. --
Yae4 (
talk) 08:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Article Sources: Only one of the four current cites looks remotely reliable (and I have not verified that one). Hackaday sources:
PhotographyEdits thanked me for removing them from another article: "Thanks for fixing the Hackaday issue!" In context, fixing == deleting the cites. PC Gamer looks questionable, and the cited article is brief, not significant coverage. --
Yae4 (
talk)
20:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, this meets
WP:LISTN and some extensive sources have been written on the subject of open-source firmware, such as the book "System Firmware - An Essential Guide to Open Source and Embedded Solutions" (ISBN 9781484279380).
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
08:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: if an entire technical book has been written on the topic, it seems pretty obviously notable. Moreover, the fact that we've got articles on individual pieces of open-source firmware would seem to logically imply that the concept itself was notable. Finally, the nominator has not commented on the four sources that currently exist on the article -- are those no good? jp×g18:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
JPxG: See
WP:WHATABOUT or similar. Anyway, you already weighed in at AfD for Libreboot. Please use your preferred word search method at
Talk:Libreboot for "hackaday". There you will find multiple editors saying it is not a good source, and find
PhotographyEdits thanking me for removing them from that article. And see the Diff added to Article sources in the nomination. --
Yae4 (
talk)
10:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I am not sure what you are talking about. Is your interpretation of
WP:WHATABOUT that it is forbidden to cite any consensus anywhere for a decision on anything? jp×g00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep likely with the sources that existed in the article and searching Open Library finds a significant coverage of various open-source firmwares, many of them which a brief description of what that means (
[91],
[92],
[93],
[94],
[95],
[96],
[97]). I also added a link and source to
Rockbox since it seems to meet the requirements. I haven't looked elsewhere for sources at this time.
Skynxnex (
talk)
14:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. As pointed out the topic is notable. In the case of technology lists, we also face the question, "but should we have it?" (in other words, what about
WP:NOT?) The fact is, this is also a useful, focused list and it meets
WP:NLIST.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Well-sourced article; however this never came to pass. Doesn't feel appropriate to have an article about something that doesn't exist, even if the text were to be updated. Perhaps best replaced with a redirect to an existing article covering Google's history, to where a condensed version of the article facts could be relocated?
CapnZapp (
talk)
08:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:PRODUCT and we should not be creating articles for every model of something especially when there’s already precedent with the lite model being merged. Also there is a section already dedicated to the OLED model. I would avoid a merge due to there being no new information,
Nagol0929 (
talk)
07:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is already a redirect from
Nintendo Switch (OLED model), this article is literally a copy and paste from the main Switch article, and it adds absolutely no value. I may have been fine with it existing if it was a quality article, but it really has no reason to exist as is.
Darkage7[Talk]00:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge or Redirect to Nintendo Switch. It's unambiguously notable, but I'm not sure if there's enough content of it out there to warrant a standalone article. No harm in merging/redirecting.
Merko (
talk)
21:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I don't see community support for deleting this article. There is talk of a possible Merge but that possibility can be discussed on the article talk page. If you are dissatisfied with this closure, please wait more than two weeks before launching AFD #3. Wait a few months and focus on improving this article. LizRead!Talk!06:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Apologies for withdrawing the previous AfD, and being back here so soon. I'm not sure which criteria to apply, because the core article topic is not really clear or agreed upon - is it a software, a hardware, a company, a movement, within a movement? There are a few more or less reliable sources, but it is difficult to pull together a coherent article without, in essence, a lot of
WP:OR. This becomes apparent, to me at least, in the most recent
Talk:Libreboot discussions. If you eliminate the less reliable sources (as identified by another editor), it is even more difficult. The few better sources consistently talk about Respects Your Freedom certifications as supported by the
Free Software Foundation, in context of reviews of computer hardware sold by "several international companies". Some editors want to twist this into a billboard for one particular vendor of hardware and continue making the article a
WP:SPAMPAGE, i.e. "Advertisements masquerading as articles", as it was for years. I conclude it is best to delete and redirect. Reasonable targets include, in alphabetical order:
Free_Software_Foundation,
GNU,
GNU_Project, and
List_of_GNU_packages. Why there? As I understand it, not really based on great sources, an incarnation of "Libreboot" was once supported and within the FSF/GNU umbrella, as a GNU project. Then it wasn't. Maybe since 2016 or 2017, but it's not clear when it was in and when it was out, or how many times. There may have been a number of years, perhaps 5'ish, without software releases. One company the article "advertised as an article" for years may have been near bankruptcy and not doing business for some time. Now, as of around March 2023 there is a new "Libreboot" project within the FSF/GNU support umbrella. --
Yae4 (
talk)
05:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep and revert the article to its state from
this version. I do not consider that to be an
WP:SPAMPAGE, it's a just a stub stating a few facts in
WP:NPOV language. I have changed quite a few articles that needed translation from promotional to Wikipedia language, this article is not one of those. I'd be fine with adding some sentence about the Libreboot.at project.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
08:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
TechCrunch does not seem wrong per se, using a tutorial as a source is not a problem either if the content on Wikipedia itself is not written as a tutorial. Primary mailinglist sources are fine for verification of trivial things like the latest released version or the full name of the project. I agree about Hackaday, I missed that.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
09:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It's laughable using Vaughan-Nichols ZDNet source, which is all about The Free Software Foundation, "Libiquity's Tarinux X200", Respects Your Freedom, "FSF-endorsed Trisquel GNU/Linux", quotes from Joshua Gay (FSF) and Patrick McDermott (Libiquity), with only passing mention of Libreboot, to cherry pick the statement: "On some devices, Libreboot developers have reverse engineered the firmware from Intel and created a utility to create a free firmware that meets the specifications from Intel." Why do you want a billboard for Libreboot.ORG so badly you would so obviously mis-use this source? This is not applying
WP:DUE or
WP:NPOV, or basic honesty, frankly. --
Yae4 (
talk)
09:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Huh? Yes, that reference has a broader scope indeed. But the subject of this article is "Libreboot", so it is fine to use references that also include information about different things. If there would be an article about Libiquity, then we could use more information from the ZDNet article I suppose.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
09:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, I agree for that ZDNet article, but not for other articles. I still think it meets the
WP:GNG, albeit not by a large margin. That's also why I think a stub is the most appropriate lenght for this article.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
10:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
James Gray LinuxJournal.com looks like a copy of a brief product announcement, not significant coverage of Libreboot, and no link to or mention of "Libreboot.org". Bärwaldt linux-magazine.com has coverage of a lot of things, including Rowe the person,
Purism_(company), "Several small international companies ... around free BIOS implementations," the "Respects Your Freedom" program, the Free Software Foundation. Whose link is listed first among 7 at the conclusion? FSF. Libreboot.ORG is 3rd of 7. You used it to say "Libreboot is established as a distribution of coreboot, but with some proprietary binary blobs removed from coreboot." Cherry picking again. --
Yae4 (
talk)
11:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - and make libreboot.org the main link, with libreboot.at as a footnode. For reasoning, see discussions on the talk page. Basically, other editors here have asserted that since all the cited sources reference libreboot.org, not libreboot.at, then the article is primary about Libreboot as hosted on libreboot.org.
I should note that there is currently a report against Yae4 about the nature of his editing on the article:
As of this time, the Wikipedia admins have not yet responded, but the assertion there is that Yae4 is acting out of bias, in bad faith and that he has attempted to hijack the Libreboot article. The timing of this AfD is curious since the talk page seems to now weigh in favour of libreboot.org, especially since the article now seems to be much better sourced than it was before (and many of those sources were added by Yae4 himself!)
Libreleah (
talk)
09:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, and I've engaged trying to be as neutral as possible, on the project talk page. Regardless of my connection, my arguments against your disruptive and seemingly equally biased edits are valid. It's no coincidence that as soon as the talk page starts weighing in favour of libreboot.org again, as per the wishes of the other editors, you create a new AfD. The timing is too perfect, so it can't be a coincidence; you are losing the argument, and acting out of desperation.
Contrary to your assertion, I have every intention of continuing my activity on wikipedia editing other articles, once this Libreboot business is finished. For example I improved
Peter Assmann yesterday by translating some text from the German page which is better sourced.
Libreleah (
talk)
09:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
She's sugessting changes on the talk page, instead of trying to edit the article directly. So she's following the COI policies.
Rlink2 (
talk)
11:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I describe the out of place lengthy accusations as disruptin Maddy also thought your SPI filing was disruptive and incoherent. Point being its all an opinion, you may think theres no merit to what shes saying when she thinks she has a fair point. We have to be respectful of all viewpoints.
Regarding no WP:EDITREQ. She doesn't have all the ropes yet as a new editor, so i think we can give her some leeway. Besides, she didn't need to do an EDITREQ because she didn't want to edit the article. Why didn't you suggest this to her in your first reply? Note that the article as it was before was agreed upon by everyone before you changed it.
It was "frivolous accusations" not "disruptive and incoherent". We'll see. Maybe we'll get some objective opinions from uninvolved editors. --
Yae4 (
talk)
12:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Yae4 I would say the only editors that are truly involved is you and PhotographyEdits, since you two were editing the article for some time. Libreleah is also involved due to her connection. Me, Maddy, and DFhib only came after the inital accusations so we were all technically uninvolved.
Rlink2 (
talk)
12:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
PhotographyEdits has edited
Libreboot for at least a couple years+/-? Me, a couple weeks+? Yes, the near coincident arrivals of new accounts all supporting re-activated Libreleah, after IPs were blocked, plus behavioral similarities. led me to suspect puppetry, meat or sock. Involved: See
WP:INVOLVED for admins, and
WP:NACINV for editors. Aren't those talking about involvement in discussions? No mention of whether an article has been edited. --
Yae4 (
talk)
14:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
For accuracy, other than the passing mention in a book, "Embedded Firmware Solutions", and Carikli's presentation on abandoning Libreboot.ORG and starting Libreboot.AT, I don't think I found any other sources that hadn't already been in the article before, then were deleted during stubification to a billboard. --
Yae4 (
talk)
09:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
As discussed by other editors in the talk page, the current sources (many of which you added yourself) are more than sufficient to support notability of libreboot at libreboot.org; indeed those some editors assert that libreboot.at has weak sourcing, because of most of the current sources refer to libreboot.org, not libreboot.at.
I would really appreciate seeing even a half-good explanation of why stubifying an article with poor sourcing is beneficial for Wikipedia or readers. --
Yae4 (
talk)
14:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: this AfD seems to be a rather convoluted outcome of an ongoing content dispute on the article, rather than a genuine attempt to question the notability of the topic. jp×g18:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per the previous AfD close for this topic 9 days ago. Reopening a new AfD for the topic just 9 days after the previous keep close is disruptive. Looking at the sources just within the article, there are multiple reliable sources cited like Linux Journal and LWN. I haven't assessed whether these are enough for GNG, but they certainly provide enough verifability that at the least a short summary of the topic could be merged to another article, such as
coreboot or another appropriate merge target. Thus I think the closer of the first AfD was correct--outright deletion is unwarranted, but a merge to another article is a reasonable outcome. I'll also note that it is perfectly fine for a COI editor to provide recommendations at AfD. If they can provide evidence for a recommendation that that non-involved editors accept, that's good evidence toward an outcome. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}18:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
> Reopening a new AfD for the topic just 9 days after the previous keep close is disruptive.
Really? _Fake_Surprise_Emoji.
Lourdes an admin IIUC recently
advised me in a similar context: "Lastly, why did you withdraw your AfD nomination of Elive which was on its way to be deleted? May I suggest take the article to AfD once more quoting this message of mine? And this time, I would request you to please not withdraw the nomination which was bound to be deleted."
I agree with merging some of the material elsewhere. That seems implicit in my suggestion to redirect. It also seems implicit in other suggestions to stubify the article (with poor sources).
No mention in a 2019 Open-source firmware review article:
[98] The source was used by PhotographyEdits to support notability of a list of open-source firmware, including Libreboot. Other open-source firmware is covered. Libreboot is conspicuously absent.
--
Yae4 (
talk)
20:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yae, unless you're going to bring up something from
WP:DELREASON, this is going to be a speedy keep from me, per
WP:SK1. I'm going to leave it to someone else to close this, but there is a material difference between a discussion for which people other than the nominator expressed an opinion in favour of deletion and one where nobody does.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
08:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep& revert to previous version, per PhotographyEdits. The later additions were almost entirely
WP:COATRACK, and any good parts can be discussed individually before re-adding. If I was writing an article on apples, and used book sources that were about fruits in general, it should be obvious that it would be
WP:COATRACK and a misuse of sources to spend half the article talking about these other fruits. Every source is clear that Libreboot is a software project; the rest is fluff.
The premise behind this AfD is that (1) when the article reflected what secondary sources said, it was a
WP:SPAMPAGE; (2) now that it's a coatrack to off-topic commercial products, and promotes a fork that wasn't covered by any secondary sources, it is no longer a SPAMPAGE; (3) since preliminary consensus is turning against these dubious additions, the article should be deleted. These premises are absurd enough that they don't merit a counterargument, and bringing something to AfD due to (seemingly) losing a content dispute is disruptive.
DFlhb (
talk)
17:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) edited, no need to revert since Maddy fixed it 19:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
? There's some uncertainty what kind of editorial staff Linux Journal had when the article was published
[99]. The author may also qualify as a
WP:SPE.
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 author of the last two was a columnist at the time of publication (
archive link). I think for tech, "columnist" has a much lower connotation of opinionated bloviation, and a better mix of fact-to-opinion compared to politics or other subjects. To compare, I'd put other tech columnists like Walt Mossberg or David Pogue in a different league from all the typical silly op-ed writers. So, opinions may differ, but I'd count it towards GNG. edited 22:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC): wasn't sure how columnists usually get treated at AfD, so I looked around and found
this smart 2013 DGG comment: his criteria are the degree of editorial control over the column, and the credibility of the columnist. I'll let others judge the first, but I think we can lean on
WP:SPE to satisfy the second.
DFlhb (
talk)
19:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - I see no policy-based rationale for deleting this article, and agree that the AfD seems to be a tactical move as part of a content dispute.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
22:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment @
Maddy from Celeste Thanks for making the source assessment table! Note that there are also two articles by Hackaday that are currently not cited:
Although per
WP:RSN discussion some years ago, there is currently no consensus on the reliability of Hackaday. In case it is established that it is reliable, they would count towards the
WP:GNG imho. Personally, I'd say
Linux Journal is a reliable source for technical content like this.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
11:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm yeah, I'm unsure on Hackaday. The writers and editors seem to be amateurs, but there is some kind of editorial staff at least. It's also not the most controversial area or prone to disinformation. In terms of sigcov, both sources mostly document the process of installing libreboot. I'd say the second one is the stronger one for sigcov, since it addresses a "normal" installation rather than an intentionally hacky one, and it includes more general description of the firmware. --
Maddy from Celeste (
WAVEDASH)19:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Can anyone actually
name 3 or 4 independent,
reliable sources with
significant coverage of libreboot.org,
which an RfC proposes as the subject of the article, to support
WP:GNG? Thanks for the source assessment, but one FossForce source called "significant" coverage is not.
[100] The source literally says: "this entire story is summed up by the above headline. Until we know more, that’s all we know." Regardless, the assessment only claims one source supports WP:GNG. --
Yae4 (
talk)
18:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The Kyle Rankin Linux Journal two-part story is reliable significant, and explicitly mentions libreboot.org, if that matters. There's multiple stories about Libreboot (seemingly the .org version?) in this Linux Voice issue:
[101]. Here's a PC World issue talking about libreboot (again .org, I think) significantly in the context of the X200:
[102]. With passing references (maybe more! I haven't read them all) in multiple other issues and magazines from that mid/late 2010s era. I don't see any reason to delete this article and my vague feeling is it should focus on on the version that's how referred to as the libreboot.org version with a section mentioning forks/etc, at this time.
Skynxnex (
talk)
22:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: The roads being "not that high" or not "impressive" is basically
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I do not see very strong sourcing in the article, which is a valid criticism, but it being dumb is not. jp×g18:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete the UK is a low-altitude nation overall. The list starts at a very low 380 meters and doesn’t even make it onto the list if highest roads in Europe. Every road in
Denver is higher than this list. We should focus on global or regional superlative lists, not lists for superlatives of small countries (especially non-independent ones), because logically we would have to start making list pages for every country and territory like the aforementioned “Netherlands” list as well as stuff like “deepest lakes in
Mali” and “largest settlements in the
Pitcairn Islands.”
Dronebogus (
talk)
08:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Ignoring the obvious
ad hominem, I simply believe that we should be consistent in our coverage of roads worldwide. In some cases, that means keeping articles about important roads that others want to delete. In others, that does sadly mean cutting back in regions where they have gone too far. Rschen775400:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. Interestingly, the article itself got a passing mention in a now-defunct publication.[103] Not a reason to keep, but interesting. "List of the highest roads in Scotland" is one of those carefully collected and curated pages of odd information that make our British articles sort of endearing.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Simply being an attorney doesn't show notability. Existing source was to jatland, a wiki,
WP:UGC and with that removed, the article is unsourced. Web search didn't turn up anything useful, merely a couple of cases where they were involved, but no significant coverage. Ravensfire (
talk)
01:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable as a fashion model, nor as a business person. Coverage is somewhat limited to her time as a model, and is trivial.
Oaktree b (
talk)
02:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appears to have been nominated many times for a technical Grammy, which I don't think see as notable for wiki. Gsearch is simply a confirmation of where he works.
Oaktree b (
talk)
02:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concern and did some research on other mastering engineer's Wikipedia articles before creating Colin Leonard's. I created this article for Tre Nagella, he is a mixing engineer, which is technical, as well.
/info/en/?search=Tre_Nagella
As an example here are other mastering engineer's Wikipedia articles. I would not have attempted creating an article for a mastering engineer unless I had reviewed the following articles. Hoping this clears up your concern and thank you for your feedback.
Here are other Wikipedia articles for mastering engineers
Just added:
Leonard won a Pensado Award for, Master of Mastering, in 2017 and placed at #2 on
Jaxsta's Top Mastering Engineers of 2022 - The world's 50 Most Successful Mastering Engineers of 2022, citing his work with
Beyoncé,
Cardi B,
Wizkid,
Charlie Puth,
Lil Uzi Vert.[1][2][3]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Despite only having a slight numerical advantage in this discussion, delete is also on stronger footing in terms of guideline-based arguments. Delete !votes point to the absence of significant coverage in independent sources. In rebuttal, keep !votes pointed to a handful of independent sources of which all but one fail to include coverage beyond mere mentions (or else were non-independent). Suggestions to redirect the page to either
1995 American League West tie-breaker game or to other articles [sic] on rivalries did not win additional support following their proposal. signed, Rosguilltalk10:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Article describes a non-existent rivalry between two teams that just happen to compete in the same division. This topic does not pass
WP:GNG based on the below source analysis table. Article reads as
WP:FANCRUFT and the only sources available on a
WP:BEFORE search are routine mentions or fan blogs. FrankAnchor16:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Brief
60-word blog that suggests a rivalry between the two teams in name only, but fails to describe any animosity between the teams and their fan-bases. The page however also goes on to describe a possible "rivalry" between the Mariners and most of the other teams in their division. N
WP:LOCAL coverage (though not directly affiliated with either team). Article suggests an "on-and-off" rivalry between the two teams but also recognizes the teams lack geographical proximity and "bad blood" generally found in a rivalry. N
Blog posted in "Lookout Landing," which describes itself as "A Seattle Mariners community," therefore lacks independence. Also, the article calls this series a "new rivalry" and fails to describe any animosity between the teams and fan bases, a basic attribute of any sports rivalry. N
Non-independent posting on MLB.com. Article has one sentence of coverage that reads "There may be no team in baseball with a less obvious rival than the Mariners," suggesting the Mariners don't have a "rival" at all.N
Non-independent posting on MLB.com. Coverage of a game in which Angels pitched a no-hitter against the Mariners. Does not even attempt to establish the two teams as rivals. N
Non-independent article on MLB.com which summarizes an impressive series
Mike Trout had against Seattle. This article does nothing to establish a rivalry between the two teams. N
Non-independent article on MLB.com which describes success Mike Trout has had against Seattle throughout his career. Article uses the term "rivals" once in a way that any two teams in the same division can be described as rivals. N
Coverage of a brawl between the two teams with differing opinions of what caused the brawl. One opinion is due to the fact that the teams are divisional rivals who have played eight games in an 11-day stretch, and that is the only mention of teams possibly being "rivals."N
Blog that suggests the Angels as one of many rivals for Seattle. Probably the closes source to establishing the two teams as "rivals" but this alone would not pass
WP:GNG and there are reliability concerns surrounding BleacherReport. ?
Routine coverage of a pitcher suffering an injury. Refers to a "rivalry" in the first sentence but the article does not describe any "rivalry" between the two teams. N
Coverage of a brawl between the two teams with differing opinions of what caused the brawl. One opinion is due to the fact that the teams are divisional rivals who have played eight games in an 11-day stretch, and that is the only mention of teams possibly being "rivals."N
The actual quote from the article is:
Angels interim manager
Phil Nevin chalked the brawl up to the teams’ rivalry and the number of games that were played in such a short span. The Angels and Mariners playing eight games against each other in 11 days.
So the manager of the Angels calls it a "rivalry" (not a "divisional rivalry"). Looks like a "Y" to me.
If the manager of an involved team calls a series a rivalry, then it is not independent and therefore not GNG-appropriate.NFrankAnchor19:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A reliable independent source wrote a story on a notable brawl between two baseball teams. In their independent reporting they got a quote from the manager of one of the clubs who blamed the brawl on the rivalry (not "divisional rivalry") between the teams.
WP:GNG "excludes works produced by the article's subject". That is very different form this situation, which is an independent reliable source reporting that the manager of one of the clubs believes a rivalry exists between the teams and that said rivalry was one of the direct causes of a
bench-clearing brawl. YPK-WIKI (
talk)
21:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
And the fact that the manager of one of the clubs is the one calling it a rivalry makes that part of the source not independent, not the source in its entirety (as Fox is an independent publication and a leading authority on MLB coverage). However the only mention of teams being "rivals" is taken from the opinion of an employee of the Angels, making the source not independent (and therefore not GNG-appropriate) for the purposes of establishing a rivalry. FrankAnchor12:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Two teams play each other often, moreso when they're in the same division. This does not make them an actual "rivalry", in spite of some fancruft put out by Bleacher Report and others. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
19:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep In 2007 the
Seattle Times wrote an
entire column describing the rivalry in detail. By their reporting the rivalry *absolutely* existed in 1995, with the AL West divisional playoff race culminating in a one-game playoff between the Angels and Mariners.
The Seattle Times reports that "three things can create rivalries in sports — proximity, head-to-head competition, and/or bad blood." The Mariners/Angels rivalry is "fueled on the field, just as it was in '95". They say that the rivalry "pretty much died after '95" but that future events (post 2007) could "nudge the rivalry out of hibernation".
The rivalry has been low-key due to both teams' lack of success in the last two decades. But the rivalry is consistently mentioned every time there is an incident between the teams. The 2014
Fernando Rodney arrow incident drew "rivalry" reporting by both the
Seattle Times and the
Los Angeles Times. The 2022 bench-clearing brawl was
described by the manager of the Angles as stemming from the "rivalry" between the teams. The reporting in reliable, independent sources over nearly 3 decades of play shows that there is a rivalry between the teams, albeit with long periods of dormancy.
The Seattle Times article is a good find. That alone isn’t enough for GNG but a good start. As already explained, the pieces describing the brawl only reference a rivalry as quoted by an employee of one of the involved clubs, so that does not pass GNG for the purposes of establishing a rivalry between Seattle and LAA. FrankAnchor22:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I found
this source talking about the rivalry. I also will note in NFL articles, division opponents usually means article (that might not be the same here.) I’d learn towards Keep, but if not kept, Redirect to an articles on rivalries.
75.99.8.58 (
talk)
22:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The first does NOTHING to describe the teams as rivals outside of using the term in the title as teams possibly becoming a rivalry. The second was already discounted in my source analysis because it is a blog from an organization that literally calls itself “a Seattle Mariners community” (therefore not independent) and title calls this series a "new rivalry" and fails to describe any animosity between the teams and fan bases, a basic attribute of any sports rivalry. FrankAnchor18:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Even if SBNation doesn’t count (which, by the way, that source analysis is very harsh), it still meets
WP:THREEREFS. Also, a brawl in a way does indicate a rivalry - just look at
Avalanche–Red Wings rivalry. A article on the brawl can be created, or left as a section of this article. The yahoo sports article does mention a growing rivalry which can be used to meet GNG. It’s hard to get the same level of coverage from this as say the
Mets-Braves rivalry because the two teams are not as good, with the mariners 2022 playoff north their first since 2001, and the angels not making the playoffs since 2014.--
96.57.52.66 (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
20:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A brawl most certainly does not indicate a rivalry. Brawls happen several times a season and if a small number of brawls between two teams constitutes a rivalry then there would be articles about pretty much every pair of teams in MLB. The Yahoo page does not mention a "growing rivalry." It mentions that they might play some meaningful games against each other, which hasn't been the case in over a decade due to poor performance by at least one team during that time. This can not meet GNG for the purposes of establishing a rivalry. FrankAnchor16:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Also, the Avalanche-Red Wings rivalry has, and I cannot stress this enough, reliable sources! If this article has the historic importance of those that have articles already, then it deserves to stay, but Frank Anchor makes the good point that you need to fulfill
WP:GNG to have any article exist.
Conyo14 (
talk)
05:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The 1995 race to the playoffs is too little to hang a significant rivalry on. The sourcing is pretty weak. Also, contrary to what 75.99 claims, being in the same division (NFL or MLB) doesn't guarantee a rivalry article.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
02:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not really saying much.
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but ... that list includes the Blue Jays-Orioles (no article), Orioles-Yankees (no article), Indians/Guardians-Twins (no article), etc. "Most heated" doesn't automatically mean particularly heated or notable.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
10:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
MLB's own listing is not independent, therefore it can not count toward
WP:GNG. And even if that was not the case, this article has just one sentence of coverage: There may be no team in baseball with a less obvious rival than the Mariners, suggesting the Mariners don't have a "rival" at all. FrankAnchor12:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and source analysis provided, there is not enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. Only the Seattle Times source above is SIGCOV of these teams as rivals and GNG requires multiple sources.
Carson Wentz (
talk)
01:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A redirect to the 1995 playoff game is a reasonable ATD (per PK-WIKI below) on the condition that the redirect link be removed from the navboxes for the two teams and the MLB rivalries one.
Carson Wentz (
talk)
02:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete There are hardly any sources from prior to 2022 on this, no newspaper readings, no books. At best a rivalry like this does not deserve its own page. A brawl can begin a rivalry, but the historic importance of a rivalry defines whether it gets its own article or not.
Conyo14 (
talk)
04:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I can access the full version. It does nothing to describe a rivalry between the Angels and Mariners. It only describes a history between Angels player Shohei Ohtani and Mariners player Yusei Kikuchi, who both played in Japan. Hard no for me. FrankAnchor15:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I oppose this suggested redirect. It could set an unnecessary precedent of redirecting any "Team A-Team B rivalry" title to a tiebreaker game or playoff series between those teams. Plus the article on the 1995 tiebreaker game is about the game itself, not the (relatively insignificant) history between the two teams. FrankAnchor12:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't see a problem with such a precedent. If a rivalry is primarily represented by a single game or series and is a possible search term then it makes sense to redirect readers to the game that represents the primary extent of the rivalry.
Rlendog (
talk)
19:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Editors remain divided on whether this subject meets
WP:EVENT. Editors advocating for keep pointed to the presence of coverage in a geographically wide range of sources, while editors advocating for deletion argued that the coverage is of an insufficiently
WP:LASTING character. signed, Rosguilltalk09:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This article has been declined at AfC twice, then moved by the AfC submitter to mainspace, then draftified by another editor, and now again moved back to mainspace. Evidently, some controversy here. I'm the second AfC reviewer; I don't think this meets
WP:EVENTCRITERIA, and declined on those grounds.
asilvering (
talk)
00:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Three different American newspapers chose to run a story about the ambush. The article suggests that the
Račak massacre was in response to this ambush. The book reference suggests that coverage extended beyond the timeframe of the ambush. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)01:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep – This is a case where the originator acted as if they were trying to push a non-encyclopedic article into article space. On examination of the sources (but without reading the book), I conclude that the author was trying to push an encyclopedic article into article space. Perhaps the author could have spared themselves this AFD by communicating with reviewers, but the only question for this AFD is whether the event meets
event notability criteria.
Ambush near Kosovska Mitrovica
Reference Number
Reference
Comments
Independent
Significant
Reliable
Secondary
1
Southeast Missourian
Associated Press account
Yes
Not really, local coverage of a national account
Yes
Yes
2
Chicago Tribune
Yes
Yes, because Chicago Tribune is a nationally important newspaper
Yes
Yes
3
Deseret News
Same Associated Press account as 1
Yes
Sort of. Coverage by multiple local or regional papers has a national quality
Yes
Yes
4
A book
As Eastmain said
Yes
Probably
Yes
Yes
The notability guideline says that national coverage is preferred over local or regional coverage. The Chicago Tribune is a nationally important newspaper. The publication of the Associated Press account (national) by at least two newspapers in different parts of the United States should count as weak national coverage. The mention in a book indicates that historians at least occasionally take note of the battle. When in doubt as to whether a battle should be covered, covering the battle seems like the right answer.
Comment: Both of these arguments hang on the book being a solid reference. Can anyone get a copy of the book and see what it says there? I'm unconvinced that it's actually about the subject of the article in any significant way - it looks like it might just be about the subsequent massacre, which is undoubtedly notable (
Račak massacre). This event is already mentioned there, in "background", and I don't see that this article adds much more than what is already there. --
asilvering (
talk)
04:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Asilvering: I was able to retrieve the book and find the
relevant passage. To answer your question, no, it doesn't actually deal with the subject of the article in any significant way. In case the page is inaccessible, it's a sub section titled "In Focus:The Racak Incident" and summarizes the lead up to NATO intervention in Kosovo, dealing with violence in the Stimlje region in particular, leading up to the Račak massacre. This is the only part where the incident is mentioned:
On 8 January 1999, the KLA carried out a well-prepared ambush near Dulje (west of Stimlje) in which three Serbian policemen were killed and one was wounded.
All the newspaper references are identical texts word for word, relaying and copying the Associated Press report, so it's really one source. It is common for local and national newspapers to publish stories from the AP. The key part from WP:EVENTCRITERIA is the event's lasting impact and depth of coverage. It had some impact, sure, in that it was one event in a long series that led to the Račak massacre. The depth of coverage is minuscule, and little to write about the event itself if we were to extrapolate the meat of the information available. Hardly enough for a stand-alone articule when it is already covered in the massacre article's background section. --
Griboski (
talk)
18:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete As per
WP:N. The incident has no notability and isn't apart of a wider offensive. The "Aftermath" section takes up a significant part of the article and isn't even related to this incident at all.
ElderZamzam (
talk)
01:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep all the sources as demonstrated by Robert McClenon are WP:RS, the article needs some work with the aftermath section.
Durraz0 (
talk)
15:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I read
WP:N and the article meets it. I found a source regarding the aftermath.[1] This is indeed a significant event in the Kosovo war, and I can recall having read about it in books about the war, i can try to find these sources later.
KleovoulosT (
talk)
19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. You can find all of the significant coverage in the world, but if it's all from directly after the event, then it's not
WP:SUSTAINED coverage and therefore the subject is not notable. There's also nothing here worth merging into
Račak massacre, and it's already mentioned at
Timeline of the Kosovo War, which is probably the most appropriate place for a non-notable event like this.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
01:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The sources (which all seem to be American ones) establish that the event happened. The question is whether it is a notable event. Since it happened in Europe, I would have expected there to be European sources cited.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: This station has plenty of in-depth coverage in Christian news outlets, including one article which was republished in Kentucky Today. Could any of these sources be considered independent, or does their religious character discount them? I can't find anything specific in the guidelines.
Akakievich (
talk)
20:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Post the sources here for evaluation and to help determine notability for this topic. Then if the article is kept, the sources can be copied there. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
06:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Also, evangelical or otherwise, just post them here. I think saying just because they are evangelical, they would not have a neutral point of view is overgeneralizing. If you want to save the article, then post whatever sources you have for evaluation. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
06:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
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}}.
Based on this, I am leaning towards delete. If anyone would like to weigh in with their views on the usefulness of these sources, I'd be glad to hear comments.
Akakievich (
talk)
17:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Embassies are not inherently notable. The sources in this merely confirm the ambassador and location. 3 of the 4 sources are primary.
LibStar (
talk)
01:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia
is not a dictionary nor
a "How To" guide. Apart from trying to be both, these two connected articles contain no encyclopaedic information, nor have a potential for any IMO. Much like we don't create articles on "walking", "eating", "living", "moving homes", etc. —
kashmīrīTALK22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Not every English word is an encyclopedic topic; the sources are quite thin. As a second choice, redirect to
Relocation (personal), but honestly if such a redirect happened then there'd be basically 0 content to port over anyway, since this is just a phrase describing one very specific type of relocation.
SnowFire (
talk)
00:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete While an article such as this COULD have merit, this is a DICDEF, perhaps a bit longer than a simple def, but I can't see the need for this.
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
Analysis
The concept of "downsizing" property has been studied by numerous peer-reviewed journals. The studies discuss numerous aspects of downsizing:
how downsizing can reduce energy demands (
Huebner & Shipworth 2017 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHuebnerShipworth2017 (
help))
the controversy about the facts around downsizing (
Banks et al. 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBanksBlundellOldfieldSmith2010 (
help))
the socio-cultural meanings about downsizing and the (in)voluntariness of downsizing (
Sandberg 2017 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSandberg2017 (
help))
downsizing behaviours among older Australians (
Judd et al. 2014 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJuddLiuEasthopeDavy2014 (
help))
recommendations for downsizing houses to improve quality and resource efficiency in the United States (
Boehland 2008 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBoehland2008 (
help))
downsizing as a policy goal in England (
Burgess & Quinio 2022 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBurgessQuinio2022 (
help))
the factors that increase or decrease the chances of downsizing (
Painter & Lee 2009 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPainterLee2009 (
help))
the reproduction of gender norms through downsizing (
Addington & Ekerdt 2012 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAddingtonEkerdt2012 (
help))
downsizing's appeal to Finnish residents with certain characteristics (
Gibler & Tyvimaa 2015 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGiblerTyvimaa2015 (
help))
The nominator wrote, "Much like we don't create articles on "walking", "eating", "living", "moving homes", etc.". There are articles about
walking,
eating,
personal life, and
relocation (personal).
The article notes: "Residential energy consumption is one of the main contributors to CO2 emissions in the UK. One strategy aimed at reducing emissions is to increase retrofitting rates of buildings. In this paper, an alternative approach is discussed and its potential impact on energy use assessed, that of downsizing (moving to smaller homes)."
The book notes: "In this chapter we will document and model the housing transitions of the elderly in two countries—England and the United States. One important form of these transitions involves downsizing, but there remains considerable controversy even about what the facts are about downsizing at older ages."
The abstract notes: "This study analyzes socio-cultural meanings about downsizing as well as norms about dwelling size. The study analyzes naturally occurring, cultural texts (media texts and corporate communications about small-sized dwellings). The study offers a view on how the meaning of downsizing is negotiated, the (in)voluntariness of downsizing emerging as the main point to be negotiated."
The executive summary notes: "Much urban policy is premised on the assumption that an ageing population will require more diverse (implying smaller) housing stock into which older people will (or should) downsize. However, little is known about older people’s downsizing behaviours (Judd et al. 2012)."
The abstract notes: "This article examines some of the trends in single-family house building in the United States and provides recommendations for downsizing houses to improve quality and resource efficiency."
The abstract notes: "This paper looks into this mismatch between observed housing choices and the construction of downsizing as a policy goal. It suggests that theoretically speaking, the very notion of downsizing is problematic and difficult to define and is an over-simplistic concept which in reality applies to a heterogeneous group of people."
The abstract notes: "At the same time, very few life changing events immediately lead a homeowner to become a renter, although they do influence the decision to downsize or consumer home equity. Finally, living next to one's children lowers the probability of becoming a renter or downsizing, and having richer children increases the probability of downsizing and thereby consuming one's housing wealth."
The article notes: "For this circumstance, the social relations of gender offer solutions for possession distribution and downsizing labor. Between male and female, who does what and who gets what may not be equitable, but the reliance on gender at least expedites the work."
The abstract notes: "This article examines how key contours of the experiences of place during residential downsizing are infused with unexpectedly heightened awareness and cultivation of one's sense of place in multiple timeframes."
You PRODDED with Wikipedia should not be turned into a dictionary nor a "How To" guide. Apart from trying to be both, this article contains no encyclopaedic information of any value to the reader. I DEPRODDED with edit summary improve, don't delete flawed articles. You can't seriously argue that's not a deletion discussion. ~
Kvng (
talk)
18:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't feel like arguing about the obvious. You did not comment on the content, and you were not pinged because of your knowledge of the subject matter. You're just in the business of mass PROD removal, as your edit history demonstrates, and you were pinged only because Cunard felt you would support their standpoint. —
kashmīrīTALK19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Responding to
your message on my talk page and here.
Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification says: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following" including "On the user talk pages of concerned editors". The editor who removed the proposed deletion tag from the article before the article was nominated for deletion is a "concerned editor". My pinging of a single concerned editor does not violate the
Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline. I routinely have pinged editors who have removed the proposed deletion from articles in the subsequent AfDs and will continue doing so. If you continue to think that this is canvassing, I recommend that you post at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree. I am fine with my actions being open to community scrutiny.
Cunard (
talk)
06:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A company whose only claim to notability are being the recipients of two minor awards. The coverage from
Mumsnet was clearly promotional in nature, and the coverage from
UK Business Tech Awards did not establish how the company is notable either. Searching online, I only located one ad on the Telegraph and multiple trivial mentions. Does not seem to pass
WP:NCORP.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit23:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Unfortunately, no sources found for this entity. They seem like a decent outfit, I just can't find any supporting documents.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
KeepDelete. I found numerous sources discussing the opening of new branches (
[2],
[3]), an interview (
[4]), a somewhat non-trivial mention on an article about tuition (
[5]) and some bdaily articles (
[6][7][8]). I'm unsure of the reliability of bdaily as it seems to be a form of content marketing site, but the reference to the company being on the Sunday Times "Best Big Company To Work For" list starts to build a picture of notability. But none of these are what led me to my vote, as they are all a little schmoozy. Instead, I'm voting keep because of
this Telegraph article which is not only non-trivial coverage, but also critical, which ameliorates the promotional tone of the others.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
07:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded. The Keep !voters above appear to have based their !voters on; 1) The quantity of sources; 2) Sources based on announcements, interviews and PR; 3) Source that rely entirely on information provided by the company/execs; and 4) Mere mentions and/or inclusions in a list. None of those references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing++ 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The Times "article" in an infomercial for the most part which relies totally on a "customer" testimonial and an interview with the CEO. There's no "Independent Content" and it fails ORGIND
The Guardian article is mostly a series of anecdotes from parents who are "customers" and information from the company itself. There is insufficent in-depth information, outside of the anecdotes and the information about one of their locations, there's nothing that isn't available on their website, no independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
The Telegraph article has no in-depth information about the company which wasn't provided by the CEO in his rebuttal of a criticism. Also fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
HighKing++ 22:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Apologies, I meant to say it was
advertorial (although infomercial isn't exactly wrong either) for the most part. It uses "customer" testimonials to promote a positive view of the company as well as quotes/info from the company. I use quotes around the word "customer" to highlight that the parents of the children attending the school are customers providing a positive testimonial and are therefore not unconnected to the subject company. Rather than taking umbridge at my wording, I think you'll agree the article fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability as it contains no in-depth information which is "Independent Content" (as per
WP:SIRS).
HighKing++ 13:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't see any evidence that the article is an advertorial. Giving a positive account of a subject doesn't imply that money changed hands. I also don't agree that an interviewee having a customer relationship with the subject implies that the article is not independent. It doesn't seem unusual that an article about a company should interview customers of that company, and if the customer gives a positive testimonial, that doesn't automatically taint the independence of the article. It would be a problem if the author of the article interviewed many customers and only selected the positive ones, but we don't have any evidence either way on that, and the fact that The Times is generally treated as a reliable source with editorial standards should indicate a degree of integrity in content published as an article.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
16:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Customer testimonials are considered Primary sources. In the "Secondary Sources" subsection of ORGIND, it says A primary source is original material that is close to an event, and is often an account written by people who are directly involved. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include: and goes on to list customer tesitominials or complaints. The Times is of course a reliable source, but that reliability and integrity extends to faithfully reproducing the material, whether an interview or quotation or information from a website. It does not imply the content meets our criteria for "Independent Content" or other content that meets our criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing++ 12:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
But we’re not using a primary source to establish notability, we’re using a secondary source that quotes several primary sources and puts them in context.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
15:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You're missing the point. I'm saying there's no "Independent Content". You're saying you think a customer testimonial is independent. I'm pointing you to a part of the Guidelines which shows you that customer testimonials are not independent - so much so they are considered primary sources, that's how un-independent they are. I am not saying the article is a Primary source. I'm saying that the article doesn't contain Independent Content and customer testimonials are not Independent Content.
HighKing++ 10:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying customer testimonials are independent, I'm saying the Times article is independent. We're not using the customer testimonial as the source. We are using the Times article as the source. The Times article uses several primary sources, not all of which are customer testimonials, to which the author adds her own observations and analysis, seemingly based on a visit to the centre. The article combines the primary sources, including the non-independent ones, puts them in context and offers points and counterpoints from two headteachers.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I think you've wrapped your head around Alpha3031c's explanation below better than mine. He is correct and it is what I was trying to help you understand but I think my advertorial label threw you into a different thought process.
HighKing++ 16:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Not really satisified with the current THREE wrt CORPDEPTH, even if they are much better than "new branches opening" which might be the most "standard notices" of standard notices, but I intend review in more detail if there are any plausible sources not yet linked tommorow, so reserving my judgement until then.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
14:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Barnards, I think one of the sticking points here is that you are looking at independence primarily from a functional perspective (i.e., editorial and authorial) whereas for
WP:ORGIND we do want the content to be independent as well. My interpretation would be closer to HighKing's for that reason. Once you take out the direct quotes and other clearly attributed content, well... there just isn't very much left is there? From the Times article, I'd say the two paragraphs (the ones before and containing the second mention) are maybe usable from that perspective if we squint a little, and that's 6 sentences, but it doesn't really have enough context to extract much. Like, yes ok we'll write something about SuccessMaker into the article, what will be the actual content? They do computer stuff? I haven't found anything better either so far,
this Guardian article might have been worth taking a look at but I'd say the ones you've found are better.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
15:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
We only need enough to establish notability. Article content can come from sources that we haven't put forward as notability-establishing, such as
[10] and
[11] (archive link:
[12]). There are lots of little articles like these - not SIGCOV by themselves, but coverage is sustained across decades. We can even use the non-independent content as article content
with caution (noncontroversial details).
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
18:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A qualifying source is required to address the subject directly and in detail, it is not possible to use a source to establish notability if it does not provide sufficient context to write some content. The sources I've found do not meet
WP: CORPDEPTH so this is a delete from me.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
01:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
PROD removed with the contention that this *may* meet
WP:GNG. It doesn't. Also fails
WP:NASTRO. As per the PROD, the article was created on the weak assumption that this was an exceptionally large star, as shown in a database rather blindly assuming it was an LMC star rather than a more conventional foreground object.
Lithopsian (
talk)
20:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep @Lithospian, you seem to be one of the primary authors who made most of the contributions to this page. Someone else proded it, but you took it upon yourself to AfD it? Why? you are unhappy with your work? What made you change your mind?
67.198.37.16 (
talk)
00:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I didn't create it. I tried to improve it but at the end of the day it still doesn't meet the grade. I felt the PROD was appropriate and was disappointed to see it rejected on such weak grounds.
Lithopsian (
talk)
13:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry my
WP:DEPROD was disappointing. I was under the impression this was reported as one of the largest known stars. That's not correct but I assumed the claim and the correction may have garnered enough coverage to meet
WP:GNG. I apologize that, since we have only 7 days to review and
WP:PRODPATROL is understaffed, I don't have time to do comprehensive research on all the PRODS I review. Thanks for bringing this to
WP:AFD for discussion. ~
Kvng (
talk)
20:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, you summarised it very well. The article claimed the star was one of the largest known, but nobody else ever really made that claim and it very probably isn't true. Just an outlier in a large dataset with limited sanity checking.
Lithopsian (
talk)
21:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer. The weak keep vote should be discounted about because it gives no reasoning besides asking the nom questions. Should have been a comment instead. JML1148 (
talk |
contribs)
02:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit23:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
PROMO for a non-notable individual. Gsearch goes straight to social media sites, with nothing written about the person in RS.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable individual - bio article stub based on single event. —
User:Mccapra 21:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Removed PROD after renaming article. I agree that as a person he is not, but as a event it may be notable and has sustained coverage —
User:MarkZusab 06:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
article lacks information and sourcing, is not relevant enough for wikipedia page to exist —
User:BusterBuster123 18:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment I'm going to recuse myself from voting here, because he was a (very distant) acquaintance. A small amount of Googling for "Carrim Alli murder" reveals that case received coverage over a period of years in multiple
WP:RS, indicating it meets
WP:GNG.
WP:NOTCLEANUP and
WP:WORLDWIDE apply as well.
[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. I'm surprised that there are no hits on Google News, but that's more a reflection of the Google News algorithm than anything else: the main Google search seems to bring forth a lot of information. Also found an academic article that mentions his murder
[26] in the context of Whistleblower protection in South Africa, and another that discusses his murder in the context of police corruption.
[27]. A South African Police newsletter states that the "whole country was shocked by Capt Carrim Alli's brutal murder"
[28] (whether that newsletter is an RS is open to debate, but it does capture the level of coverage of the murder).
Park3r (
talk)
06:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I added some links on to the page and i think we can keep this article page, the event is very significant and it doesn't happen much, am sure it went down in the history of South Africa's police department.
Nenerue (
talk)
11:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Murders of non-notable people are almost never notable. All
WP:SIGCOV of this event is based on
breaking news and updates. This is a textbook example of an event that saw coverage while it was ongoing but did not generate
WP:SUSTAINED sigcov after the dust settled. If someone can find retrospective articles that analyze the sequence of events after the fact, or maybe a book about the murder, then I will change my !vote. An event like this is better suited for an article like
Timeline of Pretoria, where I've just added it.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
18:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I’m not sure if “timeline of Pretoria” is the the appropriate place for a murder of a South African police captain, since South Africa has a national police force, not local forces like the US. He happened to be killed in Pretoria, but the killing was not specifically related to Pretoria, it was related to a probe into large-scale corruption in the South African Police headquarters
[29]. I also specifically provided two academic articles above that discuss his murder in the context of whistleblowing and police corruption in South Africa. At some point, despite
WP:OTHER being a thing, one has to wonder why articles like
Shooting of Ralph Yarl are deemed notable, but an event like this murder (that was, unlike most such incidents in South Africa, covered over a period of years by multiple RS) is deemed non-notable.
Park3r (
talk)
21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Going by
WP:EVENT the Yarl shooting probably fails, but it would be hard to argue that it doesn't meet
WP:GNG, and any nom would probably fail for that reason. Which is why I mentioned GNG above in the context of the Alli killing. Unless GNG is to be tacitly disregarded for events, or events outside the Core Anglosphere.
Park3r (
talk)
23:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Notability requires sustained secondary coverage. News reports covering the event as it is unfolding do not count toward notability. I agree that any nomination would likely fail, but it's because several !voters would come in and disregard that requirement, and no closer would be brave enough to handle the backlash of discarding those erroneous !votes.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
03:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
"News reports covering the event as it is unfolding do not count toward notability." I haven't seen that as a requirement for
WP:GNG. Where does it come from?
Park3r (
talk)
04:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm curious about your of a secondary coverage, and why news reports aren't that. It sounds like you want coverage from tertiary sources? In any case, some of those sources do actually analyse the Alli case.
Park3r (
talk) 06:08, 7 June 2023 (::::::I'm talking about secondary sources as defined at
WP:SECONDARY. News sources are not secondary,
they are primary sources that document a sequence of events as it is unfolding.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
14:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
interesting, thanks. I would consider (and have during my time editing Wikipedia and prior to that, (probably going back to when I learned this at library period in primary school) that a primary source would be something like a court transcript, a press release, an interview, or an eyewitness account. Your claim that “news sources are not secondary” doesn’t seem to align with
WP:SECONDARY, and
WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay that seems to have a rather elitist idea of what constitutes a secondary source. I’d be curious to know which of the 15 or so sources I added above would qualify as secondary sources in your mind. In the instance of this murder, I’d see a transcript of the murder trial or appeal, an eyewitness account from someone who saw his body, a legal judgement, a report made into the alleged corruption that led to his death, by the victim, a primary source, since those would require
WP:SYNTH to come to meaningful conclusions. Not the various reports discussing the murder published in RS by journalists. I’d also be curious about what other editors think about this issue in general, and how the concept of “news sources are not secondary” aligns with exisiting site policy.
Park3r (
talk)
15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I think we need some additional assessments of the sources added to this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Source 1 is a various mix of quotes related to the incident and the subject. There are twelve lines in total, with six being quotes by an individual related to the subject/event. Out of the six non-quote lines, only three only tell news, whereas the other three introduce a quote by an individual related to the subject/event.
Source 2 is routine commentary about the court hearing.
Source 3 is once again routine commentary and timeline about the court hearing.
Source 4 is once again routine commentary about the court hearing.
I can't access source 5, and archives aren't loading for me for some reason.
Source 6 also seems to be routine coverage about this event.
Comment I put up 15 sources above though, including 2 academic articles that mention the murder in the context of police corruption. But given the media coverage over an extended period in WP:RS, I’d like to know how it doesn’t meet GNG.
Park3r (
talk)
06:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
After the clean up, there seems to be nothing for Mona Sax. This is an Old GA, the standards before were isn't big (GA has no bearing with notability). There are sources that amount to
WP:REFBOMB going on with small quotes from reviews and/or passing mentions. Cannot find a single
WP:SIGCOV, since the GameZone source is dead.
GlatorNator (
ᴛ)
22:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge the new rule for VG characters is “merging is cheap” since most of them are not notable and it’s easier to merge sourced info rather than try and salvage an entire article.
Dronebogus (
talk)
04:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Admittedly that's coming across like "purge because lol VG character" which *shouldn't* be the mindset we go into over these. We should be genuinely trying to figure out which subjects can and can't work as an article, regardless of if its a character or not.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
08:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, everything needs evaluation on a case by case basis. Just because a lot of video game characters are being re-evaluated as non-notable doesn't mean all of them are.
WP:BATHWATER applies.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
15:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I respect your opinions and input on these discussions, but I'd really rather this not be the default mindset people enter these discussions with. It already feels a bit like we're merging some that could have been salvaged, but aren't because people are burned out on the constant stream of these discussions. There's a lot of junk articles out there, but there's a lot of decent ones too.
Sergecross73msg me16:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per analyses found at
[30] pp. 24, 27,
[31] p. 116,
[32] p. 117,
[33] p. 91, and according to the preview possibly
[34] as well, that one's a bit harder to sift through. But if what's there is better fleshed out it should be able to make a decent reception section.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
08:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree with Kung Fu Man's analysis of the available sourcing. While Dronebogus is entitled to their opinion, there certainly is no "new rule for VG characters" as such.
Haleth (
talk)
13:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Very weak keep The mention in the first source Kung Fu Man cited is really impressive. That, combined with the GameZone article asking for a Mona Sax-centric game, and "Noir Affect" saying she "subverts male predatory behavior", seems to satisfy GNG even if the other sources are less so. The problems in this article seem
WP:SURMOUNTABLE.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
14:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a published name for any plant species. Habanera® is a trademark for a series of Bellis perennis cultivars; Habanera® Red, Habanera® Rose, Habanera® White and Habanera® White Red Tips (I believe
this is the website of the trademark holder). The individual cultivars are not notable, and there's really nothing that can be said about the collective trademark they fall under.
Plantdrew (
talk)
21:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not a valid species name, which is the bar for
WP:NSPECIES. As Plantdrew mentioned, cultivars (or in this case trademark branding trying to masquerade as a species), do not have inherent notability. While it's possible for a cultivar or variety to be notable, this one would have a long ways to go.
KoA (
talk)
21:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
delete: Since it's not a published name, and the source cited to justify the article is confusing it with another species, then we should delete it.--
Mr Fink (
talk)
21:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a published name for any plant species. Perhaps somebody thought there was a new species and had some intent of describing it; "species nova" (usually abbreviated "sp. nov.") is a phrase associated with describing new species, but it is impossible to determine what species name was proposed, if any from just "nova". 'Sierra Medina' is apparently a cultivar of Gymnocalycium bayrianum (
[35]), but the cultivar isn't notable, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to perpetuate the apparent confusion surrounding "nova".
Plantdrew (
talk)
21:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: If found no reliable references to establish notability. The one reference cited by the article links to a zipcodezoo.com page that no longer exists.
Zipcodezoo's "About us" section says: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscin elit. Morbi pellentesque vehicula magna, nec lobortis lorem sagittis ut."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a published name for any plant species. This is the name of a homeopathic preparation that is maybe prepared from Zea mays (maize/corn), according to
this homeopathic vendor, but
a homeopathic wiki lists it as being prepared from Setaria italica. The homeopathic preparation doesn't seem to be notable and it's not clear which plant is used to prepare the homeopathic remedy (if a plant is used at all;
this vendor claims to be making homeopathic remedies from a archetype/mathematical model, which is a new one to me, although I suppose that doesn't make much difference in terms of the number of plant derived molecules present in the preparation).
Plantdrew (
talk)
21:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Except for mention in some homeopathy books, there are no references. Homeopathy books are not reliable sources. See
Talk:Homeopathy - Q.4. at the top of the page makes it clear that Wikipedia views homeopathy to be a fringe science per the
Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline. There have been ArbCom cases on pseudoscience in general and homeopathy in particular that also confirm this.--A. B.(
talk •
contribs •
global count)00:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable musician, no charted singles, no awards won. Gsearch goes straight to Youtube videos and streaming sites, with very low subscriber numbers, also an indication of non-notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete cannot find any sources that meet
WP:GNG, current sources listed are their streaming pages and an unreliable source stating information about the person.
Karnataka (
talk)
16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Unless the subject is a big star and only known in Ethiopia and we're all missing it because all the sourcing about him is in Amharic and other major Ethiopian languages, I can't find much of anything. When I find good hits, it's about Lady Gaga. I'm requesting here that people who can search for sources in Ethiopian languages to assist.
Saucysalsa30 (
talk)
21:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Add Didi Gaga is notable Ethiopian musician. Unfortunately, most of the sources related to him are written in Amharic language. Rather than hastily deleting, it would be better to focus on improving. For my part, I will try to improve the article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ella Lachow (
talk •
contribs)
13:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment- Please list this on Ethiopia-related discussion. It has been listed in Bangladesh-related discussions but has no connection to Bangladesh.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
15:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Headed toward delete so far, but giving more time to see if anything comes from non-English sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk)
19:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - I don't think it's worth waiting for Amharic sources. From what I can tell (though I could be wrong), many Ethiopian media sources have English editions with translations to Amharic and other regional languages, or vice-versa. If this musician is in any purely Amharic sources that have never been translated into English, that would mean that he has not broken into his country's mainstream (and reliable) media. Regardless, he seems to have no trouble uploading his own songs into all the usual self-promotional and streaming sites that do not operate in Amharic. And that is all he has so far. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 01:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Hi @
Iljhgtn:, did you carry out a source search before nominating as suggested by
WP:Before, most especially part D? Just because an article doesn't currently have references, doesn't make automatically make it a candidate for deletion.
Meanderingbartender (
talk)
19:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. A better source, cited by that thesis, would be this 1977 UC Berkeley doctoral dissertation by Suthep Soonthornpasuch, which was republished in 2013 by Chiang Mai University as Islamic Identity in Chiang Mai City: A Historical and Structural Composition of Two Communities,
ISBN9789746727662. It doesn't seem to be available online anywhere, but the citations indicate that it contains in-depth coverage of the history of the Muslim community in Chang Khlan. As for the topchiangmai.com link, sorry, I should have been more careful and linked to the original source. The photos and text are from Chiang Mai University Library's Northern Thai Information Center website. Here's the write-up in English
[42]. There are further sources focusing on Chang Khlan's historic religious communities, especially Muslim, including the book Imagining Communities in Thailand[43], and Thai-language sources including this paper
[44], this Thai PBS documentary
[45], and magazine articles from the Community Organizations Development Institute
[46], Halal Life Magazine (produced in partnership with the Institute of Asian Studies at Chulalongkorn University)
[47], and the Thailand Creative & Design Center
[48]. Given that the bulk of available sources are mostly about the communities and neighbourhoods along the road, there's scope for renaming and rewriting the article (which is needed anyway) to focus more on those than just the physical road, but in any case the entities all form part of the same interrelated topic, which is notable. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
03:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
At the end of the day, we are
WP:NOT a travel guide. The information from the above sources could be used in relevant community articles, but if we can't find anything about the actual road and it's not a state/provincial/national highway, then it's not notable. --Rschen775403:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It's an urban street, so an article over it should in any case cover its neighbourhoods. This would reflect the sourcing, e.g. [3] and [7] above. But see below. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
04:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect to
Chang Khlan. I just noticed that there's also already an article on the subdistrict/neighbourhood, inside which most of the road lies. As mentioned above, the road and its neighbourhoods, considered as a single unit, are notable, and the optimal course of action would be to cover them together in the Chang Khlan article. Do not redirect toChiang Mai Night Bazaar. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
04:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Claims to have won two non-notable
professional competitions organized by unknown entities, which fails
WP:SPORTSPERSON. Participation in Bigg Boss fails
WP:1E.
Contrary to his claims, he has not "represented" India, as he is not an
amateur player eligible to compete in
IWUF-approved events. After appearing on Bigg Boss, netizens and regional media
scrutinized his claim of winning the obscure South Asian Wushu Championship and World Pro Wushu Sanda Fight as a potential hoax. There is no coverage whatsoever, except for self-reported victories to select press and circular references. He misled the press, he was mistakenly portrayed as an amateur representing India at international events without fact-checking. His PR team swiftly created an article; the draft was approved the next day by a sock. Require
WP:SALTing? Potential sockpuppetry can be expected here.
The Doom Patrol (
talk)
17:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete If it's a hoax, delete and salt it. Prior vote was delete in 2017, all that's changed since then is appearing on a TV show, with little to no sourcing about it.
Oaktree b (
talk)
18:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete and Salt There are no achievements that show he meets any SNG and the lack of quality independent sourcing for any claims is a red flag. This past January's Times of India article on his gold medal for Pro Wushu fighting is of dubious reliability. In it he says he wants to compete for India in wushu at the 2024 Paris Olympics, but that will be difficult since that event isn't, and never has been, scheduled for Paris. It will be in the 2026 Junior Olympics in Dakar, but that's irrelevant for this discussion. Appearing on a reality TV show doesn't grant WP notability. My salt vote is to prevent the continued recreation of this article by likely COI editors.
Papaursa (
talk)
23:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete possible promotional article and fails SPORTSPERSON. I oppose salting at this time as it is not a persistently re-created article (last AFD was in 2017). FrankAnchor18:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Despite a numeric majority, keep !votes fail to establish a case for the article meeting
WP:NCORP, and are based on either anecdotal claims of importance, a misapplication of
WP:USEBYOTHERS reasoning to suggest notability rather than reliability, or else rely on sources that, upon scrutiny, do not meet
WP:ORGCRITE. Various comments on either side of the discussion attesting to its prominence in internet coverage suggest that the this may be a case of
WP:TOOSOON, with a possibility that notability-establishing coverage will be written in the future if it continues to operate at its current level. Some side discussion in the AfD also suggested that its parent company,
Nazara Technologies, may already be notable. If such an article is created, it would likely be appropriate and
WP:DUE to include coverage of Sportskeeda there and turn this title into a redirect. signed, Rosguilltalk10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Fails GNG and NCORP as none of the sources meets the requirements of "subject needs to have
significant coverage by
independent,
reliable sources where by the source talks about the the subject in depth and in length and not only passing mentioned.
1.
livemint info from interview which makes the source not independent
2.
exchange4media interview peice from the CEO of the company which makes the source unreliable.
3.
gadgets360 - Just a sentence mentioned of the company.
5.
timesofindia - advertising content of the company
6.
the indus bussinessline - could not able to read the whole article, but the source covers only 5 areas - company, market, options, portfolio and economy and have member subscription - does not look reliable source to me.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep. I don't think, this article should be deleted. Sportskeeda is a renowned sports media organization with 88Mn+ MAU. They are part of the listed company Nazara technologies. Also, they have recently acquired a US based firm, Pro Football Network.
27.4.76.33 (
talk)
04:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC) —
27.4.76.33 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete. I did not manage to locate any significant coverage of the subject. Coverage in Hindi aren't any better, with only primary sources, trivial mentions and routine coverage (acquisition, company evaluations, etc).
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
22:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a global organization with India and US being their Major Markets. They bought majority stake in Pro Football network - a leading Pro football Media company. This is owned by Nazara technologies which is a
publicly traded firm.
Keep, judging based on the coverage it has received by Indian newspapers. I wouldn't consider the acquisition of Sportskeeda routine when Sportskeeda received coverage of its acquisition of an American company.
SWinxy (
talk)
03:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. For example, the reference by
VKG1985 above from TheHinduBusinessLine is entirely based on an interview, therefore no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. Acquisition coverage relies on Press Releases and similar announcements, also failing ORGIND. I'd invite any of the Keep !voters above to indicate the particular paragraphs in whatever sources meet CORPDEPTH/ORGIND, I've examined the sources listed to date and I am unable to see any content that meets the criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing++ 17:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Since the next vote seems to leverage on my brief Keep "argument", I'll add that Sportskeeda has been cited by dozens of national and international newspapers and websites. For example, as put forward by @
Lethweimaster above, it has been covered by
Hindustan Times,
LiveMint,
The Economic Times and the
Business Standard, the latter claiming it is the "largest Indian all-sports website". So it meets WP:GNG anyway. When I look for sports-related stuff online (and I'm not Indian nor living in India), especially in the Google news section, Sportskeeda often pops up, which I believe reflects its prominence among sports news websites.
Tommy Lee J. (
talk)
09:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
No, our guidelines require a lot more than being "cited" or "coverage", this isn't an exercise in volume. As per NCORP we require specific types of references - ones that provide in-depth "Independend Content" about the company as per SIRS/ORGIND/CORPDEPTH. Which references in particular do you believe meets the criteria? Please point to specific paragraphs in specific sources.
HighKing++ 15:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Many keep arguments lack merit; how popular a website is is irrelevant to notability. It also is not renowned, it has long been considered an unreliable source by
WP:PW/RS, but that is also irrelevant. Although some reliable sources have mentioned it in passing, I don't think we've achieved
WP:SIGCOV. However, I think its parent company,
Nazara Technologies, has a better chance at meeting notability guidelines, should someone want to create that article.
LM2000 (
talk)
03:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The subject passes
WP:GNG and
WP:NCORP, the subject is covered organically by the Reliable news website. As i checked it was on the correct guidelines before but it was then edited by some users and made it. It acquired an American company which gave the subject a good coverage.--
Monhiroe (
talk)
08:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need more discussion on the article in its current state having had some cleanup, ideally from established editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm surprised to be coming down on the side of delete, as I've seen this website rank highly on many google searches in the past and assumed it must be significant. However, having examined the sources, I concur with HighKing's analysis.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk)
21:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Sportskeeda is important for the gaming community and is renowned in other aspects as well. Sportskeeda is ranked no 1 when it comes to information about Genshin Impact. Not only does their website receive millions of view for Genshin Impact content, their SEO enables them to be at the top of the list on google when you search up Genshin Impact team guides.
2603:8000:3040:B:817C:2D85:A60:8B8 (
talk)
05:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I do not fully agree with HighKing's analysis, but deletion is still correct. The subject has a twofold nature: it does not have to pass strict criteria of
WP:CORPDEPTH, since it is eligible for
WP:NWEB as a website. If a website is a run by a company (very normal) and the company as a company doesn't pass the NCORP standard (very normal), it doesn't mean that we can't have an article about the website... and also talk about the business operations behind the website. As long as this can be understood to be an article about the website, and it can, NCORP can be entirely evaded as a redundant set of restrictions (relative to the baseline GNG). The question then is whether GNG or NWEB are met.GNG or NWEB are not met. The sources are mostly routine coverage, and the rest are not sufficiently in-depth and don't seem particularly independent either. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance ... Looking at the current article and the available sources when determining if the article does, or if it could, describe the site in the aforementioned "encyclopedic manner"—it's apparent that it does not, and due to a lack of detailed information in the sources about the website's achievements, impact, or historical significance, it probably could not. When pondering
WP:WEBCRIT, i.e. whether the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, it's important to remember that only the sources about the website as the website count, and one should see that most of the coverage is routine news about the company, and not about the "content itself"; coverage of the content itself is fairly shallow.—
Alalch E.12:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It would've mattered that Sportskeeda is a very big sports webpage if Wikipedia was an internet guide, but as things stands,
Wikipedia is not an internet guide, so this fact does not matter. The only thing that matters is notability, not size or importance. Notability.—
Alalch E.16:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll help you pin this one down. What part of my words "The article is crappy but that doesn't mean the subject is non-notable" - doesn't refer to notability?
Desertarun (
talk)
20:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks but that doesn't help. You only asserted that the article is crappy, and that, broadly speaking, an article that is crappy may or may not be about a notable subject. You didn't say that this is a notable subject and why. (See
red herring.)—
Alalch E.20:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry you can't understand. No doubt the closing admin will read your Delete vote as I did - an editor engaging in TLDR so they can try to understand policy.
Desertarun (
talk)
20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not stopping you from making a substantive assertion that the subject is notable (as opposed to saying that the webpage is "very big", and calling the article crappy).—
Alalch E.21:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, I can live with
two (multiple sources are generally expected). That is: two reliable sources independent of the subject that contain significant coverage (not just any sources).—
Alalch E.21:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Somebody added a handful of new sources. For example
this one (
WP:ROUTINE) and
this one (
WP:WEBCRIT: trivial coverage, brief summary of the nature of the content). While I gather that you would say that these are an example of SIGCOV, they really are not. Can you help me identify another source among the newly added ones that is better than the ones I have just linked?—
Alalch E.22:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
1. It was never a fork of stoicism. 2. It is not an essay but paraphrased parts of articles written by several PHD holders in philosophy, you are more then welcome to check the sources in the references tab. I and more people need to infact add direct citations for the articles from the sources given, but that takes time and you are welcome to help here.
User:Exemplo347Aboutzero (
talk)
15:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, the
User:Exemplo347 decision to contest this page for deletion is I believe done out of spite, which I believe is frowned upon on the wikipeida community. The reason I am saying this is because Exemplo contested this page for deletion only after I reverted his move of the page to draft. Why not open a discussion for deletion from the get-go, why did you he only do it after I reverted his (rather unjust) move to draft of the stoic virtues article?
Aboutzero (
talk)
15:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
In under ten minutes I found six scholarly sources covering this topic and added them to the article. @
Aboutzero: I'd recommend copying the article as you originally had it to your user space and expanding it by quite a bit, with inline citations attributing the claims you make to the sources you're consulting. The style
here could use some work but nothing here seems particularly outlandish or wrong at a glance, it's just not written in an encyclopedic tone. You might want to use the
WP:AFC process as well once you have a longer article.
- car chasm (
talk)
16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you very much. I appreciate your help and I agree with your comment. As I am quite new to wikipedia I hope you don't mind me asking a quick questions:
- What do you mean by Redirect to Stoicism#Ethics and how would one go about doing it?
Wikipedia:Redirect#How_to_make_a_redirect should tell you everything you need to know about making one. Doing this will send anyone who clicks a link to "Stoic virtues" to the section on the Stoicism page for ethics. This is a way of preserving the links to the article and allowing them to function correctly when your article is actually published, rather than deleting the page and re-creating it.
- car chasm (
talk)
02:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd support redirecting this and I'd withdraw this AfD. Can I first be reassured that redirecting won't just end with the author recreating the article over the redirect. Multiple editors have attempted to give the creator space to work on the article as a draft, resulting in the existence of the article and a draft article on the same subject. An Admin (maybe @
Bearcat: who was dealing with this issue) will need to combine the edit histories of both.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
00:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The reason I was against this page getting turned into a draft is because I need more people to help me write it, if its a draft, no one sees it unless they are specifically looking for it. Or so I believe. Since so many people were unhappy with me paraphrasing information from extremely reputable sources such as stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and internet encyclopedia of philosophy, and those people decided to deem this page as "written like an opinion essay", I have decided to scratch it all and rewrite it again using direct citations. But I will need help on that probably, so that's why I would like other people to see this page. Right not I think this page does not warrant any tags or Afd.
Aboutzero (
talk)
20:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The editors (neither of whom were me, despite what you said earlier) who turned your article into a Draft were trying to give you time & space to work on the article before it gets published. The Articles for Creation process means that experienced authors look over a draft article and provide helpful input. By ignoring that, you've brought us here. If your article is turned back into a draft, you would get help from people experienced in writing Wikipedia articles and it would be a positive collaborative process.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
21:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, we'll need to wait for an Administrator to do it because they will need to merge the edit history of the draft with the article you created. It'll probably take a few days so be patient.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
13:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Temperance, prudence, courage and justice... huh? Aren't these the same as the four Aristotelian virtues? jp×g17:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I think you might be referring to the
cardinal virtues which originate from Plato, but yeah, the stoics took these four basic concepts from Plato and adapted them to their own purposes, creating subdivisions of each of them and corresponding vices. A lot of our records of the Stoics' beliefs are from later Platonists like
Plutarch who were criticizing them for it.
This sourcebook has some further discussion of how they adapted them, probably helpful for writing the article as well.
- car chasm (
talk)
20:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify or redirect for the time being, until it is possible for a better article to be written. It seems to me that the topic is notable and can be written about, but what we have is not really suitanle as a mainspace article. jp×g08:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If someone can convince the article creator to accept a Redirect or Draftify, I'd withdraw this nomination. It'll need an Administrator to carry out the Redirect or Draftify though, to merge the edit history with
Draft:Stoic virtues.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
09:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As was the case with the previous version of the article, the problem is that it imparts personal opinions and does not appropriately source any of its claims. Wikipedia is written from a
neutral point of view, and all article content must be
verifiable, which usually means attribution to
reliable sources. The way the article currently exists plainly contradicts all these policies and guidelines.
More strictly relevant to this AfD is
notability. For a standalone article to exist, its subject must be notable, which means there must be significant coverage about it in multiple high-quality secondary sources. The article currently provides no sources that meet those requirements. See also
WP:BIO for the notability guideline for biographies. At least one of the sources currently provided was made by the creator of the article for the express purpose of being used in a Wikipedia article, which completely undermines any reliability it might have had (see
Talk:Raimondo_Inconis).
Note that a (as far as I can remember) substantially identical version of the article was previously deleted under
CSD G11.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
15:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, Well when your sourcing is the orchestra, the VIAF and LOC (which are databases), you have an issue. For being the world famous person he is, there is zero coverage found, like anywhere, nothing in Jstor, Gscholar, Gnewspapers... The New York Times devotes a whole zero pages to him. Something is fishy. Puffy claims and lack of sourcing, it's a delete for me.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I can’t find anything to support notability. In addition the article creator seems to have engaged in cross wiki spamming to promote this subject.
Mccapra (
talk)
17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - At the
talk page, the article's creator claims that he is trying spread knowledge of the contrabassoon. But since that instrument has been used in orchestras for centuries and already has its own
very nice article here, it is far from unknown and does not need to be propped up with a shamelessly
self-promotional article for one guy who plays it, no matter how virtuosic he may be. The self-promotional efforts here and elsewhere are pretty obvious, and perhaps are intended to drum up sales for his book:
[49]. What matters here is significant coverage of his greatness by reliable music journalists and classical music experts, which has not happened. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 14:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. By the eyes, it's a no consensus, but the keep votes are not based in policy and source analysis shows it lacking in depth. StarMississippi18:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I think a state-owned joint venture building solar panels would be notable, especially for an encyclopedia. I have expanded the article with new sources. If this does not meet the notability threshold, I vote for Merge to the
Power Division as I think it deserves mention in the parent article with a redirect as an alternate to deletion. P.S. I created this article.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
18:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep This page should not be deleted from Wikipedia as it is a notable joint venture contributing to renewable energy development, with significant projects and government ownership, making it worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.I recommend keeping it:
M.parvage (
talk)
12:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Ref 9
[60] Press-release. Fails
WP:SIRS. It is not independent. It is the same press-release as ref 1.
Ref 10
[61] Company site. Not independent. Fails
WP:SIRS.
I'm not going to do any more. This is a relatively new project and its reflected in the quality of the references. Ref 11 is a market analysis profile which is potentially decent, if it was allied with other
WP:SECONDARY source that satisfy
WP:SIRS and are not just company or a press-release. scope_creepTalk15:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - cannot see how this passes NACTOR or GNG, there is simply not enough substance and depth. Maybe later...
SeoR (
talk)
18:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Only thing I could find is a short but extremely scathing review by the Finnish music magazine Soundi[65]. I'd also be happy with a redirect to
Waltari as an alternative, even if that too ends up at AfD eventually. -
Ljleppan (
talk)
07:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - @
GiantSnowman:, he made 193 appearances in Italian fully pro
Serie C from 1970s to 1980s do deifnityl has offline sources. Clearly was significant figure in Italian lower league football. Also I found
[66],
[67],
[68],
[69], among more Italian sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
15:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
1 and 2 are the same source, and all the sources are very brief routine death announcements. Playing in the Italian 3rd division is not a claim to fame now, let alone 40/50 years ago.
GiantSnowman17:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - All of the available coverage are obituaries, with the
Il Tirreno and Notizie Prato ones derived from an A.C. Prato press release making them questionably independent of the subject. The
La Nazione obit is independent coverage, but similar to the Prato TV source it is extremely brief. Keeping in mind that this footballer played one season in Serie C1 (the third tier of Italian football) and nine seasons below that level, I don't see a justification for an IAR argument when SIGCOV isn't available (I'd prefer to see something covering him prior to his death).
Jogurney (
talk)
15:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, per Jogurney. Derivatives of press releases are not independent, and significant coverage in general is totally lacking.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Although there appear to be some database entries referring to this individual, none of them meet the requirements of
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO, particularly with regards to significant coverage. The only reference currently provided in the article (aside from the in-text external link) is also not SIGCOV, as it by no means covers the individual in any depth.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
15:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:BISHOPS. Nominator makes no suggestion that a BEFORE has utterly failed to substantiate this, although I bet he was born in 1968, not 1868. A paucity of information is likely to represent systemic bias reflecting existing coverage disparities of Filipino topics and people in general, and not a good reason to delete this article when North American/European equivalents will have plenty of obvious, easy-to-find-on-the-Internet coverage.
Jclemens (
talk)
15:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:BISHOPS is an essay, not an accepted notability guideline or policy. I personally couldn't find any high quality sources on this individual, but if you do find any, please point us to them so we can evaluate the notability of this individual.
Your claim that the lack of reliable sources is due to systemic biases of coverage may be true, but that's not really relevant. It is not our place to attempt to calculate the relative reporting biases of all reliable sources in the world, and this consideration is not a particularly good argument, because again, it's not part of how notability is evaluated on Wikipedia. We cannot and do not Keep articles based on the idea that they would meet notability criteria in some hypothetical scenario designed by individual editors. If there are no good sources on this individual (and none have been provided so far), then they are not considered notable and the article should be deleted. Any speculation on what equitable reporting practices might look like is, well, speculative and based on individual editor opinion instead of the relevant policies and guidelines.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
15:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It was explained by Jclemens and Sojourner in the earth that it really meets GNG. So, I believe it meets GNG. You can never change my mind.
SBKSPP (
talk)
02:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep The only significant coverage I can find is in articles that simply regurgitate the contents of
this Vatican announcement; but on the other hand, I tend to agree, per
WP:BISHOPS, that Mel Rey Uy is very likely to be notable by virtue of his status, even if the sources that would demonstrate this are offline or non-English.
Sojourner in the earth (
talk)
09:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Notability requires at least some verifiable evidence per
WP:NRV. If no such evidence can be provided beyond his occupation, I think it would be a stretch to call him notable. I'm aware of the issue of offline or non-English sources, but if there is nothing verifiable that establishes notability, that's a problem.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
20:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm honestly not sure what that part of the guideline means; what would constitute verifiable evidence that sources exist, other than the sources themselves? As far as online sources go, there is significant coverage in several articles such as
[70],
[71],
[72], but since these are all functionally identical I only count them as one source for notability purposes; and then there are numerous passing mentions such as
[73],
[74],
[75]. If we had little or no information on this person then I would argue for deletion; but since there's enough information available to write a decent-sized article, and since it's almost certain that there will have been plenty more written about him in local papers etc., I'm leaning keep. Note that the section you cited,
WP:NRV, also says: If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.Sojourner in the earth (
talk)
23:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Butler dynasty - per
WP:GNG,
WP:ANYBIO,
WP:NOTGENEALOGY and
WP:ATD. Subject has no independent notability. There are insufficient refs (both in the article and returned in my own
WP:BEFORE) to support even the basic facts (birth/death/etc). And all we seem to be able to say about the subject is that they lived, had children and those children had children. A name being passed along. This is about as far below the notability bar as it is possible to get. Existence is not notability. I'm personally unsure what content there is to merge...
Guliolopez (
talk)
15:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I don't the issue is a lack of notability, but the article should be speedy deleted as a copyright violation, with very close paraphrasing from
here, e.g.
Article:"However, she continued to perform at private concerts as she begin to support her family financially and funding the education of her younger sisters and brothers. According to Bilqees that she was deprived of education due to her family's financial situation so she wanted her younger siblings to achieved higher education. When television started in Lahore at that time Bilqees was already an established radio singer and didn't have to audition to get an opportunity on television. She started her singing career on Pakistan Television with a Punjabi song, and then went on to sing many national songs during the 1965 war."
Source:"However, she continued to perform at private concerts as she was supporting her family financially and funding the education of her brothers. She had been deprived of education because of her family’s financial hardship. By the time television started in Lahore, Bilqees, was an established radio singer and didn’t have to audition to get an opportunity on television. She started her singing career on Pakistan Television with a Punjabi song, and then went on to sing many national songs during the 1965 war."
Sure, why not? Either it gets speedy deleted, and the AfD closed as no longer applicable: or the speedy gets rejected, and the AfD can continue. The arguments for both are different, the AfD can't overrule the speedy, but a declined speedy wouldn't make the AfD invalid or useless.
Fram (
talk)
11:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Fine then. After all found a spam here. I am surprised that the article was patrolled by a NPP. How that NPP can be so irresponsible in patrolling the page.
Twinkle1990 (
talk)
11:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The copyvio has been removed from the article, leaving a much shorter but copyvio-free stub. I have struck my speedy delete recommendation accordingly, and the AfD can now continue on the
WP:N merits of the subject.
Fram (
talk)
12:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: (
edit conflict)
Fram is right about the copyright infringement, but that infringement does not go right back to the earliest versions of the article, and
the speedy deletion policy requires that in this situation "earlier versions without infringement should be retained". I have therefore reverted to the last version before an editor started the process of editing the copyright-infringing material into the article. That leaves the article as little more than a stub, with three references two of which are, as
Twinkle1990 says, announcements of her death, and the other is a 3-sentence expression of a point of view, and certainly not substantial coverage of her. I have not checked for other coverage of her, so I have no idea whether she satisfies the notability guidelines.
JBW (
talk)
12:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Am I personally responsible for the copyright infringement mentioned in the
notice on my talk if I had no involvement or knowledge of the copyrighted content that was added?
Ainty Painty (
talk)
12:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Ainty Painty: No, the copyright infringement was nothing to do with you, and you have no responsibility for that. You were informed of the deletion discussion because you created the article, so that you can take part in this discussion if you wish to, but that doesn't mean that every issue anyone may raise here is necessarily anything to do with you.
JBW (
talk)
12:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The reference wasn't the issue, the use of unchanged or barely changed text from that reference was a problem. Readding that source (assuming it is a reliable source) is not an issue and doesn't create a mess.
Fram (
talk)
12:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
"... Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements and you seriously think bio of this singer falls into it? The articles mentioned above have not been written by her friends or relatives, but by independent persons. You are just overlooking the facts about her notability.
Insight 3 (
talk)
13:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
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}}.
Strong keep, easily passes our notability guidelines, very good sources available. Nom doesn't seem to understand NOTMEMORIAL and the difference between family-submitted obituaries (or obits about non-notable victims of notable events), and journalistic obituaries showing exactly the notability of the subject.
Fram (
talk)
14:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You didn't include the sources I mentioned above and which you dismissed as "memorial only". Also take a look at
WP:PKRS to improve your knowledge about Pakistani sources.
Insight 3 (
talk)
15:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I do not speak or read Urdu and know that sourcing might not be online for a 1968 song, but if her death was covered it stands to reason she was a notable musician and sourcing exists. StarMississippi16:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong KEEP After looking at all the news coverage and obituaries of this Pakistani classical music singer, I am convinced she was a notable person, especially when the news coverage is by 3 different independent newspapers and a magazine.
Ngrewal1 (
talk)
01:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retain. The source assessment above is flawed. The charge that sources from ICMLPO parties are "not idependent" is a stretch. They are friendly sources that share a political orientation with APL, to be sure. But, these are independent publications from independent, individual organizations. Otherwise, it would seem that the only acceptable sources would be "neutral" or hostile ones.
Visigoth500 (
talk) 02:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Visigoth500 (
talk •
contribs)
01:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
According to policy, even an article by their competitor isn't proof for notability. Independent means third-party, meaning it has "no vested interest" in the topic (
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Independent_sources)
Because these organizations not only share a political orientation like you state, but also coordinate activities through a joint international body, they have a vested interest in the success of the APL, and thus cannot be regarded as fulfilling this criteria. To sum up, the required sources should be neutral.
Oxlong (
talk)
10:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
APL is not a full member of ICMLPO, merely an observer. You are making an unproven assumption that ICMLPO controls its observer parties and that there is no distinction between the two. The policy guideline on independent sources that you cite does not prove your assertion.
Visigoth500 (
talk)
13:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Could you please provide proof as to how specific sources do not meet these criteria:
"* Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of
peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication.
Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials.
Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective.
Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should
verify enough facts to write a
non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance."
I know that it is not a full member, it states as such on their Wikipedia page (and I went through its sources, so obviously I read it in full). My point would stand even if they would have made no declarations of any kind together. But when, by your own admission, they are "friendly sources" and "share a political orientation", they are definitely not unaffiliated, hence cannot be third-party.
Being in the same international organization, making political statements together, and having a shared direction politically is by itself irrefutable evidence of not being truly independent of each other. Furthermore, these parties share the journal Unity & Struggle together, which they publish jointly through the ICMLPO. They each send articles to it to be published.
Hence, not only are they connected internationally in the aforementioned ways, they even directly collaborate on projects.
Even if my friend is a scholar, his article would not be 'notable' in regards to me, because professional or not, he is my friend. In other words, affiliated with me, and not neutral.
From the same URL, we have:
"A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."
No, that is not "irrefutable evidence of not being truly independent of each other." "Furthermore, these parties share the journal Unity & Struggle together, which they publish jointly through the ICMLPO. They each send articles to it to be published." That point is irrelevant. By that logic, academic departments who are members of the same professional association and submit scholarly articles to its journal are not "independent" and should be rejected. You are making overarching generalizations based on unproven and highly speculative assumptions.
Visigoth500 (
talk)
17:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This is a false equivalence. If a university department would have written about the university itself, or another department within the very same university, it would indeed not be independent and should not be used as a source on Wikipedia for notability purposes.
Likewise, you claim I am making "overarching generalizations based on unproved and highly speculative assumptions", yet I provided conclusive evidence for all the points of contention I raised. However, you provided no evidence in your comments, and yet behaved in an unprofessional and rude manner, alleging I have acted in exactly such a fashion.
Even if we were to apply your example of university departments endorsing and writing on each other in exactly the same manner these political parties do, it would fail notability guidelines and therefore would not fulfil the burden of proof regarding the right of this topic to be included on Wikipedia.
Furthermore, you have neglected to answer the argument I raised on the matter. How does the present situation differ in any regard from 5 scholars, all of whom are members of a group of colleagues and friends endorsing each other to warrant Wikipedia articles for themselves? I ask that you adress these points, but this time, please refrain from the usage of non-productive language.
Oxlong (
talk)
19:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I have provided no evidence, nor is there any need to respond to your challenges, because I am not defending a position or asserting an affirmative. I am questioning your evidence and your rationale, as is my right. Neither have I behaved in an "unprofessional and rude manner," unless you consider simple disagreement with you and pointing out what I believe are the fallacies in your argument as evidence of "unprofessionalism" and "rudeness." Indeed, you oddly assert that I accuse you of behaving in an "unprofessional and rude manner," when I have said nothing to that effect. My "crime" consists in merely disagreeing with you. You claim that you have provided "conclusive evidence," I disagree for the reasons stated above, that is all.
Visigoth500 (
talk)
23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You proved my point. You claimed to question "my evidence and rationale", but this entire comment does nothing of the sort. Instead, you give primacy to attacks against my *character*. By alleging, instead, that my only reason for bringing your choice of language to your attention, is due to disagreeing with you. You violated the behavioral guideline of "assuming good faith", and accused me of acting in bad faith.
In order to facilitate more productive discussion later on from your end, I empathically recommend you read this article and apply its conclusions to your future conduct.
[82]
More importantly, however, your comment contains no mention, let alone rebuttal, of the counter-arguments I raised. I took special care to accommodate every one of your concerns, while you did not respond to my criticisms.
Neither the university example, nor the scholars example, received any attention in your latest response. The only point of contention that has received any attention from you was the character of your fellow editor.
Oxlong (
talk)
14:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, Sir. My comments were NOT about your "character," but about your method and reasoning. I am not here to debate you, answer your questions, or "rebut" you. I question your methodology, that is all. But, if you insist on making this personal, I have to ask why is it that you create a Wikipedia account on June 8th, make a user page using an AI chatbot, then immediately proceed to call for the deletion of this page? This page seems to be your only Wikipedia activity. Indeed, it appears to be the reason why you created your Wikipedia account in the first place. Could it be that you have an agenda/vendetta against this organization? Could it be that you created this page yourself, have had a falling out with this organization, and wish to enact a personal revenge be having the page you created deleted? Just asking. I shan't communicate with you any further. Let things fall where they may. You have a nice day.
Visigoth500 (
talk)
16:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You are accusing me of having "ulterior motives", but the way you handled this situation tells me you have emotional investment in keeping this article up, although it goes against Wikipedia's guidelines and makes the platform less informative overall, due to the inclusion of an article regarding a minor and unnotable party.
Accusing me on personal grounds does not qualify as 'questioning my methodology'. I requested a plethora of times to keep discussion civil and academic, but you insisted on keeping it grounded in emotion rather than reason.
Perhaps if you had not adopted an obscene, vulgar, and misogynistic joke name as your moniker ("Mike Oxlong" -- My c*ck's long) you would be taken more seriously.
Visigoth500 (
talk)
17:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I do not need to apologize for not writing my real, full name on the internet for the simple reason I do not wish to be doxxed. However, you may be surprised to know "Oxlong" is my real surname, and "Mike" is how people nickname me in my day-to-day life for over 14 years. Yes, I have been the butt of many jokes because of it. But the fact that you reopened your account after stating "I shan't communicate with you any further", and attempted to label this name as "mysogynistic", somehow, shows you lack any argument regarding the topic itself, and proves my argument, that you try to derail the discussion towards personal attacks.
Oxlong (
talk)
13:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment, if the party is covered by press outlets (regardless of their political colour) it can be used to affirm notability. --
Soman (
talk)
12:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You are right, but neither I, Oaktree, and (presumably) Visigoth could find any mentions which pass
GNG. The absence of such sources affirms the proposition that they lack notability.
Oxlong (
talk)
14:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This is an attempt of deleting a page because of its political affiliation.
Here is an example for coverage that satisfies the notability guidelines in full. The article has directly spoken about the APL and their student wing, and the source itself is more then sufficient. Its obviously sufficient to keep the article as it is, and decisive proof we neednt remove it. The head of their New Jersey Division was even mentioned by name. I am certain Oxlong could not but notice this article in their "investigation".
Andrei Zhdanov (
talk)
15:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Regrettably, it already came up in the previous nomination
[83], and the sizeable groups of participants there arrived to the consensus that it does not qualify as notable. The reference to the APL in the article amounts to a mere mention of it's participation in a demonstration and a short Quote of a member.
The standing consensus also determines that, due to the lack of proof regarding the "All Marxist-Leninist Union" truly being their student wing, as opposed to an unaffiliated friendly organization, due to not warranting an article by itself, and due to no inherited notability, this article cannot qualify as a defence for the existence of this page.
Furthermore, the article has long standing issues since its inception (as you can see on the page itself, below the deletion template). Owing to the inadequate levels of attention the organization has received, it is impossible to fix them. A deletion is the only professional course.
You should refrain from baseless accusations, such as my motivation allegedly being grounded in politics. It is a violation of Assume Good Faith
[84] My motivation is found within my arguments, and not a single one of them has been refuted yet.
Oxlong (
talk)
16:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Right. You join Wikipedia, immediately create a chatbot generated 'user page,' and the very first, one and only thing, you do is go try and delete this article. Your "good faith" is apparent.
Visigoth500 (
talk)
17:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It seems unfit for a Wikipedian to prolong an argument on the basis of assumptions about the character of a fellow Wikipedian and the circumstances of his contributions to the encyclopedia.
I therefore scrolled through Wikipedia's policies and behavioral guidelines, among others, I came across two guidelines called "No personal attacks" and "Please do not bite the newcomers".
Your recent comments have been exclusively related to my character and alleged motives, and not my editorial contributions, which is in violation of the specificities ("Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views") as well as the conclusion of the guideline ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.")
Seeing as you understand that I am a newcomer to this platform, your actions are in strict violation of at least following guidelines: 5. You repeatedly used sarcasm (e.g. "Your good faith is apparent") 6. You called my response to your argument a criminal accusation ("My "crime" consists in merely disagreeing with you").
I highly suggest that you make room in your schedule to read these articles, so that our ongoing cooperation will become more fruitful and bilaterally pleasant.
Oxlong (
talk)
21:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I have no idea what this debate is meant to be about. Although I do have some doubts about the motive of this AfD, my view is to delete the rational for deletion seems to be alright, noting how this page has been deleted two times previously through AfD, and I agree with the source analysis written by nom.
Karnataka (
talk)
21:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be good to get views from other users (in preference to further lengthy additions from those who have already contributed). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Stifle (
talk)
10:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Extensive search reveals a minor organisation, the notability of which is difficult to prove. Agree with nominator and open kudoz to Oxlong for handling the discussion in a cool-headed and civil manner. --
Ouro (
blah blah)
12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The ICMLPO and its members are distinct organisations from the APL. Its unfair to ignore their coverage of the subject for notability purposes. Also, just being relevant enough to become a part of this international organisation implies relevance.
Andrei Zhdanov (
talk)
20:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
These sources cannot assert notability precisely because the APL are associates of the ICMLPO and coordinate activities and statements with it. According to the guidelines, even their competitors cannot be used to establish notability
[87]. The source must be completely unaffiliated and neutral.
Furthermore, your latter argument conflicts with "No Inherited Notability"
[88], according to which any such association does not assert notability. It must be proven that the subject merits inclusion as its stands.
Oxlong (
talk)
18:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. This group is so obscure that a writer in very progressive American publication,
The Nation, wrote an article in 2020 titled "Should the Left Launch an American Labor Party?", not knowing a tiny party with this name already existed.[89]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Notability not established for this particular piece of sporting/gaming technology ... sources provided aren't sufficient enough. The company or person who it is named after are not notable either.
Ajf773 (
talk)
10:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
What makes you think you're qualified on this topic? Perhaps if you made some effort in establishing notability rather than criticise other users with lack of good faith.
Ajf773 (
talk)
10:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It's extremely odd to me that @
Ajf773 seems to think that a milestone in the development of our sport is somehow not notable. I suppose the problem with a user-moderated service like Wikipedia is that they don't have to know what they're talking about to pass judgement.
74.51.213.7 (
talk)
13:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)—
74.51.213.7 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Bob Long has been one of the biggest name in tournament paintball since it’s inception. He played for the Ironmen in the woodsball days of tournament paintball, modifying and shooting Autocockers at the time. He can be credited for giving the most successful tournament paintball franchise of all time, San Diego Dynasty, their professional start by forming the Iron Kids tournament team. The Gen 1 Intimidator changed the game by shooting 14+bps in a time when mechanical automags and autocockers still ruled the game. Gen 2/3 Intimidators are some of the most populat and collectable markers from the golden age of paintball, 2002-2008. Those particular markers had some of the most beautiful and detailed millings seen in paintball and even attracted Jim Eaton of Eaton Superchargers to create his own “Ripper” Intimidators(1, 2, 2.5 and 3). The Intimidator production spanned 6 generations over roughly 20 years and is widely accepted as one of the best shooting stacked tube poppet markers ever made. People still beg Field One(Dynasty bought out Bob Long) to create a seventh generation Intimidator.
2600:1003:B11A:22C5:A4D5:E7BF:C41:C6C (
talk)
20:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) —
2600:1003:B11A:22C5:A4D5:E7BF:C41:C6C (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that
2600:1003:B11A:22C5:A4D5:E7BF:C41:C6C (
talk •
contribs) has been
canvassed to this discussion. reply
Could you please give us an example of how we could establish notability for the Bob Long Intimidator?
Much of paintball's history is preserved only through oral record, out-of-print magazines, forum posts, and within the last 10 years, closed-group Facebook posts, but I insist that there is wide acceptance within the paintball community about the significance of this marker.
The Bob Long brand, which became significant in part because of the success of the Intimidator,
was still valuable enough in 2020 that the IP was acquired by professional paintball players and used to found a new company, Field One. For reference, these are 3 of the 4 most famous paintball players, of which Ryan Greenspan is notable enough to be linked in the Paintball template footer on every single paintball-series page on Wikipedia.
If we fail to agree that this article is notable under the
general notability guidelines, I propose two alternatives:
That the bulk of this article be merged into new
Bob Long article and focus be shifted towards shoring up the references for that article. (
This book writes about Bob Long on page 206.)
Replying to my own reply here - To give some concrete quantified data about the long-term historical significant of the Intimidator, the
Intimidator subforum on pbnation.com currently has 64,987 threads with 746,267 posts in it. That's just for the Intimidator. For comparison, the Tippmann subforum, who are like the Adidas of paintball brands and have created many popular markers over the last 30 years, have only 252,427 posts.
GameGod (
talk)
22:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) —
GameGod (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that
GameGod (
talk •
contribs) has been
canvassed to this discussion. reply
Also, it's circular reasoning to use the lack of a Bob Long article on Wikipedia as evidence that it's not notable. Paintball on Wikipedia clearly needs a lot of work, and you can't say that something isn't notable because it doesn't exist on Wikipedia, in the context of deletion. You're using Wikipedia as a primary source to support your own argument, which is primary founded in a lack of good references, which makes your entire nomination seem like it's in bad faith.
GameGod (
talk)
00:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)—
GameGod (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Topics needs to be notable. A couple of references to paintball fansites doesn't give me confidence that this one is.
Ajf773 (
talk)
10:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You've just repeated the same thing over again which is not advancing the discussion and you have also misunderstood my data. I didn't talk about "users", I talked about "posts". If you're intentionally misunderstanding this, then it leads me to believe you're not engaging in good faith here, but if it was not intentional, then it doesn't lead me to think you understand what we're talking about.
GameGod (
talk)
13:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC) —
GameGod (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that
GameGod (
talk •
contribs) has been
canvassed to this discussion. reply
Comment looks like there's been some
WP:CANVASSING on Reddit:
[90]. Probably explains why we have so many new accounts/IP editors with no other edits on Wikipedia except on this and the other article mentioned on that thread.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
10:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete just because it might be a reasonable sized paintball manufacturer, that doesn't mean that it necessarily passes
Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the editors on this AFD had provided any
reliable sources to significant coverage, which is what Wikipedia requires. Internet subforums aren't reliable sources for this.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
11:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Honestly, I don't give a shit about those Reddit
canvassers, they'll just get labelled as such and blocked immediately. Besides, this isn't notable either. 🌶️
Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click
this link!
07:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I thought about trying to improve/expand it, and did try a little bit, but there don't seem to be sources available to justify having the article.
WP:GNG fail. --
Yae4 (
talk) 08:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Article Sources: Only one of the four current cites looks remotely reliable (and I have not verified that one). Hackaday sources:
PhotographyEdits thanked me for removing them from another article: "Thanks for fixing the Hackaday issue!" In context, fixing == deleting the cites. PC Gamer looks questionable, and the cited article is brief, not significant coverage. --
Yae4 (
talk)
20:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, this meets
WP:LISTN and some extensive sources have been written on the subject of open-source firmware, such as the book "System Firmware - An Essential Guide to Open Source and Embedded Solutions" (ISBN 9781484279380).
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
08:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: if an entire technical book has been written on the topic, it seems pretty obviously notable. Moreover, the fact that we've got articles on individual pieces of open-source firmware would seem to logically imply that the concept itself was notable. Finally, the nominator has not commented on the four sources that currently exist on the article -- are those no good? jp×g18:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
JPxG: See
WP:WHATABOUT or similar. Anyway, you already weighed in at AfD for Libreboot. Please use your preferred word search method at
Talk:Libreboot for "hackaday". There you will find multiple editors saying it is not a good source, and find
PhotographyEdits thanking me for removing them from that article. And see the Diff added to Article sources in the nomination. --
Yae4 (
talk)
10:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I am not sure what you are talking about. Is your interpretation of
WP:WHATABOUT that it is forbidden to cite any consensus anywhere for a decision on anything? jp×g00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep likely with the sources that existed in the article and searching Open Library finds a significant coverage of various open-source firmwares, many of them which a brief description of what that means (
[91],
[92],
[93],
[94],
[95],
[96],
[97]). I also added a link and source to
Rockbox since it seems to meet the requirements. I haven't looked elsewhere for sources at this time.
Skynxnex (
talk)
14:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. As pointed out the topic is notable. In the case of technology lists, we also face the question, "but should we have it?" (in other words, what about
WP:NOT?) The fact is, this is also a useful, focused list and it meets
WP:NLIST.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Well-sourced article; however this never came to pass. Doesn't feel appropriate to have an article about something that doesn't exist, even if the text were to be updated. Perhaps best replaced with a redirect to an existing article covering Google's history, to where a condensed version of the article facts could be relocated?
CapnZapp (
talk)
08:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:PRODUCT and we should not be creating articles for every model of something especially when there’s already precedent with the lite model being merged. Also there is a section already dedicated to the OLED model. I would avoid a merge due to there being no new information,
Nagol0929 (
talk)
07:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is already a redirect from
Nintendo Switch (OLED model), this article is literally a copy and paste from the main Switch article, and it adds absolutely no value. I may have been fine with it existing if it was a quality article, but it really has no reason to exist as is.
Darkage7[Talk]00:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge or Redirect to Nintendo Switch. It's unambiguously notable, but I'm not sure if there's enough content of it out there to warrant a standalone article. No harm in merging/redirecting.
Merko (
talk)
21:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I don't see community support for deleting this article. There is talk of a possible Merge but that possibility can be discussed on the article talk page. If you are dissatisfied with this closure, please wait more than two weeks before launching AFD #3. Wait a few months and focus on improving this article. LizRead!Talk!06:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Apologies for withdrawing the previous AfD, and being back here so soon. I'm not sure which criteria to apply, because the core article topic is not really clear or agreed upon - is it a software, a hardware, a company, a movement, within a movement? There are a few more or less reliable sources, but it is difficult to pull together a coherent article without, in essence, a lot of
WP:OR. This becomes apparent, to me at least, in the most recent
Talk:Libreboot discussions. If you eliminate the less reliable sources (as identified by another editor), it is even more difficult. The few better sources consistently talk about Respects Your Freedom certifications as supported by the
Free Software Foundation, in context of reviews of computer hardware sold by "several international companies". Some editors want to twist this into a billboard for one particular vendor of hardware and continue making the article a
WP:SPAMPAGE, i.e. "Advertisements masquerading as articles", as it was for years. I conclude it is best to delete and redirect. Reasonable targets include, in alphabetical order:
Free_Software_Foundation,
GNU,
GNU_Project, and
List_of_GNU_packages. Why there? As I understand it, not really based on great sources, an incarnation of "Libreboot" was once supported and within the FSF/GNU umbrella, as a GNU project. Then it wasn't. Maybe since 2016 or 2017, but it's not clear when it was in and when it was out, or how many times. There may have been a number of years, perhaps 5'ish, without software releases. One company the article "advertised as an article" for years may have been near bankruptcy and not doing business for some time. Now, as of around March 2023 there is a new "Libreboot" project within the FSF/GNU support umbrella. --
Yae4 (
talk)
05:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep and revert the article to its state from
this version. I do not consider that to be an
WP:SPAMPAGE, it's a just a stub stating a few facts in
WP:NPOV language. I have changed quite a few articles that needed translation from promotional to Wikipedia language, this article is not one of those. I'd be fine with adding some sentence about the Libreboot.at project.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
08:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
TechCrunch does not seem wrong per se, using a tutorial as a source is not a problem either if the content on Wikipedia itself is not written as a tutorial. Primary mailinglist sources are fine for verification of trivial things like the latest released version or the full name of the project. I agree about Hackaday, I missed that.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
09:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It's laughable using Vaughan-Nichols ZDNet source, which is all about The Free Software Foundation, "Libiquity's Tarinux X200", Respects Your Freedom, "FSF-endorsed Trisquel GNU/Linux", quotes from Joshua Gay (FSF) and Patrick McDermott (Libiquity), with only passing mention of Libreboot, to cherry pick the statement: "On some devices, Libreboot developers have reverse engineered the firmware from Intel and created a utility to create a free firmware that meets the specifications from Intel." Why do you want a billboard for Libreboot.ORG so badly you would so obviously mis-use this source? This is not applying
WP:DUE or
WP:NPOV, or basic honesty, frankly. --
Yae4 (
talk)
09:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Huh? Yes, that reference has a broader scope indeed. But the subject of this article is "Libreboot", so it is fine to use references that also include information about different things. If there would be an article about Libiquity, then we could use more information from the ZDNet article I suppose.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
09:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, I agree for that ZDNet article, but not for other articles. I still think it meets the
WP:GNG, albeit not by a large margin. That's also why I think a stub is the most appropriate lenght for this article.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
10:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
James Gray LinuxJournal.com looks like a copy of a brief product announcement, not significant coverage of Libreboot, and no link to or mention of "Libreboot.org". Bärwaldt linux-magazine.com has coverage of a lot of things, including Rowe the person,
Purism_(company), "Several small international companies ... around free BIOS implementations," the "Respects Your Freedom" program, the Free Software Foundation. Whose link is listed first among 7 at the conclusion? FSF. Libreboot.ORG is 3rd of 7. You used it to say "Libreboot is established as a distribution of coreboot, but with some proprietary binary blobs removed from coreboot." Cherry picking again. --
Yae4 (
talk)
11:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - and make libreboot.org the main link, with libreboot.at as a footnode. For reasoning, see discussions on the talk page. Basically, other editors here have asserted that since all the cited sources reference libreboot.org, not libreboot.at, then the article is primary about Libreboot as hosted on libreboot.org.
I should note that there is currently a report against Yae4 about the nature of his editing on the article:
As of this time, the Wikipedia admins have not yet responded, but the assertion there is that Yae4 is acting out of bias, in bad faith and that he has attempted to hijack the Libreboot article. The timing of this AfD is curious since the talk page seems to now weigh in favour of libreboot.org, especially since the article now seems to be much better sourced than it was before (and many of those sources were added by Yae4 himself!)
Libreleah (
talk)
09:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, and I've engaged trying to be as neutral as possible, on the project talk page. Regardless of my connection, my arguments against your disruptive and seemingly equally biased edits are valid. It's no coincidence that as soon as the talk page starts weighing in favour of libreboot.org again, as per the wishes of the other editors, you create a new AfD. The timing is too perfect, so it can't be a coincidence; you are losing the argument, and acting out of desperation.
Contrary to your assertion, I have every intention of continuing my activity on wikipedia editing other articles, once this Libreboot business is finished. For example I improved
Peter Assmann yesterday by translating some text from the German page which is better sourced.
Libreleah (
talk)
09:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
She's sugessting changes on the talk page, instead of trying to edit the article directly. So she's following the COI policies.
Rlink2 (
talk)
11:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I describe the out of place lengthy accusations as disruptin Maddy also thought your SPI filing was disruptive and incoherent. Point being its all an opinion, you may think theres no merit to what shes saying when she thinks she has a fair point. We have to be respectful of all viewpoints.
Regarding no WP:EDITREQ. She doesn't have all the ropes yet as a new editor, so i think we can give her some leeway. Besides, she didn't need to do an EDITREQ because she didn't want to edit the article. Why didn't you suggest this to her in your first reply? Note that the article as it was before was agreed upon by everyone before you changed it.
It was "frivolous accusations" not "disruptive and incoherent". We'll see. Maybe we'll get some objective opinions from uninvolved editors. --
Yae4 (
talk)
12:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Yae4 I would say the only editors that are truly involved is you and PhotographyEdits, since you two were editing the article for some time. Libreleah is also involved due to her connection. Me, Maddy, and DFhib only came after the inital accusations so we were all technically uninvolved.
Rlink2 (
talk)
12:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
PhotographyEdits has edited
Libreboot for at least a couple years+/-? Me, a couple weeks+? Yes, the near coincident arrivals of new accounts all supporting re-activated Libreleah, after IPs were blocked, plus behavioral similarities. led me to suspect puppetry, meat or sock. Involved: See
WP:INVOLVED for admins, and
WP:NACINV for editors. Aren't those talking about involvement in discussions? No mention of whether an article has been edited. --
Yae4 (
talk)
14:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
For accuracy, other than the passing mention in a book, "Embedded Firmware Solutions", and Carikli's presentation on abandoning Libreboot.ORG and starting Libreboot.AT, I don't think I found any other sources that hadn't already been in the article before, then were deleted during stubification to a billboard. --
Yae4 (
talk)
09:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
As discussed by other editors in the talk page, the current sources (many of which you added yourself) are more than sufficient to support notability of libreboot at libreboot.org; indeed those some editors assert that libreboot.at has weak sourcing, because of most of the current sources refer to libreboot.org, not libreboot.at.
I would really appreciate seeing even a half-good explanation of why stubifying an article with poor sourcing is beneficial for Wikipedia or readers. --
Yae4 (
talk)
14:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: this AfD seems to be a rather convoluted outcome of an ongoing content dispute on the article, rather than a genuine attempt to question the notability of the topic. jp×g18:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per the previous AfD close for this topic 9 days ago. Reopening a new AfD for the topic just 9 days after the previous keep close is disruptive. Looking at the sources just within the article, there are multiple reliable sources cited like Linux Journal and LWN. I haven't assessed whether these are enough for GNG, but they certainly provide enough verifability that at the least a short summary of the topic could be merged to another article, such as
coreboot or another appropriate merge target. Thus I think the closer of the first AfD was correct--outright deletion is unwarranted, but a merge to another article is a reasonable outcome. I'll also note that it is perfectly fine for a COI editor to provide recommendations at AfD. If they can provide evidence for a recommendation that that non-involved editors accept, that's good evidence toward an outcome. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}18:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
> Reopening a new AfD for the topic just 9 days after the previous keep close is disruptive.
Really? _Fake_Surprise_Emoji.
Lourdes an admin IIUC recently
advised me in a similar context: "Lastly, why did you withdraw your AfD nomination of Elive which was on its way to be deleted? May I suggest take the article to AfD once more quoting this message of mine? And this time, I would request you to please not withdraw the nomination which was bound to be deleted."
I agree with merging some of the material elsewhere. That seems implicit in my suggestion to redirect. It also seems implicit in other suggestions to stubify the article (with poor sources).
No mention in a 2019 Open-source firmware review article:
[98] The source was used by PhotographyEdits to support notability of a list of open-source firmware, including Libreboot. Other open-source firmware is covered. Libreboot is conspicuously absent.
--
Yae4 (
talk)
20:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yae, unless you're going to bring up something from
WP:DELREASON, this is going to be a speedy keep from me, per
WP:SK1. I'm going to leave it to someone else to close this, but there is a material difference between a discussion for which people other than the nominator expressed an opinion in favour of deletion and one where nobody does.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
08:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep& revert to previous version, per PhotographyEdits. The later additions were almost entirely
WP:COATRACK, and any good parts can be discussed individually before re-adding. If I was writing an article on apples, and used book sources that were about fruits in general, it should be obvious that it would be
WP:COATRACK and a misuse of sources to spend half the article talking about these other fruits. Every source is clear that Libreboot is a software project; the rest is fluff.
The premise behind this AfD is that (1) when the article reflected what secondary sources said, it was a
WP:SPAMPAGE; (2) now that it's a coatrack to off-topic commercial products, and promotes a fork that wasn't covered by any secondary sources, it is no longer a SPAMPAGE; (3) since preliminary consensus is turning against these dubious additions, the article should be deleted. These premises are absurd enough that they don't merit a counterargument, and bringing something to AfD due to (seemingly) losing a content dispute is disruptive.
DFlhb (
talk)
17:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) edited, no need to revert since Maddy fixed it 19:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
? There's some uncertainty what kind of editorial staff Linux Journal had when the article was published
[99]. The author may also qualify as a
WP:SPE.
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 author of the last two was a columnist at the time of publication (
archive link). I think for tech, "columnist" has a much lower connotation of opinionated bloviation, and a better mix of fact-to-opinion compared to politics or other subjects. To compare, I'd put other tech columnists like Walt Mossberg or David Pogue in a different league from all the typical silly op-ed writers. So, opinions may differ, but I'd count it towards GNG. edited 22:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC): wasn't sure how columnists usually get treated at AfD, so I looked around and found
this smart 2013 DGG comment: his criteria are the degree of editorial control over the column, and the credibility of the columnist. I'll let others judge the first, but I think we can lean on
WP:SPE to satisfy the second.
DFlhb (
talk)
19:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - I see no policy-based rationale for deleting this article, and agree that the AfD seems to be a tactical move as part of a content dispute.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
22:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment @
Maddy from Celeste Thanks for making the source assessment table! Note that there are also two articles by Hackaday that are currently not cited:
Although per
WP:RSN discussion some years ago, there is currently no consensus on the reliability of Hackaday. In case it is established that it is reliable, they would count towards the
WP:GNG imho. Personally, I'd say
Linux Journal is a reliable source for technical content like this.
PhotographyEdits (
talk)
11:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm yeah, I'm unsure on Hackaday. The writers and editors seem to be amateurs, but there is some kind of editorial staff at least. It's also not the most controversial area or prone to disinformation. In terms of sigcov, both sources mostly document the process of installing libreboot. I'd say the second one is the stronger one for sigcov, since it addresses a "normal" installation rather than an intentionally hacky one, and it includes more general description of the firmware. --
Maddy from Celeste (
WAVEDASH)19:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Can anyone actually
name 3 or 4 independent,
reliable sources with
significant coverage of libreboot.org,
which an RfC proposes as the subject of the article, to support
WP:GNG? Thanks for the source assessment, but one FossForce source called "significant" coverage is not.
[100] The source literally says: "this entire story is summed up by the above headline. Until we know more, that’s all we know." Regardless, the assessment only claims one source supports WP:GNG. --
Yae4 (
talk)
18:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The Kyle Rankin Linux Journal two-part story is reliable significant, and explicitly mentions libreboot.org, if that matters. There's multiple stories about Libreboot (seemingly the .org version?) in this Linux Voice issue:
[101]. Here's a PC World issue talking about libreboot (again .org, I think) significantly in the context of the X200:
[102]. With passing references (maybe more! I haven't read them all) in multiple other issues and magazines from that mid/late 2010s era. I don't see any reason to delete this article and my vague feeling is it should focus on on the version that's how referred to as the libreboot.org version with a section mentioning forks/etc, at this time.
Skynxnex (
talk)
22:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: The roads being "not that high" or not "impressive" is basically
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I do not see very strong sourcing in the article, which is a valid criticism, but it being dumb is not. jp×g18:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete the UK is a low-altitude nation overall. The list starts at a very low 380 meters and doesn’t even make it onto the list if highest roads in Europe. Every road in
Denver is higher than this list. We should focus on global or regional superlative lists, not lists for superlatives of small countries (especially non-independent ones), because logically we would have to start making list pages for every country and territory like the aforementioned “Netherlands” list as well as stuff like “deepest lakes in
Mali” and “largest settlements in the
Pitcairn Islands.”
Dronebogus (
talk)
08:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Ignoring the obvious
ad hominem, I simply believe that we should be consistent in our coverage of roads worldwide. In some cases, that means keeping articles about important roads that others want to delete. In others, that does sadly mean cutting back in regions where they have gone too far. Rschen775400:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. Interestingly, the article itself got a passing mention in a now-defunct publication.[103] Not a reason to keep, but interesting. "List of the highest roads in Scotland" is one of those carefully collected and curated pages of odd information that make our British articles sort of endearing.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Simply being an attorney doesn't show notability. Existing source was to jatland, a wiki,
WP:UGC and with that removed, the article is unsourced. Web search didn't turn up anything useful, merely a couple of cases where they were involved, but no significant coverage. Ravensfire (
talk)
01:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable as a fashion model, nor as a business person. Coverage is somewhat limited to her time as a model, and is trivial.
Oaktree b (
talk)
02:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appears to have been nominated many times for a technical Grammy, which I don't think see as notable for wiki. Gsearch is simply a confirmation of where he works.
Oaktree b (
talk)
02:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concern and did some research on other mastering engineer's Wikipedia articles before creating Colin Leonard's. I created this article for Tre Nagella, he is a mixing engineer, which is technical, as well.
/info/en/?search=Tre_Nagella
As an example here are other mastering engineer's Wikipedia articles. I would not have attempted creating an article for a mastering engineer unless I had reviewed the following articles. Hoping this clears up your concern and thank you for your feedback.
Here are other Wikipedia articles for mastering engineers
Just added:
Leonard won a Pensado Award for, Master of Mastering, in 2017 and placed at #2 on
Jaxsta's Top Mastering Engineers of 2022 - The world's 50 Most Successful Mastering Engineers of 2022, citing his work with
Beyoncé,
Cardi B,
Wizkid,
Charlie Puth,
Lil Uzi Vert.[1][2][3]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Despite only having a slight numerical advantage in this discussion, delete is also on stronger footing in terms of guideline-based arguments. Delete !votes point to the absence of significant coverage in independent sources. In rebuttal, keep !votes pointed to a handful of independent sources of which all but one fail to include coverage beyond mere mentions (or else were non-independent). Suggestions to redirect the page to either
1995 American League West tie-breaker game or to other articles [sic] on rivalries did not win additional support following their proposal. signed, Rosguilltalk10:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Article describes a non-existent rivalry between two teams that just happen to compete in the same division. This topic does not pass
WP:GNG based on the below source analysis table. Article reads as
WP:FANCRUFT and the only sources available on a
WP:BEFORE search are routine mentions or fan blogs. FrankAnchor16:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Brief
60-word blog that suggests a rivalry between the two teams in name only, but fails to describe any animosity between the teams and their fan-bases. The page however also goes on to describe a possible "rivalry" between the Mariners and most of the other teams in their division. N
WP:LOCAL coverage (though not directly affiliated with either team). Article suggests an "on-and-off" rivalry between the two teams but also recognizes the teams lack geographical proximity and "bad blood" generally found in a rivalry. N
Blog posted in "Lookout Landing," which describes itself as "A Seattle Mariners community," therefore lacks independence. Also, the article calls this series a "new rivalry" and fails to describe any animosity between the teams and fan bases, a basic attribute of any sports rivalry. N
Non-independent posting on MLB.com. Article has one sentence of coverage that reads "There may be no team in baseball with a less obvious rival than the Mariners," suggesting the Mariners don't have a "rival" at all.N
Non-independent posting on MLB.com. Coverage of a game in which Angels pitched a no-hitter against the Mariners. Does not even attempt to establish the two teams as rivals. N
Non-independent article on MLB.com which summarizes an impressive series
Mike Trout had against Seattle. This article does nothing to establish a rivalry between the two teams. N
Non-independent article on MLB.com which describes success Mike Trout has had against Seattle throughout his career. Article uses the term "rivals" once in a way that any two teams in the same division can be described as rivals. N
Coverage of a brawl between the two teams with differing opinions of what caused the brawl. One opinion is due to the fact that the teams are divisional rivals who have played eight games in an 11-day stretch, and that is the only mention of teams possibly being "rivals."N
Blog that suggests the Angels as one of many rivals for Seattle. Probably the closes source to establishing the two teams as "rivals" but this alone would not pass
WP:GNG and there are reliability concerns surrounding BleacherReport. ?
Routine coverage of a pitcher suffering an injury. Refers to a "rivalry" in the first sentence but the article does not describe any "rivalry" between the two teams. N
Coverage of a brawl between the two teams with differing opinions of what caused the brawl. One opinion is due to the fact that the teams are divisional rivals who have played eight games in an 11-day stretch, and that is the only mention of teams possibly being "rivals."N
The actual quote from the article is:
Angels interim manager
Phil Nevin chalked the brawl up to the teams’ rivalry and the number of games that were played in such a short span. The Angels and Mariners playing eight games against each other in 11 days.
So the manager of the Angels calls it a "rivalry" (not a "divisional rivalry"). Looks like a "Y" to me.
If the manager of an involved team calls a series a rivalry, then it is not independent and therefore not GNG-appropriate.NFrankAnchor19:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A reliable independent source wrote a story on a notable brawl between two baseball teams. In their independent reporting they got a quote from the manager of one of the clubs who blamed the brawl on the rivalry (not "divisional rivalry") between the teams.
WP:GNG "excludes works produced by the article's subject". That is very different form this situation, which is an independent reliable source reporting that the manager of one of the clubs believes a rivalry exists between the teams and that said rivalry was one of the direct causes of a
bench-clearing brawl. YPK-WIKI (
talk)
21:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
And the fact that the manager of one of the clubs is the one calling it a rivalry makes that part of the source not independent, not the source in its entirety (as Fox is an independent publication and a leading authority on MLB coverage). However the only mention of teams being "rivals" is taken from the opinion of an employee of the Angels, making the source not independent (and therefore not GNG-appropriate) for the purposes of establishing a rivalry. FrankAnchor12:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Two teams play each other often, moreso when they're in the same division. This does not make them an actual "rivalry", in spite of some fancruft put out by Bleacher Report and others. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
19:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep In 2007 the
Seattle Times wrote an
entire column describing the rivalry in detail. By their reporting the rivalry *absolutely* existed in 1995, with the AL West divisional playoff race culminating in a one-game playoff between the Angels and Mariners.
The Seattle Times reports that "three things can create rivalries in sports — proximity, head-to-head competition, and/or bad blood." The Mariners/Angels rivalry is "fueled on the field, just as it was in '95". They say that the rivalry "pretty much died after '95" but that future events (post 2007) could "nudge the rivalry out of hibernation".
The rivalry has been low-key due to both teams' lack of success in the last two decades. But the rivalry is consistently mentioned every time there is an incident between the teams. The 2014
Fernando Rodney arrow incident drew "rivalry" reporting by both the
Seattle Times and the
Los Angeles Times. The 2022 bench-clearing brawl was
described by the manager of the Angles as stemming from the "rivalry" between the teams. The reporting in reliable, independent sources over nearly 3 decades of play shows that there is a rivalry between the teams, albeit with long periods of dormancy.
The Seattle Times article is a good find. That alone isn’t enough for GNG but a good start. As already explained, the pieces describing the brawl only reference a rivalry as quoted by an employee of one of the involved clubs, so that does not pass GNG for the purposes of establishing a rivalry between Seattle and LAA. FrankAnchor22:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I found
this source talking about the rivalry. I also will note in NFL articles, division opponents usually means article (that might not be the same here.) I’d learn towards Keep, but if not kept, Redirect to an articles on rivalries.
75.99.8.58 (
talk)
22:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The first does NOTHING to describe the teams as rivals outside of using the term in the title as teams possibly becoming a rivalry. The second was already discounted in my source analysis because it is a blog from an organization that literally calls itself “a Seattle Mariners community” (therefore not independent) and title calls this series a "new rivalry" and fails to describe any animosity between the teams and fan bases, a basic attribute of any sports rivalry. FrankAnchor18:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Even if SBNation doesn’t count (which, by the way, that source analysis is very harsh), it still meets
WP:THREEREFS. Also, a brawl in a way does indicate a rivalry - just look at
Avalanche–Red Wings rivalry. A article on the brawl can be created, or left as a section of this article. The yahoo sports article does mention a growing rivalry which can be used to meet GNG. It’s hard to get the same level of coverage from this as say the
Mets-Braves rivalry because the two teams are not as good, with the mariners 2022 playoff north their first since 2001, and the angels not making the playoffs since 2014.--
96.57.52.66 (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
20:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A brawl most certainly does not indicate a rivalry. Brawls happen several times a season and if a small number of brawls between two teams constitutes a rivalry then there would be articles about pretty much every pair of teams in MLB. The Yahoo page does not mention a "growing rivalry." It mentions that they might play some meaningful games against each other, which hasn't been the case in over a decade due to poor performance by at least one team during that time. This can not meet GNG for the purposes of establishing a rivalry. FrankAnchor16:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Also, the Avalanche-Red Wings rivalry has, and I cannot stress this enough, reliable sources! If this article has the historic importance of those that have articles already, then it deserves to stay, but Frank Anchor makes the good point that you need to fulfill
WP:GNG to have any article exist.
Conyo14 (
talk)
05:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The 1995 race to the playoffs is too little to hang a significant rivalry on. The sourcing is pretty weak. Also, contrary to what 75.99 claims, being in the same division (NFL or MLB) doesn't guarantee a rivalry article.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
02:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not really saying much.
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but ... that list includes the Blue Jays-Orioles (no article), Orioles-Yankees (no article), Indians/Guardians-Twins (no article), etc. "Most heated" doesn't automatically mean particularly heated or notable.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
10:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
MLB's own listing is not independent, therefore it can not count toward
WP:GNG. And even if that was not the case, this article has just one sentence of coverage: There may be no team in baseball with a less obvious rival than the Mariners, suggesting the Mariners don't have a "rival" at all. FrankAnchor12:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and source analysis provided, there is not enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. Only the Seattle Times source above is SIGCOV of these teams as rivals and GNG requires multiple sources.
Carson Wentz (
talk)
01:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A redirect to the 1995 playoff game is a reasonable ATD (per PK-WIKI below) on the condition that the redirect link be removed from the navboxes for the two teams and the MLB rivalries one.
Carson Wentz (
talk)
02:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete There are hardly any sources from prior to 2022 on this, no newspaper readings, no books. At best a rivalry like this does not deserve its own page. A brawl can begin a rivalry, but the historic importance of a rivalry defines whether it gets its own article or not.
Conyo14 (
talk)
04:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I can access the full version. It does nothing to describe a rivalry between the Angels and Mariners. It only describes a history between Angels player Shohei Ohtani and Mariners player Yusei Kikuchi, who both played in Japan. Hard no for me. FrankAnchor15:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I oppose this suggested redirect. It could set an unnecessary precedent of redirecting any "Team A-Team B rivalry" title to a tiebreaker game or playoff series between those teams. Plus the article on the 1995 tiebreaker game is about the game itself, not the (relatively insignificant) history between the two teams. FrankAnchor12:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't see a problem with such a precedent. If a rivalry is primarily represented by a single game or series and is a possible search term then it makes sense to redirect readers to the game that represents the primary extent of the rivalry.
Rlendog (
talk)
19:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Editors remain divided on whether this subject meets
WP:EVENT. Editors advocating for keep pointed to the presence of coverage in a geographically wide range of sources, while editors advocating for deletion argued that the coverage is of an insufficiently
WP:LASTING character. signed, Rosguilltalk09:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This article has been declined at AfC twice, then moved by the AfC submitter to mainspace, then draftified by another editor, and now again moved back to mainspace. Evidently, some controversy here. I'm the second AfC reviewer; I don't think this meets
WP:EVENTCRITERIA, and declined on those grounds.
asilvering (
talk)
00:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Three different American newspapers chose to run a story about the ambush. The article suggests that the
Račak massacre was in response to this ambush. The book reference suggests that coverage extended beyond the timeframe of the ambush. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)01:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep – This is a case where the originator acted as if they were trying to push a non-encyclopedic article into article space. On examination of the sources (but without reading the book), I conclude that the author was trying to push an encyclopedic article into article space. Perhaps the author could have spared themselves this AFD by communicating with reviewers, but the only question for this AFD is whether the event meets
event notability criteria.
Ambush near Kosovska Mitrovica
Reference Number
Reference
Comments
Independent
Significant
Reliable
Secondary
1
Southeast Missourian
Associated Press account
Yes
Not really, local coverage of a national account
Yes
Yes
2
Chicago Tribune
Yes
Yes, because Chicago Tribune is a nationally important newspaper
Yes
Yes
3
Deseret News
Same Associated Press account as 1
Yes
Sort of. Coverage by multiple local or regional papers has a national quality
Yes
Yes
4
A book
As Eastmain said
Yes
Probably
Yes
Yes
The notability guideline says that national coverage is preferred over local or regional coverage. The Chicago Tribune is a nationally important newspaper. The publication of the Associated Press account (national) by at least two newspapers in different parts of the United States should count as weak national coverage. The mention in a book indicates that historians at least occasionally take note of the battle. When in doubt as to whether a battle should be covered, covering the battle seems like the right answer.
Comment: Both of these arguments hang on the book being a solid reference. Can anyone get a copy of the book and see what it says there? I'm unconvinced that it's actually about the subject of the article in any significant way - it looks like it might just be about the subsequent massacre, which is undoubtedly notable (
Račak massacre). This event is already mentioned there, in "background", and I don't see that this article adds much more than what is already there. --
asilvering (
talk)
04:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Asilvering: I was able to retrieve the book and find the
relevant passage. To answer your question, no, it doesn't actually deal with the subject of the article in any significant way. In case the page is inaccessible, it's a sub section titled "In Focus:The Racak Incident" and summarizes the lead up to NATO intervention in Kosovo, dealing with violence in the Stimlje region in particular, leading up to the Račak massacre. This is the only part where the incident is mentioned:
On 8 January 1999, the KLA carried out a well-prepared ambush near Dulje (west of Stimlje) in which three Serbian policemen were killed and one was wounded.
All the newspaper references are identical texts word for word, relaying and copying the Associated Press report, so it's really one source. It is common for local and national newspapers to publish stories from the AP. The key part from WP:EVENTCRITERIA is the event's lasting impact and depth of coverage. It had some impact, sure, in that it was one event in a long series that led to the Račak massacre. The depth of coverage is minuscule, and little to write about the event itself if we were to extrapolate the meat of the information available. Hardly enough for a stand-alone articule when it is already covered in the massacre article's background section. --
Griboski (
talk)
18:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete As per
WP:N. The incident has no notability and isn't apart of a wider offensive. The "Aftermath" section takes up a significant part of the article and isn't even related to this incident at all.
ElderZamzam (
talk)
01:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep all the sources as demonstrated by Robert McClenon are WP:RS, the article needs some work with the aftermath section.
Durraz0 (
talk)
15:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I read
WP:N and the article meets it. I found a source regarding the aftermath.[1] This is indeed a significant event in the Kosovo war, and I can recall having read about it in books about the war, i can try to find these sources later.
KleovoulosT (
talk)
19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. You can find all of the significant coverage in the world, but if it's all from directly after the event, then it's not
WP:SUSTAINED coverage and therefore the subject is not notable. There's also nothing here worth merging into
Račak massacre, and it's already mentioned at
Timeline of the Kosovo War, which is probably the most appropriate place for a non-notable event like this.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
01:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The sources (which all seem to be American ones) establish that the event happened. The question is whether it is a notable event. Since it happened in Europe, I would have expected there to be European sources cited.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: This station has plenty of in-depth coverage in Christian news outlets, including one article which was republished in Kentucky Today. Could any of these sources be considered independent, or does their religious character discount them? I can't find anything specific in the guidelines.
Akakievich (
talk)
20:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Post the sources here for evaluation and to help determine notability for this topic. Then if the article is kept, the sources can be copied there. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
06:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Also, evangelical or otherwise, just post them here. I think saying just because they are evangelical, they would not have a neutral point of view is overgeneralizing. If you want to save the article, then post whatever sources you have for evaluation. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
06:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
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}}.
Based on this, I am leaning towards delete. If anyone would like to weigh in with their views on the usefulness of these sources, I'd be glad to hear comments.
Akakievich (
talk)
17:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Embassies are not inherently notable. The sources in this merely confirm the ambassador and location. 3 of the 4 sources are primary.
LibStar (
talk)
01:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.