The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Lacks
WP:SIGCOV. Could not find any references mentioning it other than a company of the same name, which is a primary source.
Kstern (
talk) 17:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep There is this mention of the company (see the upper left corner of the page)
[1] and this near the upper right of the page
[2] and I found this, talking about the cheese market
[3].
Oaktree b (
talk) 22:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
my issue with that (in the same way as I said) are it seems like its named Cuba cheese after the place in Upstate NY, and not Cuba in terms of a unique cultural item. That is why I am voting delete, there is no coverage that I can even draw besides "there happens to be cheese factories here". I mean even basic
American Cheese or
Colby-Jack have huge information that you can casually find.
Ask me about air Cryogenic air (
talk) 23:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Could possibly merge to Cuba, New York, it seems important enough to be mentioned somehow.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Cuba, New York: There is a little bit of content on the Cuba, NY page about cheese production in Cuba. Merge content to explain what the term means. I'm fine with a redirect as well if closer or other participants find the content on the page isn't worth merging.
TartarTorte 18:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm fine with moving the image over, but the (single sentence of) content ought to be
verifiable before merging. Same goes for a redirect. The content in
Cuba, New York#Cheese is already
unsourced. We shouldn't make it worse. I can find no evidence of a product called "Cuba cheese".
Kstern (
talk) 19:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I've added citations to the
Cuba, New York#Cheese section. I'm fine redirecting instead of merging if it's determined nothing, other than the picture, is worthwhile having in the
Cuba, New York article.
TartarTorte 21:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I can't find anything that confirms this is a recognized variety/classification of cheese.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge or redirectBearian (
talk) 20:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge or redirect without prejudice. "Cuba cheese" is not a distinct variety of cheese, but the Cuba cheese industry is very much a notable historical concept, which it makes best sense to cover in the subsection
Cuba, New York#Cheese for now. Surely the
Cuba Cheese Museum is ripe for a
WP:GLAM collaboration!--
Pharos (
talk) 16:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep or merge per above. --
Wil540 art (
talk) 02:29, 6 January 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.
This isn't an encyclopedia article. It reads like a bio on his employer's website. And while I'm aware that deletion isn't cleanup, my search didn't turn up convincing evidence of
WP:SIGCOV anyway.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 23:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify or TNT this mess. I think he probably is notable based on the coverage I find, but wow this looks like a website bio.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete the subject is notable, but the article as written sure doesn't look like NPV or COI or such. Draftify is a good option for an enthusiastic editor to re-write. If someone wants to get super-enthusiastic and edit it right now that could make a difference. I would prefer editing over deletion, but I prefer deletion over nothing.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 03:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify although a complete rewrite would be necessary so maybe
WP:TNT. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 18:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify. The subject has been the athletic director at three Division I programs (Iowa State, Utah State, and Louisiana Tech) and is thus likely to have SIGCOV sufficient to pass GNG. That said, Lepricavark's comments about the state of the article raise valid concerns. Draftification will allow time for the article to be brought up to snuff (including addition of actual SIGCOV), should anyone care to undertake that effort. (Current citations to the Louisiana Tech and Iowa State web sites are not independent and therefore do not count toward GNG.)
Cbl62 (
talk) 04:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify: This is not written in a way that should remain in main space. The subject passes GNG but it needs a major rewrite.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 21:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify. Aside from the verbatim copy-paste from his employer's website that was included in the article, this really does fail
WP:BLP sourcing standards to such an extent that draftification is warranted. This looks like COI editing, and draftification is warranted per
WP:DRAFTIFY#5. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 21:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify I see coverage exists for an article, but in the present state, the article is not ready. Since this is the second AfD the article should be sent to draft and then it should be submitted through
WP:AFC before a return to main space.
Bruxton (
talk) 15:13, 10 January 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 as the article subject is not a district. According to Maharashtra government's official website it clearly reads "Jawhar is a small hill station municipal council situated on a plateau of sahyadris between rift valleys in Palghar district."[1]Twinkle1990 (
talk) 08:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge into the district of Thane per
WP:ATD. //
Timothy ::
talk 13:00, 11 January 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.
Daniel (
talk) 22:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per nom, no independent sources can be found about this subject and no references are in the article other than the one award they had won.
Harobouri •
🎢 •
🏗️ (he/him) 21:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello, if I post links to the YouTube Channel, would that count as a source?
The youtube, no. The IMDB is useful in pointing to other sources that are reliable, but you can't use it for sourcing alone.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The new sources provided do not meet general notability guidelines still. YouTube is both unreliable and the link provided is primary, which fails the independent from subject criteria. IMDB is independent, but per
WP:IMDB, it is generally unreliable due to the fact it is
user generated. The Shadow and Act source looks reliable, is independent, but does not significantly cover the subject. --
Harobouri •
🎢 •
🏗️ (he/him) 03:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete No sources found for the webseries, there are books mentioned in the New York Times that are unrelated to this series but they share the same theme.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article's subject fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:NWEB. I was unable to find any sources that would show notability. As far as
WP:WEBCRIT, it isn't met in this case because an actor won an award, not the webseries itself, so that isn't met in this case. -
Aoidh (
talk) 18:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources to pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 10:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I discovered another award for the film (
[4]), but it's not particularly significant on its own.
Suitskvarts (
talk) 11:13, 11 January 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.
Daniel (
talk) 20:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Subject is not noteworthy, original page was created many years ago as fluff, very empty page after spam has been removed
Nickgray (
talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep There are at least two solid sources, the
NY Times and
Fast Company. The article is a bit sparse but the person meets GNG, IMO.
Lamona (
talk) 18:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. Based on the sources already in the article, it seems as though this nom was misplaced.
Bearian (
talk) 14:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep meets SIGCOV per above. //
Timothy ::
talk 13:03, 11 January 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.
Fuzheado |
Talk 16:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - Indeed, no valid reason for deletion given. Sources gives pretty clear notability.
BabbaQ (
talk) 00:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - It is a notable case, one of the most gruesome unsolved murder case in Indonesia.Gunkartatalk 14:12, 5 January 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.
Speedy keep The nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion. The sources in the article seem to establish notability, and there's nothing else obviously wrong with it.
Opps Noor, if this is your first account, I suggest you spend a bit of time doing content work before getting involved in back-room processes like deletion.
Sojourner in the earth (
talk) 21:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep The nom is asked to expand their reason;
not liking the article is not enough for a deletion rationale. Nate•(
chatter) 21:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Nominator isn't clear about how the article [doesn't] meet Wikipedia's requirements and hasn't given a valid reason. The article is notable enough. --
Harobouri •
🎢 •
🏗️ (he/him) 21:46, 4 January 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.
Daniel (
talk) 20:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails
WP:GNG. The only online coverage is incredibly trivial stuff like
[5]. Article previously kept at AfD due to being part of a messy bundled nomination long before
WP:NSPORTS2022 made it clear that the GNG must be met.
Jogurney (
talk) 20:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 21:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Yes the previous AfD was poorly done as you should never bundle different people together. This player never met GNG then and doesn't now. It could have gone back on the wheel last time but escaped. As for analysing what is available,
soccerway which extensively coverages a huge array of players shows us 2 games back in 2012-13 and that hardly helps any player with so little football past his career to show anything beyond
WP:ROUTINE.
Govvy (
talk) 09:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment This player, who plays for Reynosa should not be confused with
Arturo González who is from Reynosa.
Nfitz (
talk) 08:39, 9 January 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.
Daniel (
talk) 20:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Searching is hopeless with 5M-plus GHits even with the county included, but maps and aerials show nothing except a small area which doesn't appear to belong to the surrounding federal land. No evidence for notability.
Mangoe (
talk) 19:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Lots of false positives is all I found at Google search and Google Books
Elinruby (
talk) 11:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. The location definitely is an actual name for a place (
see map), but looking at an aerial view I really don't see any evidence of inhabited structures in the area. I see a cable cut for high-voltage wires that ends about where Lancaster is, but merely having a cable cut does not suffice for
WP:NGEO. It's quite remote, with two dirt forest roads being the only ways in or out, so I very much doubt that it is currently inhabited. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
It's also listed in the
1987 National Gazetteer as a "locale", but I'm doubtful that meets the threshold of "legally recognized populated place". I will keep looking. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for that. Google gets hung up on Edwards Air Force. Can you tell if that's between I-40 and the Grand Canyon? By eyeballing the map, I think so. If so it's in a national forest, so we can quit looking for settlements. I am also quite certain (which is OR and anecdotal, yes) that it does not have an exit off I-40.
Elinruby (
talk) 18:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Scratch that, it's south of Flagstaff in the Pine Mountain Wilderness. Only been through there once, on the interstate, but based on Google Maps, it's on a forest road that looks like it probably closes in the winter, so I am strongly inclined to say there is no settlement there.
Elinruby (
talk) 18:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
It's in the
Tonto National Forest and near the Coconino National Forest, per the USGS map. If you see the location where I-17 intersects with State Route 69 and head due East until the edge of the county, you'll see it labeled on the state land management map. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. While this is definitely a named locale, I see no evidence of
WP:SIGCOV an no evidence that this is a
legally recognized populated place after conducting a search for sources. While it exists in GNIS, GNIS is
unreliable for feature classes, and it plainly appears to be wrong regarding the feature class in this case. There is nowhere reasonable to merge this to and no place to redirect this to; no article appears to cover this locale on Wikipedia, while the coverage in sources appears to be entirely maps and GNIS-sourced Gazetteers. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:58, 8 January 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.
Daniel (
talk) 20:34, 11 January 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.
Daniel (
talk) 20:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The publisher did some pretty famous comics, but that doesn't give it any notability itself.
Suitskvarts (
talk) 11:33, 11 January 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 bakery franchise.
Mooonswimmer 18:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn by nominator.
Mooonswimmer 18:39, 4 January 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 per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). Re: "Most references are solely routine coverage from local Portland media" -- The article was based on Eater Portland coverage but has been expanded significantly. Consider googling
before jumping to AfD? ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 19:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per Another Believer. The article was created
over a year ago by an autopatrolled editor, it was nominated today for deletion, and already said editor has
doubled it in size with plenty of added references. StonyBrookbabble 22:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Hyper-local coverage were it not for Guy Fieri, but it's just at GNG with the tv show appearance.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: sufficient proof of notability. having sufficient coverage to support GNG requirements.
Tictictoc (
talk) 14:17, 5 January 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 redirect to
118th United States Congress#House of Representatives leadership. This redirect can be re-targetted to a different article (eg. the one mentioned by Esolo5002 and suggested by Timothy) at normal editorial discretion. I deliberately didn't delete the history behind the redirect to allow a merge to a target article, should any editor wish to do so.
Daniel (
talk) 20:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
This does not pass
WP:NEVENT. It is a
WP:ROUTINE event that happens behind closed doors every two years. Even with the change in speaker nominee from Pelosi to Jeffries, there was no intrigue that would rise above the
run-of-the-mill level of coverage for it. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Muboshgu: where would you prefer we cover the content this article has?
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 17:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Each members' individual articles. It's a sentence at most for each involved member. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 18:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Muboshgu: it seems like it's useful to collect all this information somewhere though? Only putting it on the members' articles does our readers a disservice.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 18:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I think having an article for a non-notable event is a disservice to our readers. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The point of our notability guidelines is to make sure we can write a meaningful article on our subject, not to arbitrarily exclude things because they're "not notable enough". How does having this article do a disservice to our readers? It collects relevant information that otherwise would be scattered across multiple other articles. I'd be fine with a redirect or a merge, as long as we found a good location for the same information.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 18:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. There was no significant coverage about the election itself, as Jeffries and others were chosen unanimously.
Natg 19 (
talk) 18:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, Important leadership election, new gen of leaders for the dem party. I agree that it needs a lot of work though.
Rushtheeditor (
talk) 02:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Pelosi and much of the democratic leadership for the past 20 years standing down is important for the party. The election of a new generation of leaders will also be important, plus with all the drama surrounding the speakership election this seems like it leans keep.
Estar8806 (
talk) 15:46, 8 January 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.
Judging by the name this article has been created under, it suggests it's been created by someone from either Plaid Cymru or the Wales Green Party. The Common Ground Alliance was created to field joint candidates in a 2022 local election. I looked myself at the time, to try and find something more than the one Wales Online news article, whether the alliance was notable enough for its own article and decided it wasn't. There's a redirect (
Common Ground Alliance) which points to the paragraph in the
2022 Cardiff Council election article. My opinion is that the alliance isn't notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, hence this AfD nomination.
Sionk (
talk) 17:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I created the article so that ward results on other pages could successfully reference the alliance. As it stood all other parties had links to their party pages, while Common Ground candidates could not.
MeurigRogers (
talk) 17:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I've added a citation to the BBC report of the initial announcement. It is worth noting that the alliance is ongoing, and both councillors sit as Common Ground councillors.
MeurigRogers (
talk) 17:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
There are 2 Common Ground councillors - which is not noted in the Common Ground Alliance paragraph. There are ongoing joint meetings of the parties under the alliance. Given that, I think it deservers more than a throwaway paragraph.
MeurigRogers (
talk) 19:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your participation. Maybe there will be some wider participation and I'll find I'm completely wrong.
Sionk (
talk) 19:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Cardiff Council elections. This is an otherwise-insignificant electoral alliance at the local council level which has only contested the most recent elections. It does not merit an article in its own right. Crucially, you can keep the political party functioning in Wikipedia as it should (the premise cited by @
MeurigRogers above) without the alliance needing its own article. Instead, the alliance would be more appropriate as a subsection in
Cardiff Council elections. For a template, I recommend checking the entry for
Merton Park Ward Residents Association in
Merton local elections, which I created years ago. The MPWRA is a local residents association that contests elections in one ward in the council, and it has fully-functioning links as a political party (see, e.g. the infobox at
2022 Merton London Borough Council election). _MB190417_ (
talk) 20:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Actually, I think the current inclusion in
2022 Cardiff Council election (the one you get via the redirect at
Common Ground Alliance) is sufficient given there is not currently good reason to think that the alliance will contest the next set of elections, and all the apparatus needed for a political party can be set up at the 2022 election page as it is in the MPWRA example above. _MB190417_ (
talk) 20:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
In contrast to the Merton Park Ward Residents Association, the Common Ground Alliance contested all wards. There is a larger significance given the Welsh Green Party's change to support Welsh independence, and the potential for the alliance to be rolled out nationally at a later date.
I regard it as significant as it was the first time an alliance of independence supporting parties beat one of the main UK based parties in a Cardiff election - a city which has historically been wholeheartedly unionist. If it proves to be the only time that happens it is still of significance in highlighting the peculiarities of the time.
MeurigRogers (
talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
All notable information that can be added to the main parties' respective entries, supplemented with reliable, secondary sources to prove that it is as significant as you say. But
WP:ORGDEPTH, which I believe covers political parties, specifically labels 'coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies' as trivial coverage. The event really isn't notable enough beyond the level of the local council at this one election, so a redirect is right per @
DankJae. _MB190417_ (
talk) 23:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
2022 Cardiff Council election (in line with the other redirect and they have only contested 2022), unlikely to meet
WP:GNG, and seems too early to consider whether it will contest the next local election, if that should be the case a redirect and section to
Cardiff Council elections or
Politics in Cardiff can then apply at that time. The recently established localised party of currently only two councillors is unlikely to justify an article nor significant coverage, particularly at this stage, nor does this article provide any necessary context that cannot be explained at 2022 Cardiff Council election in its current form. Formatting can be done to address concerns on result articles as mentioned above. DankJae 20:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Just to note that a person with the same name as the AfD contributor and article creator
stood for election for the alliance. The conflict of interest hasn't been declared here. _MB190417_ (
talk) 23:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for letting me know about the COI requirement Dank - how should I go about it? Is there a standard format?
MeurigRogers (
talk) 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
MeurigRogers, notifed you on your
talk page, links there should help answer any queries. Thanks DankJae 17:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks Dank - having read the CoI guidelines I agree that this page should be deleted. Can I do that myself?
MeurigRogers (
talk) 17:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Follow
WP:AFDFORMAT for this discussion, simply add a bold comment stating either Keep, Delete, *Merge or Redirect etc. to state your opinion in this discussion and state your COI. Thanks for your efforts, and we welcome any other contributions that you may have on non-COI articles (electoral wards are fine) or requested edits on ones that you do, as long as following COI guidelines. Thanks DankJae 17:48, 6 January 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.
Famous for being a footballer’s girlfriend. She cannot have an article until she is independently notable. The subject clearly fails the notability criteria.
Thesixserra (
talk) 17:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete A7. You beat me right to it. I was moments away from nominating it myself. Redirect to
Cristiano Ronaldo#Personal life as it was before if no other options.
Trillfendi (
talk) 17:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep I wish editors would understand the subject's notability is not as a "footballer's girlfriend", or in even more demeaning terms as some edit summaries have described. This article needs to be considered in terms of a highly popular social media personality, whose subject is notable enough to have an entire Netflix documentary about them (I Am Georgina), and over 40 million Instagram followers. Many other internet celebrities are notable enough for articles despite having much fewer followers than Rodriguez, much less coverage than her, though are clearly more likely to be male, whereas Rodriguez is female. The article needs work, but there are at least ten other Wikipedia projects having articles about this subject, including Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Persian, Portuguese and Spanish. Given the subject's independent notability, it would be strange if this was redirected to the subject's husband.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 19:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I have added a reference from El Mundo, a high-quality newspaper source from Spain. The most rigorous sources are in Spanish, and the bulk of high quality sources for this subject will be in Spanish and Portuguese, as the subject's popularity is greatest across the Latin-speaking world. It would be especially helpful if a fluent speaker of Spanish could add references and help to build the article. Rodriguez may be seen as equivalent in notability to
Kim Kardashian, who also has an overwhelming social media and celebrity presence in their own right, despite connection with their male romantic partners.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 19:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I’m semi-fluent in Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. In one of the sources in Spanish where she is actually interviewed she said she only wants to talk about cuidados físicos y de belleza (physical care and beauty) and rejected any questions her personal life with Ronaldo or family besides where she was born and raised and her previous jobs. That source itself ([xlsemanal.com/estilo/gente/20180327/georgina-rodriguez-cristiano-ronaldo.html XL Semanal]) wasn’t of high quality. Other sources lean into tabloid-ism and give the same Cinderella story of how she met her partner but the idea that she is equivalent in notability to Kim Kardashian is mendacious. Kim Kardashian is on the list of TIME’s Top 100 Most Influential People. She is the standard bearer of the construct of modern beauty and fame. Even if she never met Kanye West she would still be famous by herself because she’s been on her own TV show since 2007. And now the current show broke records for Hulu.
Trillfendi (
talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
If we are to read anything from that interview, it should be that her notability does not rely on her spouse. It may be more appropriate to say she is analogous rather than equivalent to Kim Kardashian, for the Spanish-speaking world. As you mention that Kardashian has a TV show of her own, so does Rodriguez herself.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 08:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Forget Kardashian... Geirdina Rodriguez should never be mentioned in the same sentence what Kardashian even in terms of "(read false) anology". Karsahian already beame very promient figure before Cristiano Ronaldo started his career, not to mention, Critiano was also her parthner in 2010 but noboday talk about it given how big and notable is Kardashian lol. If ever then Georgina Rodriguez is infinietly less notable than
Darya Dugina which does not have article on Russia Wikipedia but is redirect to his father. She is anology to her beause of Georina is gfamous because of her parther, and Darhya because of her father. Regardless WP:recentism and regardless Pageviews means nothing; if we are going by that logic then if we exclude English, Spanish, Poortuguese and Arabic Wikipedia (Georgina is Spanish, Cristiano is from Portugal and now plays in Saudi Arabia) Georgina last two weeks gets she has only 131 949 pageviews meanwhile Darya Dugina during "peak media coverage had 1 122 268 pagevies but does not have article on home/Russian wiki as I said before. People who defend by WP:Otherstuffexist do not ralise that other people nominated for edeletion mostly are muh older than 1994 year birth and are not nominated during peak of media cverage. El Mundo and El Pais are not also reliable source, certainly not enough to get significant coverage. By all that mean, per WP:Not !Voting and WP:Consensus I am pretty sure discussion shows that article should be delted per WP:common sense most people who !vote for keep said nothing other than weak soiurces and WP:I like it.
Dawid2009 (
talk) 21:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
DarkSide830,
Oleg Yunakov,
Tambor de Tocino,
Zaathras,
Wikisaurus, and
Alsoriano97:} Sorry for spam ping but I noted you all six were supporting Daruya Dugnova as merge into article about her deah (or eventually father), do you have any eventual comment about people who !vote for keeping Georgina Rodriguez due to "just being famous thank to
wp:recentism"? If article about Georgina Rodriguez was delted then mabe could be bit more chance to article about
Darya Dugina was merge - just saying. @
Spartaz,
Wm335td,
Gene93k,
Johnpacklambert,
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,
Novemberjazz, and
BananaFiend: I noted you seven were !voting to support removing
Alexis Texas despite fact she is atually mentioned in print books and independly far more popular than eorgina Rodriguez (however not sure how it was during time of nomination), out of curiosity what do you think about that nomination? WP:otherstuffexist could work or not? I only ping more people to reeach wieder consensus and to closer of discussion make longer rationale (not speedy keep a ka other language versions are).
Dawid2009 (
talk) 22:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping. I will say, as is, this article should be merged, but I think there's merit for a standalone article upon expansion. Personally, I think the true "notability" of someone like Rodríguez (who, even besides her relationship to Ronaldo, is mostly for being an influencer) really isn't Wikipedia-worthy, but then again we have plenty of such individuals with pages and presumably several less notable than Rodríguez. This and the amount of material present in her pages on some of the other Wikis leads me to feel more neutral to her being noteworthy of having a page. Going back to my original point, I can't see how this article is acceptable for the mainspace in it's state. As is it does nothing to show Rodríguez's notability. Reeks of just another article shoved into the mainspace half-baked.
DarkSide830 (
talk) 03:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
As I wish people would use just a tidbit of common sense here. There are two sentences in this article that which you are asking for the speedy keep of… one sentence is that she is an Argentine-Spanish model and influencer and the other is that she is the life partner of Cristiano Ronaldo, obviously a famous footballer. That’s it. There is nothing inherently notable about these two sentences to have a Wikipedia article about. Having 44 million Instagram followers does not create notability for a Wikipedia article per any Wikipedia standards on notability.
Other languages of Wikipedia have their own standards for inclusion that have no bearing on English Wikipedia.
Trillfendi (
talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Notability for an article should be assessed among reliable sources, not the article itself, although interestingly the article itself already has over 40,000 views in less than a week. I thought that other language Wikipedia projects having their own inclusion standards would come up here, but this is actually an indication to support inclusion, as generally their inclusion standards are higher than that of English Wikipedia, and that we have their content and references to draw from. Along with being among the most followed people on Instagram, these do not necessarily mean the subject has met notability criteria automatically, it requires some investigation, but these should indicate to editors that it is worth assessing the subject's notability, and not simply dismissing the subject as the female spouse of another prominent person. However, I do agree that the article should give a better indication of the subject's notability, which is currently lacking from the article, which is a very new stub article.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 20:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
We also have to remember that social media numbers can be boosted by bots; until some of the sites can guarantee they've gotten rid of bots, we can't use likes/followers/stream numbers as any sort of proof of "notability". You can pay people that guarantee to boost your followers/stream numbers/likes, making these numbers unverifiable and untrustworthy, so we can't use them for notability standards here.
Oaktree b (
talk) 02:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think we should use social media statistics as evidence of notability, they can be an indicator for us to investigate notability further. Bots are less relevant at over 40 million followers, and bots are unlikely to be involved in this article now having 60,000 views since being created less than a week ago, about 6,000 times more than the amount of views most deleted articles get. Not necessarily evidence of notability itself, but an indication for us to look further.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 08:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete We don't even have her hometown, life history or how she came to meet her partner. Usually that would stretch this towards a keep, but as-is we're asking for an infobox and an Instagram account to count for
WP:N, when the article lacks anything else. As usual, I am inclined to change my rationale if the article fills up further. Nate•(
chatter) 21:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
MrSchimpf: The subject's place of birth has been added to the article. I can add biographical background to the article unless somebody else does.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 08:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment It does, and plenty of sources. I'm convinced to keep now. Nate•(
chatter) 01:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Plenty of coverage about the couple, but they had a still-born infant recently, so I don't think that meets GNG for her alone. I tried French sources, but it's all celebrity fluff but lots of coverage about the death of their son. Sad as it is, that alone is not enough for GNG, models aren't automatically notable.
Oaktree b (
talk) 02:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
There are certainly many celebrity-related magazine articles about the subject, but there are also news articles from more substantive sources. I will find the sources that are more suitable for Wikipedia and add them to the article.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 08:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 21:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per El Pais and El Mundo pieces located and linked below.
GiantSnowman 16:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
es:Georgina Rodríguez and
pt:Georgina Rodríguez, There seems to be plenty on the Spanish and Portuguese wikipedia's, although thin on what I call good content, there is enough there to tell me GNG shouldn't be an issue. @
Trillfendi,
MrSchimpf,
Oaktree b, and
GiantSnowman:, did you peeps not consider whats on the other language wiki's?
Govvy (
talk) 09:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, it's all fluff.
Oaktree b (
talk) 12:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Quoting myself above; 'I am inclined to change my rationale if the article fills up further.' I apologize if I my knowledge of Spanish and Portuguese is rudimentary, but I wouldn't know where to start to search for es/pt sources. Please don't get mad at me, or others who speak primarily English, because we don't hold that knowledge. I good-faith believe the nom did BEFORE in English to an acceptable degree and shouldn't be attacked for not considering es/pt sources. Nate•(
chatter) 23:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment@
MrSchimpf: I often check other language wiki's to see whats there when articles come up for AfD. There is nothing wrong with not checking them (so don't beat yourself up over it), but that option is there to discover on the navigation tree. Also I don't know what browser you're using, but a good few have the option to translate a page. Regards.
Govvy (
talk) 00:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I stated above that I am at this point in time semi-fluent in Spanish (I’ve made multiple Wikipedia articles in Spanish from the top of my head including the Spanish article for Silk Sonic) and Brazilian Portuguese so yes, I read the tabloid fodder on the other articles and would like to believe English Wikipedia has higher standards than “she is the partner of Cristiano Ronaldo”. Outside of her relationship with a super famous man she has done nothing independently notable to make an article about. Irina Shayk has. Just mi opinión.
Trillfendi (
talk) 05:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The notability certainly isn't on the basis of being the spouse of someone notable. It is largely about her social media presence, which is quite significant. Other stuff aside, we rightfully have articles about people many times less influential.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 07:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The subject meets
WP:GNG, regardless of the state of the current article, as the subject regularly receive[s] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The trouble for English Wikipedia is that there is extensive coverage of the subject in low-quality sources in English. There are some high quality sources on the subject in English, but these can be obscured by a search engine with the lower quality ones, while the quality of sources is relatively higher in the Spanish language. The two largest Spanish newspapers,
El Pais and
El Mundo, regularly report on the subject as an independently notable person
[6][7][8][9][10].
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 11:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
To the current article,
WP:ARTN states even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 12:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep the sources on the Spanish and Portuguese articles (
es:Georgina Rodríguez and
pt:Georgina Rodríguez) are sufficient to pass
WP:GNG. Article could easily be expanded by a fluent speaker of one of those languages.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, ton of notable coverage online and in other Wikis, BEFORE wasn't done properly.--
Ortizesp (
talk) 17:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep The article seems notable, she is a influencer and model before Ronaldo even met her.
[11] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Taylorlee44 (
talk •
contribs) 02:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Actually she was an au pair and then Gucci shop assistant before Ronaldo met her. The influencer role didn’t come until their relationship started.
Trillfendi (
talk) 05:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
But she is a influencer now that really even make her notable.
Keep. While indeed she may not have been notable prior to meeting Ronaldo, we're evaluating based upon her current notability. And, the sources on the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedia articles are more than sufficient to show that she meets
WP:NBASIC in her own right; her coverage includes Spain's largest general-interest newspapers
El Mundo and
El País. I am surprised that these did not come up
before nominating this for deletion. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 15:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment The article now has over 120,000 views from the last week-and-a-half of its existence. Is this a record for an article nominated for deletion?
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 22:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Anecdotal evidence but usually when a new article is linked to an article that gets millions of views per month
like this guy the views skyrocket like that.
Trillfendi (
talk) 04:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Still many more views than most articles linked to that one.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 06:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Closer of discussion should take into account that Cristiano had better hits than article on United States recently due to his transfer, and should take into account Georgina even is not most promient "parthner of sportpwrson" due to recentism. We ate going to keep Georgina but delte article about Pele's death because of wikipedia is not print? What willl be next? Delting article on funreal of pope but creating another articles about sportpeople' wifes?
Dawid2009 (
talk) 19:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy merge to Cristiano Ronaldo. Redundand. We are not print encyxlopedia but if article on Pele's death and funreal is going to be merge due to overlap, then Georgina Rodriguez must go as far as possible to Cristiano's article as well. It would be far too big disgrace for Wikipedia if we keep article with no wp:anybiibut but mergre article with encyclopedical, heritage and history value.
Dawid2009 (
talk) 18:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Maybe the death and funeral of Pele should be its own article, then... — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 20:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Tell that to that discussion
here then (I hope closer of that discussion will takre that othestuff exist into account as well if defenders arguments via other wikipedias have it).
Dawid2009 (
talk) 22:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about how "other stuff" existing (or not existing) does not mean that an article being discussed, such as this one, should also exist or not. This article isn't about a footballer's spouse, it's about an influential social media personality.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 09:17, 11 January 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.
First, a confession - it was me as a novice AfC reviewer that accepted this from a draft. I am now revisiting that review after another editor tagged the article for notability. My reassessment is that the sources are all either interviews or articles that Pavlov has written about his adventures. There is a lack of
WP:SECONDARY coverage. The author is a
single-purpose account that has not edited again since, and their name implies an auto-biography. This appears to be self-promotion - explorers need publicity to fund their lifestyle.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk) 16:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I lean towards delete, but it would be good to have someone who can effectively search in Bulgarian check it. His assent of Manlasu is at least verifiable
[12][13] (to the extent high altitude mountaineering feats are verifiable at all.)
Jahaza (
talk) 18:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I was the editor who first raised the notability and UPE concerns. I have been going through the WikiProject Climbing BLPs. 30 years ago, climbing an
eight-thousander made you notable with coverage in the main climbing media (Climbing, Rock & Ice, Alpinist, AAJ etc.). Now, you need to
climb all 14 to get enough GNG for notability (and it is still not guaranteed). Tourist-climbers can ascent Everest, Cho Oyu and Manaslu for circa $20,000 with minimal mountaineering experience. This BLP appears in none of the main climbing media; being in the climbing media does not guarantee notability, but not being in any of it, and trying to have a platform for notability on WP based on climbing is a problem.
78.18.228.191 (
talk) 13:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Marianne Schwankhart is another classic example of a
SA Times journalist/photographer (her name appears as a credit in Times articles), with a WP BLP for climbing notability, and yet she has never appeared in any of the climbing media (because, from a climbing perspective, she is not notable); but references to low-grade climbing/outdoor blogs have been used to try a "sustain" a notability on WP.
78.18.228.191 (
talk) 13:57, 7 January 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.
No indication of notability. Nowadays articles need a good number of secondary sources to pass AfC; this has an FOI request, an Edinburgh Trams pdf and a couple of doc's from the Scottish Parliament, which is just not enough to support the amount of information on the page. Already been PRODded at least once afaik.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk) 16:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, highly likely to have been covered in the press at the time. It’s unfortunate that most newspapers don’t keep archives online and so the coverage has likely now been lost.
Garuda3 (
talk) 17:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
So, how do we go about sourcing local news sources which have no archives? And are there actually any?
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk) 17:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Cumbernauld Line. There's no need for a separate article about a railway station that never ended up existing.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 17:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Agree with merge as above. The discussion is largely historic at this point and it never got built. Could be a few lines in the article about the line. No stand-alone notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - as suggested above. The proposal to build a station is a notable part of the history of the
Cumbernauld Line, but it does not need its own article.
Dunarc (
talk) 23:50, 5 January 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:NCORP, article currently doesn't have enough sources for notability, and I couldn't anything of use online.
TheManInTheBlackHat(Talk) 16:32, 4 January 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an effective super fork of the
1975 Australian constitutional crisis, and it should either be merged BACK into the original article (Merging would do), but as a standalone page it does not warrent being its own article. It is important, but it runs the risk of becoming a page full of Original research. Thank you everyone for your readthrough, and have a great (EST) morning and a happy new 2023.
Ask me about air Cryogenic air (
talk) 15:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The
1975 Australian constitutional crisis article currently contains 47 kB of readable text. Merging the "Alleged CIA involvement" article would increase the article size to around 52kB, at which point policy says the article "May need to be divided". The article is based on sources from the Guardian, NYT, AFR, ABC ..., which justify a stand-alone article. Not sure why original research is more of an issue for this article than for any other article.
Burrobert (
talk) 15:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. This article is a work in progress but it is well-sourced. I can see no OR. This article was split from the 1975 crisis article after there was a consensus to remove it. Merging it back would probably be resisted.--
Jack Upland (
talk) 01:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Pages aren't deleted because of the possibility that they might have issues in the future.
BuySomeApples (
talk) 06:25, 6 January 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Noting that the article has already been moved to
The Pearl Island; if there's a desire to discussing the naming further, feel free to start an
RM discussion.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 18:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
unreferenced, promotional content —
The Anome (
talk) 13:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Before that major edit, at
this revision, I don't see much, if any, promotional content, and has many citations. I'll restore that revision. ~
Eejit43 (
talk) 13:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep seems to be a notable enough land form (island) or neighborhood of
Doha. Think the article should be viewed in a similar context to similar (man-made island) neighborhoods of
Dubai, such as:
Deira Islands,
Palm Jebel Ali and
Palm Jumeirah.
Epluribusunumyall (
talk) 06:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The name of the Island has changed from "The Pearl Qatar" to "The Pearl Island". Please refer the following articles published in news portals in support of this discussion, I request you to kindly go through it and update the title of the page to "The Pearl Island" instead of "The Pearl Qatar"
Here is the list of few news articles mentioning the correct/updated name. Please go through it for the validation... Thank you so much
Keep As Epluribusunumyall has said, it is as notable as other man-made islands, notably in Dubai. The tone of the article has at times been heavily promotional, but the current version, reinstated by Eejit43 is more neutral. The title does need to be changed, but I initially baulked at the suggestion that it be "The Pearl Island, Qatar" (wouldn't "Pearl Island, Qatar" suffice?). The use of the definite article, a capitalised 'The', should usually be avoided (see
WP:THE), but there are clearly multiple sources which call it 'The Pearl Island' (a branding style apparently created and maintained by the island's developer, UDC), so I guess it could be regarded as similar to a company name like
The Coca-Cola Company and other examples given in the article naming guidance.
Paul W (
talk) 09:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
comment - The Facebook references should be removed and replaced by reliable sources.
Paul W (
talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I've already shared the list of reliable sources for the name change (whhich is now "The Pearl Island"). please check the news articles one by one to confirm the name change.
Shamailaijaz (
talk) 10:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep and move to current name per references listed above //
Timothy ::
talk 15:28, 11 January 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. Sandstein 13:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not a notable list subject. The flags have nothing in common (the countries do of course), the "official" union flags have no notability nor any evidence that they are official.
Fram (
talk) 12:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak conditional keep: I would have said 'Delete' were it not for the inclusion of pan-Celtic flags, which makes me think that the entry, with a lot of work (especially more context on the flags, which do not appear on the main entries, also to illustrate their significance, if they have any) and possibly a renaming, could be repurposed to something more alike the
Nordic cross flag entry._MB190417_ (
talk) 12:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Additional comment: Just in light of subsequent discussion to say that in my view, the only redeeming feature of the entry is the pan-Celtic flags (i.e. flags representing all Celtic nations; if and only if such flags can be proved to be notable). A Flags of Celtic Nations entry without these flags would be no more than a list of Celtic nations/regions and I'd be surprised if it survived an AfD. _MB190417_ (
talk) 14:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
MB190417, If it were to be like
Nordic cross flag it would technically be about "
triskelion flags", as that is the element shared by all three pan-Celtic flags but not in most of the Celtic nations ones (though IOM has a legged version). But an article on three proposed unofficial flags (I find no evidence of official use) that happen to use the same icon, probably does not meet notability guidelines. And could easily be in other articles, including
triskelion or
pan-Celticism.
IOM and
Sicily are already at
triskelion, not sure whether than pan-Celtic ones should be though as they're unofficial (from my searches). DankJae 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks, @
DankJae; I've struck through my original comment and now suggest Merge with
Pan-Celticism per your contributions. _MB190417_ (
talk) 20:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep needs some references adding to it but seems notable and probably needs the flags of other recognised Celtic areas added to the page. Would probably rename to Flags of Celtic Nations.--
MartyTheArty (
talk) 13:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
How do you determine that "it seems to be notable" without sources?
Fram (
talk) 13:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - this OR and Synthesis to me. What is the definition of a "Celtic Flag"? Appears to be a list of flags of so-called Celtic regions and nations.
Spleodrach (
talk) 13:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have added some reference and commentary to address this issue. I will refine this and add more later. --
MartyTheArty (
talk) 15:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
None of the sources seem to address this though (some show or list the individual flags), nor do they address the pan-celtic flags at first sight. Can you indicate which of your sources actually discuss "celtic flags"? Something like
this doesn't even mention the word flag (nor does it show one), and neither does
this one, so their value for this article (never mind to determine notability) seems very limited at best.
Fram (
talk) 15:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article is, in effect, a list. Ostensibly a list of flags of Celtic nations. Unless
WP:NLIST can be demonstrated, to the extent that all of the list members are discussed "as a group or set by independent reliable sources", I don't see how I could recommend anything other than deletion. Any
alternatives to deletion (like redirecting and covering in the
Celtic nations article) might apply to other titles (like the proposed "
Flags of Celtic Nations"). But not the current
Celtic flags title. As there is no indication that this term has any established meaning. (Certainly all of the refs in the article deal with the concept of the
Celtic nations. Not the concept of "Celtic flags").
Guliolopez (
talk) 16:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, per above. Rarely any lists nor articles on cultural flags or flags of a broad cultural category, flags already largely present at
Celtic Nations,
Pan-Celticism and
Flags of Europe. Not sure what the article means by official in the Pan-celtic section, a image search using the flags and the source description do not indicate any official use by any organisation. Therefore not notable enough to categorise by cultural grouping and quite a bit
WP:SYNTH. DankJae 20:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: as per another editor above, delete due to unclear title as well as "
Flags of Celtic Nations" (since created), while content could be split and merged into multiple articles there is no clear destination for "
Celtic flags" and "
Flags of Celtic Nations" so better to delete both entirely. DankJae 22:18, 6 January 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.
✗plicit 13:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Doesn't have significant coverage. His claim to fame in having his
guitar broken in x Factor audition isn't really even about him, more about the judge.
Mvqr (
talk) 12:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - He flopped at a TV competition in an embarrassing way, and is now milking social media sympathy to try to become an influencer. Good luck with that, but none of this attracted any
reliable media notice and some social media clicks don't count for
notability here. Also note that there is a different person (a college professor) with the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 15:46, 6 January 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.
✗plicit 13:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Starred or appeared in about 30 films over 30 years; coverage in enough RS, and see fr.wiki for more content and Filmography. Her earlier films are pre-internet so sources less likely to be available online.
PamD 13:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Main actress in
Sarraounia (film), which won 1987's Étalon de Yennenga (Africa's most prestigious film prize) at FESPACO. Numerous roles in a number of other films, although the extent of these roles is a bit unclear. Many seem to be quite minor. As @PamD pointed out, older films (especially African ones) are less likely to have any substantial online coverage.
Mooonswimmer 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, seems to pass GNG.--
Ortizesp (
talk) 14:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Seems like a notable actor.
CT55555(
talk) 01:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep agree with Mooonswimmer and PamD; sourcing in the English and French versions is somewhat on the weak side, but enough to satisfy GNG. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 00:23, 11 January 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.
✗plicit 13:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
No evidence of notability. There is one article in Hype magazine, which is shortened without attribution in another source used
[14], and
the US journal which self-describes as "We bring you the best Premium WordPress Themes that perfect for news, magazine, personal blog, etc." and clearly isn't a reliable source. I haven't found any better sources online, and his feat isn't so remarkable that one could expect such sources to exist (there are dozens of people who surpass his achievement). Fails
WP:BIO.
Fram (
talk) 11:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note that sources like
this one from RTL, in itself a reliable source, doesn't mention Amiel at all, despite being used to source his 2019 effort.
Fram (
talk) 12:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I tried finding mentions of him in .fr websites; little comes up, some in relation to his father or another relative who appears to be a scholar.
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam supported by black hat SEO spam sources. The sources cited in the nomination are examples. I've blocked the author for this.
MER-C 09:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, removed two sources that are known SEO junk. The rest don't look any better. Sam Kuru(talk) 16:38, 7 January 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. Sandstein 13:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Vocalist. Refs include one very brief mention in a local paper and one press release. I couldn't find anything better, so fails
WP:GNG.
There is a chart claim sourced to the press release. The official IRMA chart archive doesn't go back to 2009, but I did find this:
[15]. Not sure if that's a good link, but it does show the song charting for one week. I couldn't find any coverage on this.
Blue Edits (
talk) 09:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete.
WP:NSINGER and
WP:SIGCOV are not met. In terms of the latter, a search on the main Irish newspapers (Irish Examiner, Irish Times, Irish Independent) returns nothing at all. Not even passing mentions. And a search in the Irish music press (Hot Press, RTÉ, etc) returns only passing mentions (like
this or
this). Which is nowhere near enough to meet SIGCOV. In terms of the chart claim, which might contribute to NSINGER, I note that I also cannot find any record of an entry in
the IRMA Irish singles charts database. I don't know where this title might be redirected (and so cannot propose any AtDs). Mine is a "delete" recommendation.
Guliolopez (
talk) 11:31, 5 January 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.
Musician (and minor actor) fundamentally fails
WP:SINGER. No significant coverage, no awards, no major film or festival appearance. The fact that there has been some failed COI editing over the past days that has been reverted by multiple editors shows that there really isn't a lot that can be added to this article.
10mmsocket (
talk) 08:59, 4 January 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.
Article about the use of the Sundanese language in Depok, with an infobox claiming that it is a separate language somehow. No evidence that it actually is a separate language, and no evidence that it is a
notable subject. There seems to have been some attention to the use of standard Sundanese in school (the section of "Sundanese as local content" seems to deal with this, although the "local content" link leads to a page which doesn't use the term), but none to Depok Sundanese as a language.
Fram (
talk) 08:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fram: Why do you suggest this article should be deleted? Meanwhile, the references I have provided are sufficient to prove the use and position of Sundanese in Depok. No need for actual deletion as I can still fix this article. Oh yes, I want to ask if the language infobox template is only for registered languages?
Blackman Jr. (
talk) 10:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The reasons for deletion are in the opening statement right above. And the language infobox should only be used for languages, yes, not for the use of a language in one specific city.
Fram (
talk) 11:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
To be more exact: The infobox can also be used for "unregistered" language varieties (= languages or dialects), but: the language variety should 1) be distinct and 2) have
WP:SIGCOV as a topic of its own. Now, Sundanese as spoken in Depok most likely is simply part of the Bogor dialect (
Bogor Sundanese is a redirect to the main language article), and the variety used in the curriculum certainly is "standard" textbook Sundanese based on Parahyangan dialect. None of the sources tells us that we're dealing with a distinct language variety here, but only with a minor issue about the usage of Sundanese in the curriculum of local schools. This issue doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Hence, the best option is to merge this content as suggested below. Unfortunately, the article
Sundanese language doesn't have a section about Sundanese language classes in local schools, so the target suggested below is a good temporary solution. –
Austronesier (
talk) 11:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Or perhaps we can have article on Muatan Lokal school subject itself collectively as an article as a start and include it there. (Kind of out of topic maybe but I just pointed that out)
Nyanardsan (
talk) 12:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge selectively to
Depok#Culture. It’s fine to have coverage of which languages are spoken in a particular city in the article about the city, but there isn’t enough here to support a stand alone article. It’s also badly written which makes it difficult to decipher what it is trying to say. The bottom line is some people in the city speak Sundanese. That’s maybe two sentences worth in a larger article.
Mccapra (
talk) 12:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per above. "Local conctent" is a school subject in Indonesia, which is usually used by many places in Indonesia teach their local languages as part of their school curriculum so this is nothing notable as literally everyone else is doing it.
Nyanardsan (
talk) 09:20, 5 January 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 fail
WP:GNG. Every reference is a dead link, but looking at archives, the two inline ones don't mention this organization at all, and the other two are the same newspaper. I can find no other sources.
ℰmi1y⧼
T·
C⧽ 08:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Wine and
Schools.
ℰmi1y⧼
T·
C⧽ 08:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, no additional coverage I could find online other than Wikipedia Mirrors.
TheManInTheBlackHat(Talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete for GNG, but the extreme generic nature of the title is also problematic.
66.232.69.166 (
talk) 09:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Blatant advertising effort without sources. Signed,Pichemist(
Contribs |
Talk ) 09:27, 5 January 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:SIGCOV and
WP:BASIC. Subject is only mentioned in passing in the sources which are primarily about other performers. Main claim to notability is the subject is cast in an upcoming season of Drag Race which has not yet aired. As such, the subject is currently only briefly mentioned in press releases for cast announcements. At the moment there is zero in-depth independent significant coverage of the subject. This is clearly a case of
WP:TOOSOON.
4meter4 (
talk) 07:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
If the consensus ends up being there isn’t yet enough sigcov / notability for a separate article, at the very least this should Merge to either
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 15) or
Miss Continental (which she won in 2012) instead of being outright deleted. (I reserve the right to change my !vote to keep once I go through sources, just wanted to make sure this was a discussion between merge and keep and not between delete and keep.)Umimmak (
talk) 15:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply [Edit: Keep per the sources
Another Believer found, also there's three pages entirely her about her in 100 of the Most Influential Gay EntertainersISBN978-0-9846195-5-9, also
this profile in the LA times which came out prior to the RPDR casting announcement
Umimmak (
talk) 16:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)]reply
@
UmimmakI would support a Redirect but not a merge as the sourcing is poor. On a side note, Umimmak, Naraht made their comment first and at AFD we keep the thread in chronological order. You really should not have placed this above Naraht's vote for AFD procedural process reasons as this does count as a vote to merge. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I just opened my [reply] box before they did; when I made my comment there were no other replies. I can move it now I see they hit submit before I did, if that makes you happy?
Umimmak (
talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think it's necessary at this point (as it isn't confusing the conversation), but please try to remember this when you participate in future AFDs. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
You're being a bit condescending... again it's not like I didn't know these were sorted chronologically, but the
WP:REPLYTOOL automatically inserts your comment based on when you open it and it doesn't notice new comments which have since come up.
Umimmak (
talk) 15:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Um, that is not an accurate assertion. You would have received an edit conflict message (
Wikipedia:EDITCONFLICT) in this event... in which case you would have been informed about a change to the article before saving. In such cases it is your responsibility to refresh the page and then start your edit over in order to not accidentally revert the edits of others. If you look back in the article history you also accidentally reverted one of my edits (see
here) to the article, so clearly you are having some technical issues which you need to work on figuring out. Lastly, I don't think asking editors politely to follow procedures is being condescending. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
You would have received an edit conflict message For the record, that's not true with
WP:REPLYTOOL: Automatic resolution of most edit conflicts: Ability to reply on an old version of a page, and have your comment posted in the correct place in the newest version (if the comment you're replying to still exists on the page)Umimmak (
talk) 16:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Interesting. I don't personally edit using the reply tool as I am old school and use an older editing version of the encyclopedia. Anyway, let's just assume good faith with one another please. There is no reason for us to have conflict with each other. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. IMO, whether or not to keep this article boils down to whether she is notable for winning
Miss Continental (everything else is either toosoon or not notable) which boils down to whether Miss Continental is a notable Pageant. Given the fact that the pageant is more than 40 years old *and* that there is a state level feeder system of Pageants to determine participate in the pageant (For ex.
Brooke Lynn Hytes who won Miss Michigan Continental to participate), I believe that it meets the criteria in
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants/Notability_(beauty_pageant_participants)#Pageant-specific_criteria. Also as a note, if this should succeed, the article should be changed to a redirect to
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 15) as the other participating queens are such as
Loosey LaDuca.
Naraht (
talk) 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
NarahtWikipedia:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants/Notability_(beauty_pageant_participants)#Pageant-specific_criteria is an essay without community support and is not a recognized guideline or policy recognized here at AFD. We need sources with independent significant coverage proving that the pageant win was significant. This means we need in-depth significant independent coverage of that pageant and Colby's win; not just passing mentions of the pageant win. If you can find that she would likely pass
WP:ANYBIO criteria 1. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sources like
this and
this are more than just passing mentions in press releases. Also, "main claim to notability" is winning Miss Continental, not being cast on Drag Race. IF editors decide a standalone article is not appropriate at this time, just redirect instead of deleting altogether because users will be searching for info about her. Let's be honest, if deleted or redirected, the article will just be recreated in a couple months anyway... ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 15:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Another Believer neither of these sources reach wikipedia's quality standards for referencing to prove
WP:SIGCOV. The first source is literally a copy paste of a twitter feed, and the second source is a tabloid type opinion piece article full of speculation which is trying to promote the upcoming season of Drag Race. Both of these fail
WP:TABLOID and
WP:PROMO. This is not demonstrating good critical judgement when evaluating sources.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree, not ideal sources, but coverage is more than "brief mentions in press releases" as you suggested. I'm not going to fight hard to keep this article, but deleting now is pointless because it'll just be recreated very soon. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 15:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I should have been more clear. I was referring to the quality sources having passing mentions; not the overly promotional tabloid sources (which are often paid for by World of Wonder or the TV network broadcasting the show) which we automatically dismiss as unreliable. These kinds of articles often lack independence in addition to having verifiability issues due to their use of gossip and opinion. Personally, I think its likely after the season is aired or perhaps during that we will see better coverage, which is why I cited
WP:TOOSOON. Draftifying is often done in cases like this. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
In the future, consider just adding a notability tag, expressing your concerns on the article's talk page, or redirecting before jumping to AfD. In addition to coverage received to date, the subject is going to get a lot of additional coverage in the coming weeks and months, but now editors will waste time at AfD. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 16:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Another Believer, that is not policy. We have
WP:TOOSOON and
WP:CRYSTAL for a reason. This should be redirected or moved to draft until the sources are there to not only pass GNG but also verify the content of the article. That is policy. The article should never have been placed in main space which is why it was brought here. The issue isn't me but the editor or editors who decided to create the article before the sources were there to support it. We are building an encyclopedia here, not a promotional platform for drag queens
4meter4 (
talk) 16:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, I've already said redirecting would have been more appropriate than jumping to AfD. Redirecting would have taken minimal time and effort, but now we're here. I agree Wikipedia is "not a promotional platform for drag queens", but I also recognize that the vast majority of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants have entries and the subject has actually done some notable things like winning
Miss Continental and appearing in multiple television series. I understand what you're saying, I just don't see this entry as problematic especially given the guaranteed press coverage on the horizon. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree which is why I support draftifying per
WP:TOOSOON. AT AFD we routinely draftify articles under these circumstances. Note to closer If this article is draftified, I would strongly advocate for the article to be required to go through
WP:AFC review and approval process before this is allowed to move back into mainspace given the overuse of unreliable sources like social media, YouTube, press releases, and tabloids in the current version of the article. Clearly some additional editorial input is needed before this can be put back into mainspace.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:42, 4 January 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 believe this audio series does not pass
WP:GNG. The only relevant sources I could find in my
WP:BEFORE search were non-
WP:RS fan sites and a couple of articles about
Richard Armitage being cast for the series, which is more coverage of the actor than it is of the series.
OliveYouBean (
talk) 07:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete (or redirect if there's a suitable target) - I found no evidence of the subject meeting GNG. There may be some coverage in sources like Doctor Who Magazine that I don't have access to. Please ping me if good sources are identified.
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk) 01:05, 5 January 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:N. This is basically the regurgitation of the original paper by Leus in the predatory American Journal of Modern Physics (
doi:
10.11648/j.ajmp.s.2015040201.15). Judging from the talk page, this seems to be the result of a classroom assignment. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 06:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge to
Twin paradox. Classroom projects should not be allowed to create new articles, rarely are they really stand-alone notable topics.
Reywas92Talk 14:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge but delete to
Twin paradox This is full of original research and copied information. Should not be a standalone article, as this becomes a N+ case of the general GR paradox
Merge as suggested, seems like a fine idea. I have no idea about the concept itself.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
There is nothing to merge. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as relying on a primary source and original research (which uses the secondary sources but is not contained in them) to show that the interpretation in the primary source is wrong. This is useful for a classroom but not for an encyclopedia. The purpose of Leus's paper, and follow-ons by others equally dubious, is to show there are problems with special relativity. There is no need to merge such stuff anywhere else. A good discussion of the "triplet paradox" is
here and could be used as a source for a mention in the twin paradox article, but nothing in this article is of use.
StarryGrandma (
talk) 23:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as there is nothing worth merging and the title has not been established to be a likely search term.
XOR'easter (
talk) 01:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete classroom project based on a crackpot paper. Nothing worth merging.
Tercer (
talk) 10:42, 8 January 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.
Here we have the inverse problem of
Sacate, Arizona. First, I must boldly say that a CDP isn't notable simply by existing; it has to correspond to some actual settlement, and this one plainly does not. I do not have an actual map of the CDP, but the coordinates given correspond to exactly nothing, just a more or less blank area that has some slight population. And indeed, the GNIS entry comes directly from the census; the topos show nothing.
Contrary wise, there are enough text references to such a place that I have to think there was at some time a Sacate or Secate Village— but not here.
Mangoe (
talk) 05:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Comment: Discussion
here of an archeological site. Not deep enough into this yet to be sure it is at the same location exactly, but it seems to be in the right region. Several mentions
here also, although it seems "sacate" means "dry grass" so not all of the hits are relevant. Some are though. It appears on a map in that book, which may be helpful in determining if this is the same place. Still not sure if there's enough for a separate article. Mentioned
here also
Elinruby (
talk) 07:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC) ASU dissertation
here. Mention in passing as a train stop
here.reply
A citation: Structure, Historic Piman Site. "the Evolution of the Sacate Site (GR-909), Gila River Indian Community." Symposium entitled “Visible Archaeology on the Gila River Indian Reservation,” 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver. Sacaton, AZ: Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community. 2002.
Delete, if it exists, keep it, but it does not seem to have source stating clear existence. Thus, delete. —Moops⋠
T⋡ 20:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, a CDP is very much notable simply by existing, and the Census Bureau is as clear a source as it gets. Alternatively, rename it primarily to whatever the locals call it as that often differs from the CDP, but it clearly exists.
DemocraticLuntz (
talk) 12:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep It is a populated place recognized as such by the Census Bureau. Clear GEOLAND pass.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 22:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Google Search turns up a lot of false positives so I haven't tried too hard to determine if this is or is not a populated place, but doesn't an archeological site with multiple journal articles make that discussion irrelevant, since it would be notable anyway?
Elinruby (
talk) 17:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep it's a subdivision of
Gila River Indian Community, a Pima-Maricopa Indian reservation. "District 5 is roughly 99 square miles and is known as Casa Blanca or by the O’otham people of the village as Vah ki which translate into English as “House that goes into the ground”. The District is comprised of six village areas: Sweet Water, Bapchule, South Casa Blanca, West Casa Blanca, Sacate and Wet Camp...District 5 was historically the center of the Pima villages and has long been and continues to be the center of the agricultural production of the Pima and Maricopa tribes. "
https://www.gilariver.org/index.php/districts/district-5-casa-blancajengod (
talk) 23:11, 4 January 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.
No significant coverage to meet
WP:BIO or
WP:JOURNALIST. Just because she is related to someone notable, doesn't make her notable.
LibStar (
talk) 06:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. My searches indicate she is not notable.
CT55555(
talk) 14:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I can't find any reliable sources either. She has
published a book but would not meet
WP:AUTHOR. Fails to meet any notability criteria.
Cabrils (
talk) 23:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Article has no noteworthy sources, notability not evident.
WWGB (
talk) 01:16, 7 January 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.
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 20:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Questions@
Doctor Duh: And what about the 108 games and 12 goals for
SV Dessau 05 per German
de:Benjamin Girke, what did you make of that? Although thin, could the article be improved at all? There are a few bits on the web, has your research been that extensive?
Govvy (
talk) 09:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Inclusion for footballers on Wikipedia is coverage based, not participation based. So it doesn't matter how many games he has played, if there is no significant coverage on him then he doesn't pass the inclusion guidelines for having an article on Wikipedia.
Alvaldi (
talk) 09:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
SV Dessau 05 is a consistent member of the Verbandsliga Sachsen Anhalt, which is tier 6. You do the math.
Dr. Duh🩺 (
talk) 09:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The maths indicate there might be some content available! I only asked a question as considering you speak German you might be able to find other stuff. So I felt it was a legitimate question to ask. As is it, I guess it's a delete.
Govvy (
talk) 09:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - best source I can find is
AZ Online which is a photo caption followed by a trivial mention.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:42, 10 January 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.
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 20:25, 4 January 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.
Here we come upon a pair of problem places which I believe are in some sense the same place, the other being
Sacate Village, Arizona. I was inclined at first to treat them in a single nomination, but the articles themselves present different issues and I wanted to avoid a do-over.
The problem in this case is that we have an entry from what appears to be an NIST gazetteer which I cannot correlate with the maps. The topos go back to 1915 in this case, and there is no sign of a rail line anywhere near; in fact, there isn't a sign of anything near. The name just appears on the maps in 2014, and that's that. The thing is, there seems to be testimony to suggest that there was some settlement or some area called "Sacate" or "Sacate Village"; the Old Cowboy Cemetery is labelled "Sacate Cemetery" on GMaps, and there are the ruins of a St. Francis Borgia Church said to have been at Sacate Village, but I cannot determine where this is/was. Obviously if someone can sort this out and establish a coherent story about a definite settlement, we could have an article, but at this point I just don't see it.
Mangoe (
talk) 05:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The article says this place is also called Sacaton, which makes me wonder if this is just an erroneous duplicate of the actually prominent
Sacaton, Arizona.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I wodered that too, but as mentioned above at the entry for "Secate Village",
[16] this mentions it as a train stop four miles away. I think.
Elinruby (
talk) 08:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, unlike Sacate Village, I vote "Keep" for this one, per the comment above. —Moops⋠
T⋡ 20:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see other editor review the recent sources that have come to light in this deletion discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I have done a substantial expansion. It's notable in several ways -- Indian village on what is now Gila River reservation, train station, church mission with murals by Native artist, still apparently a population center on the reservation, and there was a shootout there with someone called "Maricopa Slim" around 1910. Plus per OP's belief they're the same place yes kinda - Sacaton Indian agency + "Zácate, more frequently sácate, from the Nahuatl çacatl, is the usual name for grass such as horses and cattle eat, also called indifferently by Garcés pastos and pasturas, pasturage, forage, herbage. Such 'grass' is distinguished from sácaton, the tall rank herbage, such as reeds, rushes, and the like, unfit for forage."[4] A place called Sacate was the site of a battle or series of battles between Yuma and Maricopa Indians in 1857–58... ANYWAY I'm 90 percent sure that
Sacaton (village) is the same as Sacate, Arizona but Sacate is distinct from
Sacaton, Arizona, which is still the site of the Pima Indian Agency - I suspect
Socatoon Station (a stagecoach stop) was very close by or at Sacate but I'm not an archeologist. I think
Sacate Village, Arizona is a legal subdivision of the reservation and should be left alone until someone who knows the area and has relevant sources can address but whatever.
jengod (
talk) 21:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The sources provided by Onel show that this locale has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources and thus passes
WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 15:17, 9 January 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 plane crash itself doesn't meet
WP:GNG, and much less when
WP:LASTING is considered as all coverage is in the immediate aftermath of the accident.
WP:BLAR by
Onel5969 was contested by
Air Astana 1388, so I'm bringing this to AfD. Redirect to
Rainer Schaller, as he and his family were the owners of the plane and the victims of the accident. signed, Rosguilltalk 04:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect - as per nom. The accident is covered in the target.
Onel5969TT me 10:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect - Light civil aircraft crashes are usually non-notable. Unless this crash results in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, it likely won't be notable for the foreseeable future. -
ZLEAT\C 16:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The investigation of this event is still in its early stages and a preliminary report still hasn't been issued. Additional details will be forthcoming on the event when a preliminary report is issued, but so far there is nothing to suggest whether this is a run-of-the-mill "pilot fell asleep" accident or a "mid-air-explosion" accident. There has been enough worldwide coverage to satisfy
WP:GNG. The crash resulted in the death of a wikipedia-notable individual, which by community consensus means this isn't just-another-small-plane-crash merge/delete, and the
Rainer Schaller article is short and brief and would be overwhelmed by the details of this event which for now should be maintained as a separate article about the event, the investigation, and the aftermath/results of the same, so for that reason I oppose merging.
RecycledPixels (
talk) 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Looking at the source you just added (
[17], from the week of the crash), I think it's more accurate to say "there is nothing to suggest anything at all". Over 2 months out from the crash date, there's still no evidence that there was anything remarkable about the crash other than its victim. If and when additional coverage is available, an article can be considered. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Rainer Schaller per nom. This article seems to me to be a case of
WP:INHERITed, as opposed to inherent, notability. I would be in favor of adding some more pertinent details to the target, but I doubt a full merge is warranted here, hence my !vote. StonyBrookbabble 23:34, 4 January 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. What we need now is for the sources mentioned in this discussion to get into the article. LizRead!Talk! 03:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete or Merge into another article, this has been flagged for 9 years
Softlemonades (
talk) 16:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - per sources provided by Julle. Proving notability.
BabbaQ (
talk) 17:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. At first I was slightly irritated at this nomination, as I had already indicated in an edit summary that I was working on an expansion of the article (for which I already have enough sources). However I am now grateful for the AfD nomination making me aware of Julle and the sources he has provided, removing all doubt about notability. --
NSH001 (
talk) 18:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Id reconsider if the sources were posted on Talk so I could see them until the article was expanded. I thought you would after your comment before but mightve just assummed
Softlemonades (
talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified by Julle that shows a pass of
WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 00:55, 10 January 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 I also did a
WP:BEFORE search and could not locate any suitable sourcing.
Jfire (
talk) 03:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - None of the information given in the page was sourced from a reliable source. Couldn't find a reliable source to back up the page either.
Tempest7211 (
talk) 05:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I made the page. I can't find a reliable source. I got the info off the credits and from talking to Christy Marx on LinkedIn. It can be watched on YouTube and Vudu in terms of the credits--
Scottandrewhutchins (
talk) 07:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately that's original research, which can't be used for a wikipedia article. I also can't find any sourcing, Delete is my !vote.
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:31, 4 January 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 businessperson with a position at a probably non-notable organization and some kind of connection to a Pakistan government minister. Not substantially improved since article was draftified nor since proposed deletion (both by editors who are not this AfD nominator). Extremely weak sourcing with examples 1: Daily Times classic passing mention, "Ambassador Khan congratulated Arzish Azam, Founder & CEO of Ejad Labs for organizing 4th Pakistan Tech Summit 2022." 2: thenews.com.pk one-sentence "honorary advisor" announcement with author "PR". Other sources are even worse including the subject's employer, and irrelevant government documents (memorandum of understanding or MoU). If this person wants some promotion they should read
WP:NOTINHERITED for the minister and seek it in another place. ☆ Bri (
talk) 01:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 02:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources are primary and tech blogs. The 2 sources of being an advisor to a minister and meeting with an ambassador do not make him noteworthy.
M.Ashraf333 (
talk) 10:51, 4 January 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. Numerous reliable sources to establish notability.
Splunction (
talk) 16:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock.
MER-C 04:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Care to share with the rest of the class? 🤔
Bgsu98(Talk) 12:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 20:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per Splunction. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 21:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
The Amazing Race 20#Cast. I don't see enough coverage to justify an independent article. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 14:03, 6 January 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.
This is a
WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. The phrase "transitional fossil" has almost no weight in modern paleontology. Almost any fossil could be considered a transitional fossil between some group or another, as almost all fossils show a selection of both primitive and derived traits, as detailed in our
cladistics article. While some of this list is sourced some of these sources don't even use the phrase, "transitional fossil", and the vast majority is completely unsourced. The section
Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples in the main article is more than enough to list the most historically famous examples like ArchaeopteryxHemiauchenia (
talk) 00:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I would support a merge to
Transitional fossil#Prominent examples. I fail to see why this list can't be prose. The existing section is perfectly serviceable, making the list somewhat of a content fork, but could use expansion with examples from the list. Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs) 02:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - per above.
FunkMonk (
talk) 12:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per above reasoning. I disagree that the term has almost no weight in modern paleontology - it is rather that it is now generally relativized by specifying at what level, or even to what characteristic, it is considered to apply. However, that makes a list of all of these qualified cases far too large and unwieldy to maintain. As noted, the existing text sections do a fine job of discussing important examples. Expand that a little with high-profile/high-importance material from the current list and we should be good. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 14:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per above. Also what about
Category:Transitional fossils? Yeah all the fossils can be said as transitional fossils, in addition genera that normally aren't considered as famous transitional fossils such as Archimylacris and Minicrania have this category.
Ta-tea-two-te-to (
talk) 00:23, 10 January 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn - and while there is one delete !vote in the AfD it was the first participant who did not have the benefit of later keep rationales so I am going to be bold and close it as
WP:SNOW. (
non-admin closure)
Bruxton (
talk) 01:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Person of unclear notability. It seems he was the manager (owner?) of a dairy operation, but unsure this role confers notability.
Natg 19 (
talk) 00:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Just being a farmer isn't notable, not sure why he's earned a biographical listing in the encyclopedia thing, I don't find any other sourcing for him.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The criterion for notability isn't one's subjective opinion about what field or career someone was in, but whether there exists significant coverage in reliable sources. The
entry in Australian Dictionary of of Biography, together with the 15 sources it cites, demonstrates that significant coverage in reliable sources exists for this person.
Jfire (
talk) 01:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
To be fair, it shows up as one entry/reference here. I'm not aware of how many sources it references in the original encyclopedia.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Per the third criterion of
WP:ANYBIO. Pastoralists and farmers were influential settlers in the early days of Australia (and were often politicians) and make up a large number of early ADB entries. — VORTEX3427 (
Talk!) 03:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep as there are clear reliable sources as indicated above. --
Bduke (
talk) 06:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per Jfire, Vortex3427 and Bduke.
Deus et lex (
talk) 10:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG.
Splunction (
talk) 16:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock.
MER-C 04:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Leaning keep. I'm not a huge fan of ANYBIO #3 cases, but it is apparent that some other sources can be found, and I have added a few notes from contemporaneous editions of The Sydney Morning Herald.
BD2412T 01:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:HEY. I've now added several RS from newspapers-- Cole was clearly a notable personality in the development of the Australian dairy farming industry,
for example"famed through out the world as studmaster at Darbalara and breeder of the world's champion butter producing cow".
Cabrils (
talk) 23:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm willing to withdraw, but there have been 2 deletes, so I guess this needs to wait the full 7 days.
Natg 19 (
talk) 00:43, 7 January 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.
Lacks
WP:SIGCOV. Could not find any references mentioning it other than a company of the same name, which is a primary source.
Kstern (
talk) 17:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep There is this mention of the company (see the upper left corner of the page)
[1] and this near the upper right of the page
[2] and I found this, talking about the cheese market
[3].
Oaktree b (
talk) 22:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
my issue with that (in the same way as I said) are it seems like its named Cuba cheese after the place in Upstate NY, and not Cuba in terms of a unique cultural item. That is why I am voting delete, there is no coverage that I can even draw besides "there happens to be cheese factories here". I mean even basic
American Cheese or
Colby-Jack have huge information that you can casually find.
Ask me about air Cryogenic air (
talk) 23:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Could possibly merge to Cuba, New York, it seems important enough to be mentioned somehow.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Cuba, New York: There is a little bit of content on the Cuba, NY page about cheese production in Cuba. Merge content to explain what the term means. I'm fine with a redirect as well if closer or other participants find the content on the page isn't worth merging.
TartarTorte 18:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm fine with moving the image over, but the (single sentence of) content ought to be
verifiable before merging. Same goes for a redirect. The content in
Cuba, New York#Cheese is already
unsourced. We shouldn't make it worse. I can find no evidence of a product called "Cuba cheese".
Kstern (
talk) 19:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I've added citations to the
Cuba, New York#Cheese section. I'm fine redirecting instead of merging if it's determined nothing, other than the picture, is worthwhile having in the
Cuba, New York article.
TartarTorte 21:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I can't find anything that confirms this is a recognized variety/classification of cheese.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge or redirectBearian (
talk) 20:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge or redirect without prejudice. "Cuba cheese" is not a distinct variety of cheese, but the Cuba cheese industry is very much a notable historical concept, which it makes best sense to cover in the subsection
Cuba, New York#Cheese for now. Surely the
Cuba Cheese Museum is ripe for a
WP:GLAM collaboration!--
Pharos (
talk) 16:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep or merge per above. --
Wil540 art (
talk) 02:29, 6 January 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.
This isn't an encyclopedia article. It reads like a bio on his employer's website. And while I'm aware that deletion isn't cleanup, my search didn't turn up convincing evidence of
WP:SIGCOV anyway.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 23:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify or TNT this mess. I think he probably is notable based on the coverage I find, but wow this looks like a website bio.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete the subject is notable, but the article as written sure doesn't look like NPV or COI or such. Draftify is a good option for an enthusiastic editor to re-write. If someone wants to get super-enthusiastic and edit it right now that could make a difference. I would prefer editing over deletion, but I prefer deletion over nothing.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 03:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify although a complete rewrite would be necessary so maybe
WP:TNT. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 18:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify. The subject has been the athletic director at three Division I programs (Iowa State, Utah State, and Louisiana Tech) and is thus likely to have SIGCOV sufficient to pass GNG. That said, Lepricavark's comments about the state of the article raise valid concerns. Draftification will allow time for the article to be brought up to snuff (including addition of actual SIGCOV), should anyone care to undertake that effort. (Current citations to the Louisiana Tech and Iowa State web sites are not independent and therefore do not count toward GNG.)
Cbl62 (
talk) 04:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify: This is not written in a way that should remain in main space. The subject passes GNG but it needs a major rewrite.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 21:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify. Aside from the verbatim copy-paste from his employer's website that was included in the article, this really does fail
WP:BLP sourcing standards to such an extent that draftification is warranted. This looks like COI editing, and draftification is warranted per
WP:DRAFTIFY#5. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 21:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify I see coverage exists for an article, but in the present state, the article is not ready. Since this is the second AfD the article should be sent to draft and then it should be submitted through
WP:AFC before a return to main space.
Bruxton (
talk) 15:13, 10 January 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 as the article subject is not a district. According to Maharashtra government's official website it clearly reads "Jawhar is a small hill station municipal council situated on a plateau of sahyadris between rift valleys in Palghar district."[1]Twinkle1990 (
talk) 08:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge into the district of Thane per
WP:ATD. //
Timothy ::
talk 13:00, 11 January 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.
Daniel (
talk) 22:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per nom, no independent sources can be found about this subject and no references are in the article other than the one award they had won.
Harobouri •
🎢 •
🏗️ (he/him) 21:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello, if I post links to the YouTube Channel, would that count as a source?
The youtube, no. The IMDB is useful in pointing to other sources that are reliable, but you can't use it for sourcing alone.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The new sources provided do not meet general notability guidelines still. YouTube is both unreliable and the link provided is primary, which fails the independent from subject criteria. IMDB is independent, but per
WP:IMDB, it is generally unreliable due to the fact it is
user generated. The Shadow and Act source looks reliable, is independent, but does not significantly cover the subject. --
Harobouri •
🎢 •
🏗️ (he/him) 03:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete No sources found for the webseries, there are books mentioned in the New York Times that are unrelated to this series but they share the same theme.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article's subject fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:NWEB. I was unable to find any sources that would show notability. As far as
WP:WEBCRIT, it isn't met in this case because an actor won an award, not the webseries itself, so that isn't met in this case. -
Aoidh (
talk) 18:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources to pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 10:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I discovered another award for the film (
[4]), but it's not particularly significant on its own.
Suitskvarts (
talk) 11:13, 11 January 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.
Daniel (
talk) 20:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Subject is not noteworthy, original page was created many years ago as fluff, very empty page after spam has been removed
Nickgray (
talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep There are at least two solid sources, the
NY Times and
Fast Company. The article is a bit sparse but the person meets GNG, IMO.
Lamona (
talk) 18:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. Based on the sources already in the article, it seems as though this nom was misplaced.
Bearian (
talk) 14:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep meets SIGCOV per above. //
Timothy ::
talk 13:03, 11 January 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.
Fuzheado |
Talk 16:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - Indeed, no valid reason for deletion given. Sources gives pretty clear notability.
BabbaQ (
talk) 00:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - It is a notable case, one of the most gruesome unsolved murder case in Indonesia.Gunkartatalk 14:12, 5 January 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.
Speedy keep The nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion. The sources in the article seem to establish notability, and there's nothing else obviously wrong with it.
Opps Noor, if this is your first account, I suggest you spend a bit of time doing content work before getting involved in back-room processes like deletion.
Sojourner in the earth (
talk) 21:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep The nom is asked to expand their reason;
not liking the article is not enough for a deletion rationale. Nate•(
chatter) 21:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Nominator isn't clear about how the article [doesn't] meet Wikipedia's requirements and hasn't given a valid reason. The article is notable enough. --
Harobouri •
🎢 •
🏗️ (he/him) 21:46, 4 January 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.
Daniel (
talk) 20:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails
WP:GNG. The only online coverage is incredibly trivial stuff like
[5]. Article previously kept at AfD due to being part of a messy bundled nomination long before
WP:NSPORTS2022 made it clear that the GNG must be met.
Jogurney (
talk) 20:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 21:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Yes the previous AfD was poorly done as you should never bundle different people together. This player never met GNG then and doesn't now. It could have gone back on the wheel last time but escaped. As for analysing what is available,
soccerway which extensively coverages a huge array of players shows us 2 games back in 2012-13 and that hardly helps any player with so little football past his career to show anything beyond
WP:ROUTINE.
Govvy (
talk) 09:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment This player, who plays for Reynosa should not be confused with
Arturo González who is from Reynosa.
Nfitz (
talk) 08:39, 9 January 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.
Daniel (
talk) 20:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Searching is hopeless with 5M-plus GHits even with the county included, but maps and aerials show nothing except a small area which doesn't appear to belong to the surrounding federal land. No evidence for notability.
Mangoe (
talk) 19:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Lots of false positives is all I found at Google search and Google Books
Elinruby (
talk) 11:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. The location definitely is an actual name for a place (
see map), but looking at an aerial view I really don't see any evidence of inhabited structures in the area. I see a cable cut for high-voltage wires that ends about where Lancaster is, but merely having a cable cut does not suffice for
WP:NGEO. It's quite remote, with two dirt forest roads being the only ways in or out, so I very much doubt that it is currently inhabited. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
It's also listed in the
1987 National Gazetteer as a "locale", but I'm doubtful that meets the threshold of "legally recognized populated place". I will keep looking. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for that. Google gets hung up on Edwards Air Force. Can you tell if that's between I-40 and the Grand Canyon? By eyeballing the map, I think so. If so it's in a national forest, so we can quit looking for settlements. I am also quite certain (which is OR and anecdotal, yes) that it does not have an exit off I-40.
Elinruby (
talk) 18:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Scratch that, it's south of Flagstaff in the Pine Mountain Wilderness. Only been through there once, on the interstate, but based on Google Maps, it's on a forest road that looks like it probably closes in the winter, so I am strongly inclined to say there is no settlement there.
Elinruby (
talk) 18:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
It's in the
Tonto National Forest and near the Coconino National Forest, per the USGS map. If you see the location where I-17 intersects with State Route 69 and head due East until the edge of the county, you'll see it labeled on the state land management map. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. While this is definitely a named locale, I see no evidence of
WP:SIGCOV an no evidence that this is a
legally recognized populated place after conducting a search for sources. While it exists in GNIS, GNIS is
unreliable for feature classes, and it plainly appears to be wrong regarding the feature class in this case. There is nowhere reasonable to merge this to and no place to redirect this to; no article appears to cover this locale on Wikipedia, while the coverage in sources appears to be entirely maps and GNIS-sourced Gazetteers. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 18:58, 8 January 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.
Daniel (
talk) 20:34, 11 January 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.
Daniel (
talk) 20:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The publisher did some pretty famous comics, but that doesn't give it any notability itself.
Suitskvarts (
talk) 11:33, 11 January 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 bakery franchise.
Mooonswimmer 18:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn by nominator.
Mooonswimmer 18:39, 4 January 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 per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). Re: "Most references are solely routine coverage from local Portland media" -- The article was based on Eater Portland coverage but has been expanded significantly. Consider googling
before jumping to AfD? ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 19:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per Another Believer. The article was created
over a year ago by an autopatrolled editor, it was nominated today for deletion, and already said editor has
doubled it in size with plenty of added references. StonyBrookbabble 22:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Hyper-local coverage were it not for Guy Fieri, but it's just at GNG with the tv show appearance.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: sufficient proof of notability. having sufficient coverage to support GNG requirements.
Tictictoc (
talk) 14:17, 5 January 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 redirect to
118th United States Congress#House of Representatives leadership. This redirect can be re-targetted to a different article (eg. the one mentioned by Esolo5002 and suggested by Timothy) at normal editorial discretion. I deliberately didn't delete the history behind the redirect to allow a merge to a target article, should any editor wish to do so.
Daniel (
talk) 20:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
This does not pass
WP:NEVENT. It is a
WP:ROUTINE event that happens behind closed doors every two years. Even with the change in speaker nominee from Pelosi to Jeffries, there was no intrigue that would rise above the
run-of-the-mill level of coverage for it. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Muboshgu: where would you prefer we cover the content this article has?
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 17:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Each members' individual articles. It's a sentence at most for each involved member. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 18:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Muboshgu: it seems like it's useful to collect all this information somewhere though? Only putting it on the members' articles does our readers a disservice.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 18:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I think having an article for a non-notable event is a disservice to our readers. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The point of our notability guidelines is to make sure we can write a meaningful article on our subject, not to arbitrarily exclude things because they're "not notable enough". How does having this article do a disservice to our readers? It collects relevant information that otherwise would be scattered across multiple other articles. I'd be fine with a redirect or a merge, as long as we found a good location for the same information.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 18:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. There was no significant coverage about the election itself, as Jeffries and others were chosen unanimously.
Natg 19 (
talk) 18:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, Important leadership election, new gen of leaders for the dem party. I agree that it needs a lot of work though.
Rushtheeditor (
talk) 02:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Pelosi and much of the democratic leadership for the past 20 years standing down is important for the party. The election of a new generation of leaders will also be important, plus with all the drama surrounding the speakership election this seems like it leans keep.
Estar8806 (
talk) 15:46, 8 January 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.
Judging by the name this article has been created under, it suggests it's been created by someone from either Plaid Cymru or the Wales Green Party. The Common Ground Alliance was created to field joint candidates in a 2022 local election. I looked myself at the time, to try and find something more than the one Wales Online news article, whether the alliance was notable enough for its own article and decided it wasn't. There's a redirect (
Common Ground Alliance) which points to the paragraph in the
2022 Cardiff Council election article. My opinion is that the alliance isn't notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, hence this AfD nomination.
Sionk (
talk) 17:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I created the article so that ward results on other pages could successfully reference the alliance. As it stood all other parties had links to their party pages, while Common Ground candidates could not.
MeurigRogers (
talk) 17:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I've added a citation to the BBC report of the initial announcement. It is worth noting that the alliance is ongoing, and both councillors sit as Common Ground councillors.
MeurigRogers (
talk) 17:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
There are 2 Common Ground councillors - which is not noted in the Common Ground Alliance paragraph. There are ongoing joint meetings of the parties under the alliance. Given that, I think it deservers more than a throwaway paragraph.
MeurigRogers (
talk) 19:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your participation. Maybe there will be some wider participation and I'll find I'm completely wrong.
Sionk (
talk) 19:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Cardiff Council elections. This is an otherwise-insignificant electoral alliance at the local council level which has only contested the most recent elections. It does not merit an article in its own right. Crucially, you can keep the political party functioning in Wikipedia as it should (the premise cited by @
MeurigRogers above) without the alliance needing its own article. Instead, the alliance would be more appropriate as a subsection in
Cardiff Council elections. For a template, I recommend checking the entry for
Merton Park Ward Residents Association in
Merton local elections, which I created years ago. The MPWRA is a local residents association that contests elections in one ward in the council, and it has fully-functioning links as a political party (see, e.g. the infobox at
2022 Merton London Borough Council election). _MB190417_ (
talk) 20:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Actually, I think the current inclusion in
2022 Cardiff Council election (the one you get via the redirect at
Common Ground Alliance) is sufficient given there is not currently good reason to think that the alliance will contest the next set of elections, and all the apparatus needed for a political party can be set up at the 2022 election page as it is in the MPWRA example above. _MB190417_ (
talk) 20:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
In contrast to the Merton Park Ward Residents Association, the Common Ground Alliance contested all wards. There is a larger significance given the Welsh Green Party's change to support Welsh independence, and the potential for the alliance to be rolled out nationally at a later date.
I regard it as significant as it was the first time an alliance of independence supporting parties beat one of the main UK based parties in a Cardiff election - a city which has historically been wholeheartedly unionist. If it proves to be the only time that happens it is still of significance in highlighting the peculiarities of the time.
MeurigRogers (
talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
All notable information that can be added to the main parties' respective entries, supplemented with reliable, secondary sources to prove that it is as significant as you say. But
WP:ORGDEPTH, which I believe covers political parties, specifically labels 'coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies' as trivial coverage. The event really isn't notable enough beyond the level of the local council at this one election, so a redirect is right per @
DankJae. _MB190417_ (
talk) 23:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
2022 Cardiff Council election (in line with the other redirect and they have only contested 2022), unlikely to meet
WP:GNG, and seems too early to consider whether it will contest the next local election, if that should be the case a redirect and section to
Cardiff Council elections or
Politics in Cardiff can then apply at that time. The recently established localised party of currently only two councillors is unlikely to justify an article nor significant coverage, particularly at this stage, nor does this article provide any necessary context that cannot be explained at 2022 Cardiff Council election in its current form. Formatting can be done to address concerns on result articles as mentioned above. DankJae 20:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Just to note that a person with the same name as the AfD contributor and article creator
stood for election for the alliance. The conflict of interest hasn't been declared here. _MB190417_ (
talk) 23:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for letting me know about the COI requirement Dank - how should I go about it? Is there a standard format?
MeurigRogers (
talk) 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
MeurigRogers, notifed you on your
talk page, links there should help answer any queries. Thanks DankJae 17:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks Dank - having read the CoI guidelines I agree that this page should be deleted. Can I do that myself?
MeurigRogers (
talk) 17:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Follow
WP:AFDFORMAT for this discussion, simply add a bold comment stating either Keep, Delete, *Merge or Redirect etc. to state your opinion in this discussion and state your COI. Thanks for your efforts, and we welcome any other contributions that you may have on non-COI articles (electoral wards are fine) or requested edits on ones that you do, as long as following COI guidelines. Thanks DankJae 17:48, 6 January 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.
Famous for being a footballer’s girlfriend. She cannot have an article until she is independently notable. The subject clearly fails the notability criteria.
Thesixserra (
talk) 17:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete A7. You beat me right to it. I was moments away from nominating it myself. Redirect to
Cristiano Ronaldo#Personal life as it was before if no other options.
Trillfendi (
talk) 17:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep I wish editors would understand the subject's notability is not as a "footballer's girlfriend", or in even more demeaning terms as some edit summaries have described. This article needs to be considered in terms of a highly popular social media personality, whose subject is notable enough to have an entire Netflix documentary about them (I Am Georgina), and over 40 million Instagram followers. Many other internet celebrities are notable enough for articles despite having much fewer followers than Rodriguez, much less coverage than her, though are clearly more likely to be male, whereas Rodriguez is female. The article needs work, but there are at least ten other Wikipedia projects having articles about this subject, including Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Persian, Portuguese and Spanish. Given the subject's independent notability, it would be strange if this was redirected to the subject's husband.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 19:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I have added a reference from El Mundo, a high-quality newspaper source from Spain. The most rigorous sources are in Spanish, and the bulk of high quality sources for this subject will be in Spanish and Portuguese, as the subject's popularity is greatest across the Latin-speaking world. It would be especially helpful if a fluent speaker of Spanish could add references and help to build the article. Rodriguez may be seen as equivalent in notability to
Kim Kardashian, who also has an overwhelming social media and celebrity presence in their own right, despite connection with their male romantic partners.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 19:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I’m semi-fluent in Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. In one of the sources in Spanish where she is actually interviewed she said she only wants to talk about cuidados físicos y de belleza (physical care and beauty) and rejected any questions her personal life with Ronaldo or family besides where she was born and raised and her previous jobs. That source itself ([xlsemanal.com/estilo/gente/20180327/georgina-rodriguez-cristiano-ronaldo.html XL Semanal]) wasn’t of high quality. Other sources lean into tabloid-ism and give the same Cinderella story of how she met her partner but the idea that she is equivalent in notability to Kim Kardashian is mendacious. Kim Kardashian is on the list of TIME’s Top 100 Most Influential People. She is the standard bearer of the construct of modern beauty and fame. Even if she never met Kanye West she would still be famous by herself because she’s been on her own TV show since 2007. And now the current show broke records for Hulu.
Trillfendi (
talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
If we are to read anything from that interview, it should be that her notability does not rely on her spouse. It may be more appropriate to say she is analogous rather than equivalent to Kim Kardashian, for the Spanish-speaking world. As you mention that Kardashian has a TV show of her own, so does Rodriguez herself.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 08:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Forget Kardashian... Geirdina Rodriguez should never be mentioned in the same sentence what Kardashian even in terms of "(read false) anology". Karsahian already beame very promient figure before Cristiano Ronaldo started his career, not to mention, Critiano was also her parthner in 2010 but noboday talk about it given how big and notable is Kardashian lol. If ever then Georgina Rodriguez is infinietly less notable than
Darya Dugina which does not have article on Russia Wikipedia but is redirect to his father. She is anology to her beause of Georina is gfamous because of her parther, and Darhya because of her father. Regardless WP:recentism and regardless Pageviews means nothing; if we are going by that logic then if we exclude English, Spanish, Poortuguese and Arabic Wikipedia (Georgina is Spanish, Cristiano is from Portugal and now plays in Saudi Arabia) Georgina last two weeks gets she has only 131 949 pageviews meanwhile Darya Dugina during "peak media coverage had 1 122 268 pagevies but does not have article on home/Russian wiki as I said before. People who defend by WP:Otherstuffexist do not ralise that other people nominated for edeletion mostly are muh older than 1994 year birth and are not nominated during peak of media cverage. El Mundo and El Pais are not also reliable source, certainly not enough to get significant coverage. By all that mean, per WP:Not !Voting and WP:Consensus I am pretty sure discussion shows that article should be delted per WP:common sense most people who !vote for keep said nothing other than weak soiurces and WP:I like it.
Dawid2009 (
talk) 21:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
DarkSide830,
Oleg Yunakov,
Tambor de Tocino,
Zaathras,
Wikisaurus, and
Alsoriano97:} Sorry for spam ping but I noted you all six were supporting Daruya Dugnova as merge into article about her deah (or eventually father), do you have any eventual comment about people who !vote for keeping Georgina Rodriguez due to "just being famous thank to
wp:recentism"? If article about Georgina Rodriguez was delted then mabe could be bit more chance to article about
Darya Dugina was merge - just saying. @
Spartaz,
Wm335td,
Gene93k,
Johnpacklambert,
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,
Novemberjazz, and
BananaFiend: I noted you seven were !voting to support removing
Alexis Texas despite fact she is atually mentioned in print books and independly far more popular than eorgina Rodriguez (however not sure how it was during time of nomination), out of curiosity what do you think about that nomination? WP:otherstuffexist could work or not? I only ping more people to reeach wieder consensus and to closer of discussion make longer rationale (not speedy keep a ka other language versions are).
Dawid2009 (
talk) 22:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping. I will say, as is, this article should be merged, but I think there's merit for a standalone article upon expansion. Personally, I think the true "notability" of someone like Rodríguez (who, even besides her relationship to Ronaldo, is mostly for being an influencer) really isn't Wikipedia-worthy, but then again we have plenty of such individuals with pages and presumably several less notable than Rodríguez. This and the amount of material present in her pages on some of the other Wikis leads me to feel more neutral to her being noteworthy of having a page. Going back to my original point, I can't see how this article is acceptable for the mainspace in it's state. As is it does nothing to show Rodríguez's notability. Reeks of just another article shoved into the mainspace half-baked.
DarkSide830 (
talk) 03:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
As I wish people would use just a tidbit of common sense here. There are two sentences in this article that which you are asking for the speedy keep of… one sentence is that she is an Argentine-Spanish model and influencer and the other is that she is the life partner of Cristiano Ronaldo, obviously a famous footballer. That’s it. There is nothing inherently notable about these two sentences to have a Wikipedia article about. Having 44 million Instagram followers does not create notability for a Wikipedia article per any Wikipedia standards on notability.
Other languages of Wikipedia have their own standards for inclusion that have no bearing on English Wikipedia.
Trillfendi (
talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Notability for an article should be assessed among reliable sources, not the article itself, although interestingly the article itself already has over 40,000 views in less than a week. I thought that other language Wikipedia projects having their own inclusion standards would come up here, but this is actually an indication to support inclusion, as generally their inclusion standards are higher than that of English Wikipedia, and that we have their content and references to draw from. Along with being among the most followed people on Instagram, these do not necessarily mean the subject has met notability criteria automatically, it requires some investigation, but these should indicate to editors that it is worth assessing the subject's notability, and not simply dismissing the subject as the female spouse of another prominent person. However, I do agree that the article should give a better indication of the subject's notability, which is currently lacking from the article, which is a very new stub article.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 20:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
We also have to remember that social media numbers can be boosted by bots; until some of the sites can guarantee they've gotten rid of bots, we can't use likes/followers/stream numbers as any sort of proof of "notability". You can pay people that guarantee to boost your followers/stream numbers/likes, making these numbers unverifiable and untrustworthy, so we can't use them for notability standards here.
Oaktree b (
talk) 02:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think we should use social media statistics as evidence of notability, they can be an indicator for us to investigate notability further. Bots are less relevant at over 40 million followers, and bots are unlikely to be involved in this article now having 60,000 views since being created less than a week ago, about 6,000 times more than the amount of views most deleted articles get. Not necessarily evidence of notability itself, but an indication for us to look further.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 08:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete We don't even have her hometown, life history or how she came to meet her partner. Usually that would stretch this towards a keep, but as-is we're asking for an infobox and an Instagram account to count for
WP:N, when the article lacks anything else. As usual, I am inclined to change my rationale if the article fills up further. Nate•(
chatter) 21:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
MrSchimpf: The subject's place of birth has been added to the article. I can add biographical background to the article unless somebody else does.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 08:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment It does, and plenty of sources. I'm convinced to keep now. Nate•(
chatter) 01:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Plenty of coverage about the couple, but they had a still-born infant recently, so I don't think that meets GNG for her alone. I tried French sources, but it's all celebrity fluff but lots of coverage about the death of their son. Sad as it is, that alone is not enough for GNG, models aren't automatically notable.
Oaktree b (
talk) 02:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
There are certainly many celebrity-related magazine articles about the subject, but there are also news articles from more substantive sources. I will find the sources that are more suitable for Wikipedia and add them to the article.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 08:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 21:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per El Pais and El Mundo pieces located and linked below.
GiantSnowman 16:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
es:Georgina Rodríguez and
pt:Georgina Rodríguez, There seems to be plenty on the Spanish and Portuguese wikipedia's, although thin on what I call good content, there is enough there to tell me GNG shouldn't be an issue. @
Trillfendi,
MrSchimpf,
Oaktree b, and
GiantSnowman:, did you peeps not consider whats on the other language wiki's?
Govvy (
talk) 09:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, it's all fluff.
Oaktree b (
talk) 12:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Quoting myself above; 'I am inclined to change my rationale if the article fills up further.' I apologize if I my knowledge of Spanish and Portuguese is rudimentary, but I wouldn't know where to start to search for es/pt sources. Please don't get mad at me, or others who speak primarily English, because we don't hold that knowledge. I good-faith believe the nom did BEFORE in English to an acceptable degree and shouldn't be attacked for not considering es/pt sources. Nate•(
chatter) 23:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment@
MrSchimpf: I often check other language wiki's to see whats there when articles come up for AfD. There is nothing wrong with not checking them (so don't beat yourself up over it), but that option is there to discover on the navigation tree. Also I don't know what browser you're using, but a good few have the option to translate a page. Regards.
Govvy (
talk) 00:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I stated above that I am at this point in time semi-fluent in Spanish (I’ve made multiple Wikipedia articles in Spanish from the top of my head including the Spanish article for Silk Sonic) and Brazilian Portuguese so yes, I read the tabloid fodder on the other articles and would like to believe English Wikipedia has higher standards than “she is the partner of Cristiano Ronaldo”. Outside of her relationship with a super famous man she has done nothing independently notable to make an article about. Irina Shayk has. Just mi opinión.
Trillfendi (
talk) 05:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The notability certainly isn't on the basis of being the spouse of someone notable. It is largely about her social media presence, which is quite significant. Other stuff aside, we rightfully have articles about people many times less influential.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 07:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The subject meets
WP:GNG, regardless of the state of the current article, as the subject regularly receive[s] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The trouble for English Wikipedia is that there is extensive coverage of the subject in low-quality sources in English. There are some high quality sources on the subject in English, but these can be obscured by a search engine with the lower quality ones, while the quality of sources is relatively higher in the Spanish language. The two largest Spanish newspapers,
El Pais and
El Mundo, regularly report on the subject as an independently notable person
[6][7][8][9][10].
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 11:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
To the current article,
WP:ARTN states even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 12:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep the sources on the Spanish and Portuguese articles (
es:Georgina Rodríguez and
pt:Georgina Rodríguez) are sufficient to pass
WP:GNG. Article could easily be expanded by a fluent speaker of one of those languages.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, ton of notable coverage online and in other Wikis, BEFORE wasn't done properly.--
Ortizesp (
talk) 17:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep The article seems notable, she is a influencer and model before Ronaldo even met her.
[11] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Taylorlee44 (
talk •
contribs) 02:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Actually she was an au pair and then Gucci shop assistant before Ronaldo met her. The influencer role didn’t come until their relationship started.
Trillfendi (
talk) 05:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
But she is a influencer now that really even make her notable.
Keep. While indeed she may not have been notable prior to meeting Ronaldo, we're evaluating based upon her current notability. And, the sources on the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedia articles are more than sufficient to show that she meets
WP:NBASIC in her own right; her coverage includes Spain's largest general-interest newspapers
El Mundo and
El País. I am surprised that these did not come up
before nominating this for deletion. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 15:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment The article now has over 120,000 views from the last week-and-a-half of its existence. Is this a record for an article nominated for deletion?
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 22:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Anecdotal evidence but usually when a new article is linked to an article that gets millions of views per month
like this guy the views skyrocket like that.
Trillfendi (
talk) 04:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Still many more views than most articles linked to that one.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 06:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Closer of discussion should take into account that Cristiano had better hits than article on United States recently due to his transfer, and should take into account Georgina even is not most promient "parthner of sportpwrson" due to recentism. We ate going to keep Georgina but delte article about Pele's death because of wikipedia is not print? What willl be next? Delting article on funreal of pope but creating another articles about sportpeople' wifes?
Dawid2009 (
talk) 19:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy merge to Cristiano Ronaldo. Redundand. We are not print encyxlopedia but if article on Pele's death and funreal is going to be merge due to overlap, then Georgina Rodriguez must go as far as possible to Cristiano's article as well. It would be far too big disgrace for Wikipedia if we keep article with no wp:anybiibut but mergre article with encyclopedical, heritage and history value.
Dawid2009 (
talk) 18:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Maybe the death and funeral of Pele should be its own article, then... — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 20:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Tell that to that discussion
here then (I hope closer of that discussion will takre that othestuff exist into account as well if defenders arguments via other wikipedias have it).
Dawid2009 (
talk) 22:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about how "other stuff" existing (or not existing) does not mean that an article being discussed, such as this one, should also exist or not. This article isn't about a footballer's spouse, it's about an influential social media personality.
Onetwothreeip (
talk) 09:17, 11 January 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.
First, a confession - it was me as a novice AfC reviewer that accepted this from a draft. I am now revisiting that review after another editor tagged the article for notability. My reassessment is that the sources are all either interviews or articles that Pavlov has written about his adventures. There is a lack of
WP:SECONDARY coverage. The author is a
single-purpose account that has not edited again since, and their name implies an auto-biography. This appears to be self-promotion - explorers need publicity to fund their lifestyle.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk) 16:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I lean towards delete, but it would be good to have someone who can effectively search in Bulgarian check it. His assent of Manlasu is at least verifiable
[12][13] (to the extent high altitude mountaineering feats are verifiable at all.)
Jahaza (
talk) 18:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I was the editor who first raised the notability and UPE concerns. I have been going through the WikiProject Climbing BLPs. 30 years ago, climbing an
eight-thousander made you notable with coverage in the main climbing media (Climbing, Rock & Ice, Alpinist, AAJ etc.). Now, you need to
climb all 14 to get enough GNG for notability (and it is still not guaranteed). Tourist-climbers can ascent Everest, Cho Oyu and Manaslu for circa $20,000 with minimal mountaineering experience. This BLP appears in none of the main climbing media; being in the climbing media does not guarantee notability, but not being in any of it, and trying to have a platform for notability on WP based on climbing is a problem.
78.18.228.191 (
talk) 13:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Marianne Schwankhart is another classic example of a
SA Times journalist/photographer (her name appears as a credit in Times articles), with a WP BLP for climbing notability, and yet she has never appeared in any of the climbing media (because, from a climbing perspective, she is not notable); but references to low-grade climbing/outdoor blogs have been used to try a "sustain" a notability on WP.
78.18.228.191 (
talk) 13:57, 7 January 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.
No indication of notability. Nowadays articles need a good number of secondary sources to pass AfC; this has an FOI request, an Edinburgh Trams pdf and a couple of doc's from the Scottish Parliament, which is just not enough to support the amount of information on the page. Already been PRODded at least once afaik.
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk) 16:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, highly likely to have been covered in the press at the time. It’s unfortunate that most newspapers don’t keep archives online and so the coverage has likely now been lost.
Garuda3 (
talk) 17:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
So, how do we go about sourcing local news sources which have no archives? And are there actually any?
Mattdaviesfsic (
talk) 17:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Cumbernauld Line. There's no need for a separate article about a railway station that never ended up existing.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk) 17:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Agree with merge as above. The discussion is largely historic at this point and it never got built. Could be a few lines in the article about the line. No stand-alone notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - as suggested above. The proposal to build a station is a notable part of the history of the
Cumbernauld Line, but it does not need its own article.
Dunarc (
talk) 23:50, 5 January 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:NCORP, article currently doesn't have enough sources for notability, and I couldn't anything of use online.
TheManInTheBlackHat(Talk) 16:32, 4 January 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an effective super fork of the
1975 Australian constitutional crisis, and it should either be merged BACK into the original article (Merging would do), but as a standalone page it does not warrent being its own article. It is important, but it runs the risk of becoming a page full of Original research. Thank you everyone for your readthrough, and have a great (EST) morning and a happy new 2023.
Ask me about air Cryogenic air (
talk) 15:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The
1975 Australian constitutional crisis article currently contains 47 kB of readable text. Merging the "Alleged CIA involvement" article would increase the article size to around 52kB, at which point policy says the article "May need to be divided". The article is based on sources from the Guardian, NYT, AFR, ABC ..., which justify a stand-alone article. Not sure why original research is more of an issue for this article than for any other article.
Burrobert (
talk) 15:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. This article is a work in progress but it is well-sourced. I can see no OR. This article was split from the 1975 crisis article after there was a consensus to remove it. Merging it back would probably be resisted.--
Jack Upland (
talk) 01:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Pages aren't deleted because of the possibility that they might have issues in the future.
BuySomeApples (
talk) 06:25, 6 January 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Noting that the article has already been moved to
The Pearl Island; if there's a desire to discussing the naming further, feel free to start an
RM discussion.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 18:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
unreferenced, promotional content —
The Anome (
talk) 13:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Before that major edit, at
this revision, I don't see much, if any, promotional content, and has many citations. I'll restore that revision. ~
Eejit43 (
talk) 13:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep seems to be a notable enough land form (island) or neighborhood of
Doha. Think the article should be viewed in a similar context to similar (man-made island) neighborhoods of
Dubai, such as:
Deira Islands,
Palm Jebel Ali and
Palm Jumeirah.
Epluribusunumyall (
talk) 06:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The name of the Island has changed from "The Pearl Qatar" to "The Pearl Island". Please refer the following articles published in news portals in support of this discussion, I request you to kindly go through it and update the title of the page to "The Pearl Island" instead of "The Pearl Qatar"
Here is the list of few news articles mentioning the correct/updated name. Please go through it for the validation... Thank you so much
Keep As Epluribusunumyall has said, it is as notable as other man-made islands, notably in Dubai. The tone of the article has at times been heavily promotional, but the current version, reinstated by Eejit43 is more neutral. The title does need to be changed, but I initially baulked at the suggestion that it be "The Pearl Island, Qatar" (wouldn't "Pearl Island, Qatar" suffice?). The use of the definite article, a capitalised 'The', should usually be avoided (see
WP:THE), but there are clearly multiple sources which call it 'The Pearl Island' (a branding style apparently created and maintained by the island's developer, UDC), so I guess it could be regarded as similar to a company name like
The Coca-Cola Company and other examples given in the article naming guidance.
Paul W (
talk) 09:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
comment - The Facebook references should be removed and replaced by reliable sources.
Paul W (
talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I've already shared the list of reliable sources for the name change (whhich is now "The Pearl Island"). please check the news articles one by one to confirm the name change.
Shamailaijaz (
talk) 10:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep and move to current name per references listed above //
Timothy ::
talk 15:28, 11 January 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. Sandstein 13:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Not a notable list subject. The flags have nothing in common (the countries do of course), the "official" union flags have no notability nor any evidence that they are official.
Fram (
talk) 12:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak conditional keep: I would have said 'Delete' were it not for the inclusion of pan-Celtic flags, which makes me think that the entry, with a lot of work (especially more context on the flags, which do not appear on the main entries, also to illustrate their significance, if they have any) and possibly a renaming, could be repurposed to something more alike the
Nordic cross flag entry._MB190417_ (
talk) 12:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Additional comment: Just in light of subsequent discussion to say that in my view, the only redeeming feature of the entry is the pan-Celtic flags (i.e. flags representing all Celtic nations; if and only if such flags can be proved to be notable). A Flags of Celtic Nations entry without these flags would be no more than a list of Celtic nations/regions and I'd be surprised if it survived an AfD. _MB190417_ (
talk) 14:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
MB190417, If it were to be like
Nordic cross flag it would technically be about "
triskelion flags", as that is the element shared by all three pan-Celtic flags but not in most of the Celtic nations ones (though IOM has a legged version). But an article on three proposed unofficial flags (I find no evidence of official use) that happen to use the same icon, probably does not meet notability guidelines. And could easily be in other articles, including
triskelion or
pan-Celticism.
IOM and
Sicily are already at
triskelion, not sure whether than pan-Celtic ones should be though as they're unofficial (from my searches). DankJae 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks, @
DankJae; I've struck through my original comment and now suggest Merge with
Pan-Celticism per your contributions. _MB190417_ (
talk) 20:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep needs some references adding to it but seems notable and probably needs the flags of other recognised Celtic areas added to the page. Would probably rename to Flags of Celtic Nations.--
MartyTheArty (
talk) 13:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
How do you determine that "it seems to be notable" without sources?
Fram (
talk) 13:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - this OR and Synthesis to me. What is the definition of a "Celtic Flag"? Appears to be a list of flags of so-called Celtic regions and nations.
Spleodrach (
talk) 13:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have added some reference and commentary to address this issue. I will refine this and add more later. --
MartyTheArty (
talk) 15:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
None of the sources seem to address this though (some show or list the individual flags), nor do they address the pan-celtic flags at first sight. Can you indicate which of your sources actually discuss "celtic flags"? Something like
this doesn't even mention the word flag (nor does it show one), and neither does
this one, so their value for this article (never mind to determine notability) seems very limited at best.
Fram (
talk) 15:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article is, in effect, a list. Ostensibly a list of flags of Celtic nations. Unless
WP:NLIST can be demonstrated, to the extent that all of the list members are discussed "as a group or set by independent reliable sources", I don't see how I could recommend anything other than deletion. Any
alternatives to deletion (like redirecting and covering in the
Celtic nations article) might apply to other titles (like the proposed "
Flags of Celtic Nations"). But not the current
Celtic flags title. As there is no indication that this term has any established meaning. (Certainly all of the refs in the article deal with the concept of the
Celtic nations. Not the concept of "Celtic flags").
Guliolopez (
talk) 16:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, per above. Rarely any lists nor articles on cultural flags or flags of a broad cultural category, flags already largely present at
Celtic Nations,
Pan-Celticism and
Flags of Europe. Not sure what the article means by official in the Pan-celtic section, a image search using the flags and the source description do not indicate any official use by any organisation. Therefore not notable enough to categorise by cultural grouping and quite a bit
WP:SYNTH. DankJae 20:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: as per another editor above, delete due to unclear title as well as "
Flags of Celtic Nations" (since created), while content could be split and merged into multiple articles there is no clear destination for "
Celtic flags" and "
Flags of Celtic Nations" so better to delete both entirely. DankJae 22:18, 6 January 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.
✗plicit 13:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Doesn't have significant coverage. His claim to fame in having his
guitar broken in x Factor audition isn't really even about him, more about the judge.
Mvqr (
talk) 12:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - He flopped at a TV competition in an embarrassing way, and is now milking social media sympathy to try to become an influencer. Good luck with that, but none of this attracted any
reliable media notice and some social media clicks don't count for
notability here. Also note that there is a different person (a college professor) with the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 15:46, 6 January 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.
✗plicit 13:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Starred or appeared in about 30 films over 30 years; coverage in enough RS, and see fr.wiki for more content and Filmography. Her earlier films are pre-internet so sources less likely to be available online.
PamD 13:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Main actress in
Sarraounia (film), which won 1987's Étalon de Yennenga (Africa's most prestigious film prize) at FESPACO. Numerous roles in a number of other films, although the extent of these roles is a bit unclear. Many seem to be quite minor. As @PamD pointed out, older films (especially African ones) are less likely to have any substantial online coverage.
Mooonswimmer 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, seems to pass GNG.--
Ortizesp (
talk) 14:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Seems like a notable actor.
CT55555(
talk) 01:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep agree with Mooonswimmer and PamD; sourcing in the English and French versions is somewhat on the weak side, but enough to satisfy GNG. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 00:23, 11 January 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.
✗plicit 13:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
No evidence of notability. There is one article in Hype magazine, which is shortened without attribution in another source used
[14], and
the US journal which self-describes as "We bring you the best Premium WordPress Themes that perfect for news, magazine, personal blog, etc." and clearly isn't a reliable source. I haven't found any better sources online, and his feat isn't so remarkable that one could expect such sources to exist (there are dozens of people who surpass his achievement). Fails
WP:BIO.
Fram (
talk) 11:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note that sources like
this one from RTL, in itself a reliable source, doesn't mention Amiel at all, despite being used to source his 2019 effort.
Fram (
talk) 12:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I tried finding mentions of him in .fr websites; little comes up, some in relation to his father or another relative who appears to be a scholar.
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam supported by black hat SEO spam sources. The sources cited in the nomination are examples. I've blocked the author for this.
MER-C 09:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, removed two sources that are known SEO junk. The rest don't look any better. Sam Kuru(talk) 16:38, 7 January 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. Sandstein 13:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Vocalist. Refs include one very brief mention in a local paper and one press release. I couldn't find anything better, so fails
WP:GNG.
There is a chart claim sourced to the press release. The official IRMA chart archive doesn't go back to 2009, but I did find this:
[15]. Not sure if that's a good link, but it does show the song charting for one week. I couldn't find any coverage on this.
Blue Edits (
talk) 09:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete.
WP:NSINGER and
WP:SIGCOV are not met. In terms of the latter, a search on the main Irish newspapers (Irish Examiner, Irish Times, Irish Independent) returns nothing at all. Not even passing mentions. And a search in the Irish music press (Hot Press, RTÉ, etc) returns only passing mentions (like
this or
this). Which is nowhere near enough to meet SIGCOV. In terms of the chart claim, which might contribute to NSINGER, I note that I also cannot find any record of an entry in
the IRMA Irish singles charts database. I don't know where this title might be redirected (and so cannot propose any AtDs). Mine is a "delete" recommendation.
Guliolopez (
talk) 11:31, 5 January 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.
Musician (and minor actor) fundamentally fails
WP:SINGER. No significant coverage, no awards, no major film or festival appearance. The fact that there has been some failed COI editing over the past days that has been reverted by multiple editors shows that there really isn't a lot that can be added to this article.
10mmsocket (
talk) 08:59, 4 January 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.
Article about the use of the Sundanese language in Depok, with an infobox claiming that it is a separate language somehow. No evidence that it actually is a separate language, and no evidence that it is a
notable subject. There seems to have been some attention to the use of standard Sundanese in school (the section of "Sundanese as local content" seems to deal with this, although the "local content" link leads to a page which doesn't use the term), but none to Depok Sundanese as a language.
Fram (
talk) 08:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Fram: Why do you suggest this article should be deleted? Meanwhile, the references I have provided are sufficient to prove the use and position of Sundanese in Depok. No need for actual deletion as I can still fix this article. Oh yes, I want to ask if the language infobox template is only for registered languages?
Blackman Jr. (
talk) 10:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The reasons for deletion are in the opening statement right above. And the language infobox should only be used for languages, yes, not for the use of a language in one specific city.
Fram (
talk) 11:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
To be more exact: The infobox can also be used for "unregistered" language varieties (= languages or dialects), but: the language variety should 1) be distinct and 2) have
WP:SIGCOV as a topic of its own. Now, Sundanese as spoken in Depok most likely is simply part of the Bogor dialect (
Bogor Sundanese is a redirect to the main language article), and the variety used in the curriculum certainly is "standard" textbook Sundanese based on Parahyangan dialect. None of the sources tells us that we're dealing with a distinct language variety here, but only with a minor issue about the usage of Sundanese in the curriculum of local schools. This issue doesn't meet
WP:GNG. Hence, the best option is to merge this content as suggested below. Unfortunately, the article
Sundanese language doesn't have a section about Sundanese language classes in local schools, so the target suggested below is a good temporary solution. –
Austronesier (
talk) 11:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Or perhaps we can have article on Muatan Lokal school subject itself collectively as an article as a start and include it there. (Kind of out of topic maybe but I just pointed that out)
Nyanardsan (
talk) 12:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge selectively to
Depok#Culture. It’s fine to have coverage of which languages are spoken in a particular city in the article about the city, but there isn’t enough here to support a stand alone article. It’s also badly written which makes it difficult to decipher what it is trying to say. The bottom line is some people in the city speak Sundanese. That’s maybe two sentences worth in a larger article.
Mccapra (
talk) 12:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per above. "Local conctent" is a school subject in Indonesia, which is usually used by many places in Indonesia teach their local languages as part of their school curriculum so this is nothing notable as literally everyone else is doing it.
Nyanardsan (
talk) 09:20, 5 January 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 fail
WP:GNG. Every reference is a dead link, but looking at archives, the two inline ones don't mention this organization at all, and the other two are the same newspaper. I can find no other sources.
ℰmi1y⧼
T·
C⧽ 08:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the
deletion sorting lists for the following topics:
Wine and
Schools.
ℰmi1y⧼
T·
C⧽ 08:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, no additional coverage I could find online other than Wikipedia Mirrors.
TheManInTheBlackHat(Talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete for GNG, but the extreme generic nature of the title is also problematic.
66.232.69.166 (
talk) 09:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Blatant advertising effort without sources. Signed,Pichemist(
Contribs |
Talk ) 09:27, 5 January 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:SIGCOV and
WP:BASIC. Subject is only mentioned in passing in the sources which are primarily about other performers. Main claim to notability is the subject is cast in an upcoming season of Drag Race which has not yet aired. As such, the subject is currently only briefly mentioned in press releases for cast announcements. At the moment there is zero in-depth independent significant coverage of the subject. This is clearly a case of
WP:TOOSOON.
4meter4 (
talk) 07:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
If the consensus ends up being there isn’t yet enough sigcov / notability for a separate article, at the very least this should Merge to either
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 15) or
Miss Continental (which she won in 2012) instead of being outright deleted. (I reserve the right to change my !vote to keep once I go through sources, just wanted to make sure this was a discussion between merge and keep and not between delete and keep.)Umimmak (
talk) 15:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply [Edit: Keep per the sources
Another Believer found, also there's three pages entirely her about her in 100 of the Most Influential Gay EntertainersISBN978-0-9846195-5-9, also
this profile in the LA times which came out prior to the RPDR casting announcement
Umimmak (
talk) 16:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)]reply
@
UmimmakI would support a Redirect but not a merge as the sourcing is poor. On a side note, Umimmak, Naraht made their comment first and at AFD we keep the thread in chronological order. You really should not have placed this above Naraht's vote for AFD procedural process reasons as this does count as a vote to merge. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I just opened my [reply] box before they did; when I made my comment there were no other replies. I can move it now I see they hit submit before I did, if that makes you happy?
Umimmak (
talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think it's necessary at this point (as it isn't confusing the conversation), but please try to remember this when you participate in future AFDs. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
You're being a bit condescending... again it's not like I didn't know these were sorted chronologically, but the
WP:REPLYTOOL automatically inserts your comment based on when you open it and it doesn't notice new comments which have since come up.
Umimmak (
talk) 15:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Um, that is not an accurate assertion. You would have received an edit conflict message (
Wikipedia:EDITCONFLICT) in this event... in which case you would have been informed about a change to the article before saving. In such cases it is your responsibility to refresh the page and then start your edit over in order to not accidentally revert the edits of others. If you look back in the article history you also accidentally reverted one of my edits (see
here) to the article, so clearly you are having some technical issues which you need to work on figuring out. Lastly, I don't think asking editors politely to follow procedures is being condescending. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
You would have received an edit conflict message For the record, that's not true with
WP:REPLYTOOL: Automatic resolution of most edit conflicts: Ability to reply on an old version of a page, and have your comment posted in the correct place in the newest version (if the comment you're replying to still exists on the page)Umimmak (
talk) 16:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Interesting. I don't personally edit using the reply tool as I am old school and use an older editing version of the encyclopedia. Anyway, let's just assume good faith with one another please. There is no reason for us to have conflict with each other. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. IMO, whether or not to keep this article boils down to whether she is notable for winning
Miss Continental (everything else is either toosoon or not notable) which boils down to whether Miss Continental is a notable Pageant. Given the fact that the pageant is more than 40 years old *and* that there is a state level feeder system of Pageants to determine participate in the pageant (For ex.
Brooke Lynn Hytes who won Miss Michigan Continental to participate), I believe that it meets the criteria in
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants/Notability_(beauty_pageant_participants)#Pageant-specific_criteria. Also as a note, if this should succeed, the article should be changed to a redirect to
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 15) as the other participating queens are such as
Loosey LaDuca.
Naraht (
talk) 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
NarahtWikipedia:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants/Notability_(beauty_pageant_participants)#Pageant-specific_criteria is an essay without community support and is not a recognized guideline or policy recognized here at AFD. We need sources with independent significant coverage proving that the pageant win was significant. This means we need in-depth significant independent coverage of that pageant and Colby's win; not just passing mentions of the pageant win. If you can find that she would likely pass
WP:ANYBIO criteria 1. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sources like
this and
this are more than just passing mentions in press releases. Also, "main claim to notability" is winning Miss Continental, not being cast on Drag Race. IF editors decide a standalone article is not appropriate at this time, just redirect instead of deleting altogether because users will be searching for info about her. Let's be honest, if deleted or redirected, the article will just be recreated in a couple months anyway... ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 15:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Another Believer neither of these sources reach wikipedia's quality standards for referencing to prove
WP:SIGCOV. The first source is literally a copy paste of a twitter feed, and the second source is a tabloid type opinion piece article full of speculation which is trying to promote the upcoming season of Drag Race. Both of these fail
WP:TABLOID and
WP:PROMO. This is not demonstrating good critical judgement when evaluating sources.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree, not ideal sources, but coverage is more than "brief mentions in press releases" as you suggested. I'm not going to fight hard to keep this article, but deleting now is pointless because it'll just be recreated very soon. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 15:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I should have been more clear. I was referring to the quality sources having passing mentions; not the overly promotional tabloid sources (which are often paid for by World of Wonder or the TV network broadcasting the show) which we automatically dismiss as unreliable. These kinds of articles often lack independence in addition to having verifiability issues due to their use of gossip and opinion. Personally, I think its likely after the season is aired or perhaps during that we will see better coverage, which is why I cited
WP:TOOSOON. Draftifying is often done in cases like this. Best.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
In the future, consider just adding a notability tag, expressing your concerns on the article's talk page, or redirecting before jumping to AfD. In addition to coverage received to date, the subject is going to get a lot of additional coverage in the coming weeks and months, but now editors will waste time at AfD. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 16:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Another Believer, that is not policy. We have
WP:TOOSOON and
WP:CRYSTAL for a reason. This should be redirected or moved to draft until the sources are there to not only pass GNG but also verify the content of the article. That is policy. The article should never have been placed in main space which is why it was brought here. The issue isn't me but the editor or editors who decided to create the article before the sources were there to support it. We are building an encyclopedia here, not a promotional platform for drag queens
4meter4 (
talk) 16:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, I've already said redirecting would have been more appropriate than jumping to AfD. Redirecting would have taken minimal time and effort, but now we're here. I agree Wikipedia is "not a promotional platform for drag queens", but I also recognize that the vast majority of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants have entries and the subject has actually done some notable things like winning
Miss Continental and appearing in multiple television series. I understand what you're saying, I just don't see this entry as problematic especially given the guaranteed press coverage on the horizon. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree which is why I support draftifying per
WP:TOOSOON. AT AFD we routinely draftify articles under these circumstances. Note to closer If this article is draftified, I would strongly advocate for the article to be required to go through
WP:AFC review and approval process before this is allowed to move back into mainspace given the overuse of unreliable sources like social media, YouTube, press releases, and tabloids in the current version of the article. Clearly some additional editorial input is needed before this can be put back into mainspace.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:42, 4 January 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 believe this audio series does not pass
WP:GNG. The only relevant sources I could find in my
WP:BEFORE search were non-
WP:RS fan sites and a couple of articles about
Richard Armitage being cast for the series, which is more coverage of the actor than it is of the series.
OliveYouBean (
talk) 07:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete (or redirect if there's a suitable target) - I found no evidence of the subject meeting GNG. There may be some coverage in sources like Doctor Who Magazine that I don't have access to. Please ping me if good sources are identified.
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk) 01:05, 5 January 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:N. This is basically the regurgitation of the original paper by Leus in the predatory American Journal of Modern Physics (
doi:
10.11648/j.ajmp.s.2015040201.15). Judging from the talk page, this seems to be the result of a classroom assignment. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 06:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge to
Twin paradox. Classroom projects should not be allowed to create new articles, rarely are they really stand-alone notable topics.
Reywas92Talk 14:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge but delete to
Twin paradox This is full of original research and copied information. Should not be a standalone article, as this becomes a N+ case of the general GR paradox
Merge as suggested, seems like a fine idea. I have no idea about the concept itself.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
There is nothing to merge. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as relying on a primary source and original research (which uses the secondary sources but is not contained in them) to show that the interpretation in the primary source is wrong. This is useful for a classroom but not for an encyclopedia. The purpose of Leus's paper, and follow-ons by others equally dubious, is to show there are problems with special relativity. There is no need to merge such stuff anywhere else. A good discussion of the "triplet paradox" is
here and could be used as a source for a mention in the twin paradox article, but nothing in this article is of use.
StarryGrandma (
talk) 23:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as there is nothing worth merging and the title has not been established to be a likely search term.
XOR'easter (
talk) 01:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete classroom project based on a crackpot paper. Nothing worth merging.
Tercer (
talk) 10:42, 8 January 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.
Here we have the inverse problem of
Sacate, Arizona. First, I must boldly say that a CDP isn't notable simply by existing; it has to correspond to some actual settlement, and this one plainly does not. I do not have an actual map of the CDP, but the coordinates given correspond to exactly nothing, just a more or less blank area that has some slight population. And indeed, the GNIS entry comes directly from the census; the topos show nothing.
Contrary wise, there are enough text references to such a place that I have to think there was at some time a Sacate or Secate Village— but not here.
Mangoe (
talk) 05:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Comment: Discussion
here of an archeological site. Not deep enough into this yet to be sure it is at the same location exactly, but it seems to be in the right region. Several mentions
here also, although it seems "sacate" means "dry grass" so not all of the hits are relevant. Some are though. It appears on a map in that book, which may be helpful in determining if this is the same place. Still not sure if there's enough for a separate article. Mentioned
here also
Elinruby (
talk) 07:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC) ASU dissertation
here. Mention in passing as a train stop
here.reply
A citation: Structure, Historic Piman Site. "the Evolution of the Sacate Site (GR-909), Gila River Indian Community." Symposium entitled “Visible Archaeology on the Gila River Indian Reservation,” 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver. Sacaton, AZ: Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community. 2002.
Delete, if it exists, keep it, but it does not seem to have source stating clear existence. Thus, delete. —Moops⋠
T⋡ 20:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, a CDP is very much notable simply by existing, and the Census Bureau is as clear a source as it gets. Alternatively, rename it primarily to whatever the locals call it as that often differs from the CDP, but it clearly exists.
DemocraticLuntz (
talk) 12:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep It is a populated place recognized as such by the Census Bureau. Clear GEOLAND pass.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 22:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Google Search turns up a lot of false positives so I haven't tried too hard to determine if this is or is not a populated place, but doesn't an archeological site with multiple journal articles make that discussion irrelevant, since it would be notable anyway?
Elinruby (
talk) 17:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep it's a subdivision of
Gila River Indian Community, a Pima-Maricopa Indian reservation. "District 5 is roughly 99 square miles and is known as Casa Blanca or by the O’otham people of the village as Vah ki which translate into English as “House that goes into the ground”. The District is comprised of six village areas: Sweet Water, Bapchule, South Casa Blanca, West Casa Blanca, Sacate and Wet Camp...District 5 was historically the center of the Pima villages and has long been and continues to be the center of the agricultural production of the Pima and Maricopa tribes. "
https://www.gilariver.org/index.php/districts/district-5-casa-blancajengod (
talk) 23:11, 4 January 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.
No significant coverage to meet
WP:BIO or
WP:JOURNALIST. Just because she is related to someone notable, doesn't make her notable.
LibStar (
talk) 06:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. My searches indicate she is not notable.
CT55555(
talk) 14:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I can't find any reliable sources either. She has
published a book but would not meet
WP:AUTHOR. Fails to meet any notability criteria.
Cabrils (
talk) 23:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Article has no noteworthy sources, notability not evident.
WWGB (
talk) 01:16, 7 January 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.
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 20:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Questions@
Doctor Duh: And what about the 108 games and 12 goals for
SV Dessau 05 per German
de:Benjamin Girke, what did you make of that? Although thin, could the article be improved at all? There are a few bits on the web, has your research been that extensive?
Govvy (
talk) 09:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Inclusion for footballers on Wikipedia is coverage based, not participation based. So it doesn't matter how many games he has played, if there is no significant coverage on him then he doesn't pass the inclusion guidelines for having an article on Wikipedia.
Alvaldi (
talk) 09:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
SV Dessau 05 is a consistent member of the Verbandsliga Sachsen Anhalt, which is tier 6. You do the math.
Dr. Duh🩺 (
talk) 09:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The maths indicate there might be some content available! I only asked a question as considering you speak German you might be able to find other stuff. So I felt it was a legitimate question to ask. As is it, I guess it's a delete.
Govvy (
talk) 09:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - best source I can find is
AZ Online which is a photo caption followed by a trivial mention.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:42, 10 January 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.
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 20:25, 4 January 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.
Here we come upon a pair of problem places which I believe are in some sense the same place, the other being
Sacate Village, Arizona. I was inclined at first to treat them in a single nomination, but the articles themselves present different issues and I wanted to avoid a do-over.
The problem in this case is that we have an entry from what appears to be an NIST gazetteer which I cannot correlate with the maps. The topos go back to 1915 in this case, and there is no sign of a rail line anywhere near; in fact, there isn't a sign of anything near. The name just appears on the maps in 2014, and that's that. The thing is, there seems to be testimony to suggest that there was some settlement or some area called "Sacate" or "Sacate Village"; the Old Cowboy Cemetery is labelled "Sacate Cemetery" on GMaps, and there are the ruins of a St. Francis Borgia Church said to have been at Sacate Village, but I cannot determine where this is/was. Obviously if someone can sort this out and establish a coherent story about a definite settlement, we could have an article, but at this point I just don't see it.
Mangoe (
talk) 05:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The article says this place is also called Sacaton, which makes me wonder if this is just an erroneous duplicate of the actually prominent
Sacaton, Arizona.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I wodered that too, but as mentioned above at the entry for "Secate Village",
[16] this mentions it as a train stop four miles away. I think.
Elinruby (
talk) 08:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, unlike Sacate Village, I vote "Keep" for this one, per the comment above. —Moops⋠
T⋡ 20:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see other editor review the recent sources that have come to light in this deletion discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I have done a substantial expansion. It's notable in several ways -- Indian village on what is now Gila River reservation, train station, church mission with murals by Native artist, still apparently a population center on the reservation, and there was a shootout there with someone called "Maricopa Slim" around 1910. Plus per OP's belief they're the same place yes kinda - Sacaton Indian agency + "Zácate, more frequently sácate, from the Nahuatl çacatl, is the usual name for grass such as horses and cattle eat, also called indifferently by Garcés pastos and pasturas, pasturage, forage, herbage. Such 'grass' is distinguished from sácaton, the tall rank herbage, such as reeds, rushes, and the like, unfit for forage."[4] A place called Sacate was the site of a battle or series of battles between Yuma and Maricopa Indians in 1857–58... ANYWAY I'm 90 percent sure that
Sacaton (village) is the same as Sacate, Arizona but Sacate is distinct from
Sacaton, Arizona, which is still the site of the Pima Indian Agency - I suspect
Socatoon Station (a stagecoach stop) was very close by or at Sacate but I'm not an archeologist. I think
Sacate Village, Arizona is a legal subdivision of the reservation and should be left alone until someone who knows the area and has relevant sources can address but whatever.
jengod (
talk) 21:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The sources provided by Onel show that this locale has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources and thus passes
WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 15:17, 9 January 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 plane crash itself doesn't meet
WP:GNG, and much less when
WP:LASTING is considered as all coverage is in the immediate aftermath of the accident.
WP:BLAR by
Onel5969 was contested by
Air Astana 1388, so I'm bringing this to AfD. Redirect to
Rainer Schaller, as he and his family were the owners of the plane and the victims of the accident. signed, Rosguilltalk 04:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect - as per nom. The accident is covered in the target.
Onel5969TT me 10:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect - Light civil aircraft crashes are usually non-notable. Unless this crash results in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, it likely won't be notable for the foreseeable future. -
ZLEAT\C 16:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The investigation of this event is still in its early stages and a preliminary report still hasn't been issued. Additional details will be forthcoming on the event when a preliminary report is issued, but so far there is nothing to suggest whether this is a run-of-the-mill "pilot fell asleep" accident or a "mid-air-explosion" accident. There has been enough worldwide coverage to satisfy
WP:GNG. The crash resulted in the death of a wikipedia-notable individual, which by community consensus means this isn't just-another-small-plane-crash merge/delete, and the
Rainer Schaller article is short and brief and would be overwhelmed by the details of this event which for now should be maintained as a separate article about the event, the investigation, and the aftermath/results of the same, so for that reason I oppose merging.
RecycledPixels (
talk) 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Looking at the source you just added (
[17], from the week of the crash), I think it's more accurate to say "there is nothing to suggest anything at all". Over 2 months out from the crash date, there's still no evidence that there was anything remarkable about the crash other than its victim. If and when additional coverage is available, an article can be considered. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Rainer Schaller per nom. This article seems to me to be a case of
WP:INHERITed, as opposed to inherent, notability. I would be in favor of adding some more pertinent details to the target, but I doubt a full merge is warranted here, hence my !vote. StonyBrookbabble 23:34, 4 January 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. What we need now is for the sources mentioned in this discussion to get into the article. LizRead!Talk! 03:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete or Merge into another article, this has been flagged for 9 years
Softlemonades (
talk) 16:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - per sources provided by Julle. Proving notability.
BabbaQ (
talk) 17:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. At first I was slightly irritated at this nomination, as I had already indicated in an edit summary that I was working on an expansion of the article (for which I already have enough sources). However I am now grateful for the AfD nomination making me aware of Julle and the sources he has provided, removing all doubt about notability. --
NSH001 (
talk) 18:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Id reconsider if the sources were posted on Talk so I could see them until the article was expanded. I thought you would after your comment before but mightve just assummed
Softlemonades (
talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified by Julle that shows a pass of
WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 00:55, 10 January 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 I also did a
WP:BEFORE search and could not locate any suitable sourcing.
Jfire (
talk) 03:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - None of the information given in the page was sourced from a reliable source. Couldn't find a reliable source to back up the page either.
Tempest7211 (
talk) 05:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I made the page. I can't find a reliable source. I got the info off the credits and from talking to Christy Marx on LinkedIn. It can be watched on YouTube and Vudu in terms of the credits--
Scottandrewhutchins (
talk) 07:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately that's original research, which can't be used for a wikipedia article. I also can't find any sourcing, Delete is my !vote.
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:31, 4 January 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 businessperson with a position at a probably non-notable organization and some kind of connection to a Pakistan government minister. Not substantially improved since article was draftified nor since proposed deletion (both by editors who are not this AfD nominator). Extremely weak sourcing with examples 1: Daily Times classic passing mention, "Ambassador Khan congratulated Arzish Azam, Founder & CEO of Ejad Labs for organizing 4th Pakistan Tech Summit 2022." 2: thenews.com.pk one-sentence "honorary advisor" announcement with author "PR". Other sources are even worse including the subject's employer, and irrelevant government documents (memorandum of understanding or MoU). If this person wants some promotion they should read
WP:NOTINHERITED for the minister and seek it in another place. ☆ Bri (
talk) 01:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 02:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources are primary and tech blogs. The 2 sources of being an advisor to a minister and meeting with an ambassador do not make him noteworthy.
M.Ashraf333 (
talk) 10:51, 4 January 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. Numerous reliable sources to establish notability.
Splunction (
talk) 16:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock.
MER-C 04:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Care to share with the rest of the class? 🤔
Bgsu98(Talk) 12:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 20:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per Splunction. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 21:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
The Amazing Race 20#Cast. I don't see enough coverage to justify an independent article. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 14:03, 6 January 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.
This is a
WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. The phrase "transitional fossil" has almost no weight in modern paleontology. Almost any fossil could be considered a transitional fossil between some group or another, as almost all fossils show a selection of both primitive and derived traits, as detailed in our
cladistics article. While some of this list is sourced some of these sources don't even use the phrase, "transitional fossil", and the vast majority is completely unsourced. The section
Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples in the main article is more than enough to list the most historically famous examples like ArchaeopteryxHemiauchenia (
talk) 00:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I would support a merge to
Transitional fossil#Prominent examples. I fail to see why this list can't be prose. The existing section is perfectly serviceable, making the list somewhat of a content fork, but could use expansion with examples from the list. Lythronaxargestes (
talk |
contribs) 02:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - per above.
FunkMonk (
talk) 12:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per above reasoning. I disagree that the term has almost no weight in modern paleontology - it is rather that it is now generally relativized by specifying at what level, or even to what characteristic, it is considered to apply. However, that makes a list of all of these qualified cases far too large and unwieldy to maintain. As noted, the existing text sections do a fine job of discussing important examples. Expand that a little with high-profile/high-importance material from the current list and we should be good. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 14:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge per above. Also what about
Category:Transitional fossils? Yeah all the fossils can be said as transitional fossils, in addition genera that normally aren't considered as famous transitional fossils such as Archimylacris and Minicrania have this category.
Ta-tea-two-te-to (
talk) 00:23, 10 January 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn - and while there is one delete !vote in the AfD it was the first participant who did not have the benefit of later keep rationales so I am going to be bold and close it as
WP:SNOW. (
non-admin closure)
Bruxton (
talk) 01:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Person of unclear notability. It seems he was the manager (owner?) of a dairy operation, but unsure this role confers notability.
Natg 19 (
talk) 00:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Just being a farmer isn't notable, not sure why he's earned a biographical listing in the encyclopedia thing, I don't find any other sourcing for him.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The criterion for notability isn't one's subjective opinion about what field or career someone was in, but whether there exists significant coverage in reliable sources. The
entry in Australian Dictionary of of Biography, together with the 15 sources it cites, demonstrates that significant coverage in reliable sources exists for this person.
Jfire (
talk) 01:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
To be fair, it shows up as one entry/reference here. I'm not aware of how many sources it references in the original encyclopedia.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Per the third criterion of
WP:ANYBIO. Pastoralists and farmers were influential settlers in the early days of Australia (and were often politicians) and make up a large number of early ADB entries. — VORTEX3427 (
Talk!) 03:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep as there are clear reliable sources as indicated above. --
Bduke (
talk) 06:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per Jfire, Vortex3427 and Bduke.
Deus et lex (
talk) 10:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG.
Splunction (
talk) 16:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock.
MER-C 04:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Leaning keep. I'm not a huge fan of ANYBIO #3 cases, but it is apparent that some other sources can be found, and I have added a few notes from contemporaneous editions of The Sydney Morning Herald.
BD2412T 01:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:HEY. I've now added several RS from newspapers-- Cole was clearly a notable personality in the development of the Australian dairy farming industry,
for example"famed through out the world as studmaster at Darbalara and breeder of the world's champion butter producing cow".
Cabrils (
talk) 23:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm willing to withdraw, but there have been 2 deletes, so I guess this needs to wait the full 7 days.
Natg 19 (
talk) 00:43, 7 January 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.