The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:JOURNALIST. Most of the coverage is articles written by her and not
WP:SIGCOV about her. Out of the sources supplied 2,3 and 6 are primary.
LibStar (
talk) 23:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Leaning delete as it seems
WP:TOOSOON in her career, although there is
one feature article about her in The Chronicle (which quotes her but also includes some editorial prose which was presumably fact checked). Happy to reconsider if another article is found, but at the moment the content itself also seems thin. Draftification could be another option. No prejudice if this article is recreated again in the future once there is more independent secondary coverage about her. Doesn't satisfy
WP:NJOURNALIST as I'm not seeing evidence that her work is widely cited (via Google.com.au and Wikipedia Library).
Cielquiparle (
talk) 09:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete There's this brief mention
[1]. Plenty of mentions in the Daily Mail, which isn't an RS. Hasn't met GNG.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Re: Daily Mail, in this case the problem is that she wrote articles for them as well.
Cielquiparle (
talk) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete.
WP:TOOSOON makes one think that in the future the article could be re-created, for which a history would be useful, but there is nowhere to redirect, I suppose.
Suitskvarts (
talk) 12:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. 198 appears to be right on the hairy edge of the upper limit of sequential integers that deserve an article. It is nearly identical to its neighbor articles,
197 (number) and
199 (number), although it has quite a lot more references (probably owing to its more embattled history at AfD, DRV, and AfC). Keep/delete voters are split right down the middle, numerically speaking. Delete voters at this discussion argue that the number isn't notable enough for its own article, and that the number doesn't have enough significant or interesting properties to write about. Keep voters argue that deleting this article would result in an awkward gap in the number articles from 1-200 (which is obviously not based on any policy, but more of an
IAR argument, albeit an arguably valid one), potentially causing issues with navigation templates. Keep voters also implied that, in practice, notability criteria for numbers seems to be inconsistently applied, and applying the same level of scrutiny would likely result in the deletion of many other number articles between 101-200, which would be an outcome that most likely wouldn't find consensus if it were proposed.
This is a difficult discussion to close. While the policy-based arguments favor deletion, there are some convincing IAR arguments that pull it back in the other direction and make it impossible to find a solid consensus here. Some participants suggested a further discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (numbers) on whether the top end of the range of "automatically notable" integers should be expanded from 101 to 201, and I agree that this would be a useful discussion to have before nominating this article for deletion again.
—ScottyWong— 15:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nothing has really changed since
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/198 (number) (March 2022) and
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 9.
User:Robert McClenon promoted this from draft space over
significant objections from participants in those discussions. There still are not multiple properties of any mathematical significance for this number (
companion Pell number might count, but that is only one property and doesn't even have its own separate article), and no in-depth coverage of this number in any reliable sources (its coverage in OEIS is merely as one among many other numbers in several unimportant database entries). The article has been crammed with even more
junk trivia factoids than the version from the AfD, saving it from G4 speedy deletion, but that does not make it notable. Note that the draft discussion also debunked the claim that there was ever a consensus for the statement in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers that we should automatically include all numbers up to 200. Without in-depth coverage of this specific number in any reliable source, this does not pass
WP:GNG. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per the nomination, my comment at the previous AfD and my comments during the AfC process
[2][3].
XOR'easter (
talk) 20:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Being the only number from 1-200 that didn't have an article, it seems rather sad to not include it. It is far better sourced than many of the others, (I know all about
WP:OSE too). It seems to be a net benefit for the encyclopaedia to include it.
Theroadislong (
talk) 20:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The very first "citation" is to a website that does not include the stated claim (or any other useful content, for that matter). The rest is "this integer appears somewhere in OEIS" level cruft, which is no better than the referencing was in, say,
431 (number), which was turned into a redirect
[4]. If we're going by personal feelings of sadness, I'd say that it reads like scraping the bottom of the barrel for bullet points, more like a TV-Tropes-for-Numbers than an exposition of mathematics from which anyone could learn anything, which I find rather less than happy.
XOR'easter (
talk) 20:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Are articles about numbers necessarily required to be "an exposition of mathematics"?
Theroadislong (
talk) 20:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I have now provided a justification for why the first property is true in the article itself. That citation was an accident.
Natureader (
talk) 00:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That's
what we call "Original Research" and is not suitable for Wikipedia. We don't include mathematical facts, even if provable, if there's no written documentation showing that others have discussed them first.
XOR'easter (
talk) 00:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, I have instead found another source. I read in the WikiProject Numbers page that if you can verify it with a pocket calculator, it doesn't need a citation, so I thought it didn't need a citation. Thank you for your explanation. Best,
Natureader (
talk) 00:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep per Theroadislong's decision.
CastJared (
talk) 20:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete and restore the previous redirect along with history. Firstly, I agree this article should be deleted for all the reasons already stated. Secondly,
this deletion review resulted in the previous incarnation of the page being restored (as a redirect) in order to preserve history. That history now appears to have been lost - I assume the article was unceremoniously deleted to make way for this new draft? I think we must keep the previous history. IIRC the previous incarnation of the article had a sensible Talk page conversation about interestingness and why the article should remain a redirect. It's a pity that the nature of deletion means we now can't refer to that discussion in this discussion.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 21:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Ask
User:Robert McClenon where the history went — he performed some complicated sequence of round-robin moves between multiple numbered versions of this title in draft space, some of which have been subsequently deleted as "obviously made in error", in order to clear out the title from article space and move the draft into it. Probably the history went into one of those numbered drafts. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Answer - The history is in
Draft:198 (number), right where I put it. That wasn't one of the trivial errors that I made.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 22:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
'Comment' - 1. Why do you think that I tagged the draft {{
R with history}}? But you didn't look at the draft, because you thought reasonably that it was the draft. 2. The next time that I do this, I will put a comment on the talk page of the accepted article telling where the history is.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 22:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keeping the history in the draft namespace seems unwise. There is a good chance of it being speedily deleted after 6 months of inactivity.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 06:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I now also think we need to merge talk page history (if that’s even possible) as both old and new articles now have discussions on notability. If deletion prevails and 198 becomes the lowest number without an article, it will become/remain a magnet for reincarnation, and all these discussions need to be kept visible to avoid retreading the same ground.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 07:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It's policy. It applies everywhere. Number theory is just as susceptible to oddities, frivolous curiosities, and trivia as any other area of human activity.
XOR'easter (
talk) 22:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete and restore the previous redirect and history. --
Whpq (
talk) 00:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep By that metric of applicability, every mathematical property that is not immediately relevant to
an application of Number Theory is frivolous and needs to be thrown out. If we were to truly apply that rule to the articles we currently have, almost no number passes them. Try to tell me
100 has any content if you remove the trivia? It doesn't even have three facts that link to OEIS sequences where it is in the first five terms, which is the metric David Eppstein seems to think determines whether a number should be given an article or not. "But 100 is important because it is too small to not have its own article/significant in base 10." That's completely subjective, i.e. there's a humanistic reason why it should be included in our encyclopedia (we like base 10 and consider that number small). By that standard, there is nothing wrong with including 198, especially since it is otherwise a rather dissatisfying gap in a long list of articles. We're not concerned about
space availability, and there's enough content here that it isn't a pointless stub (the primary concern of
WP:NUM's guidelines on creation) in comparison to when it was previously deleted. Bass77talkcontribs 03:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
100 has more than half a page in the Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers[5]. 198 has no entry. 100 is also very early in the nice sequences
OEIS:A011557 and
OEIS:A000537 both of which have Wikipedia articles (I'll leave finding them as an exercise), and has a lot of cultural significance. (We have numbers whose notability rests mainly on cultural significance;
117 (number) is an example.) 198 has none of that. Also, see
WP:WAX. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 05:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
198 is "very early" in the nice sequences
https://oeis.org/A050250 and
https://oeis.org/A001078 too, as I mentioned in the draft comments. Why are they not acceptable as interesting? I think at least the first one (nonzero palindromes less than 10^n) should be interesting enough. This and the property of being the first number representable as the sum of four squares in ten different ways (which has an article about the sequence:
Jacobi's four-square theorem) were not mentioned in the previous 198 article, as far as I checked.
Natureader (
talk) 08:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Ok, let me explain why I don't think A050250, "Number of nonzero palindromes less than 10^n", is an interesting property. The number of palindromes of length , over an alphabet of any fixed size , is easy to count: . The number of palindromes of length at most has a more complicated formula. The number of palindromes of length at most where for some reason exactly one of the alphabet symbols is forbidden in the first position has an even more complicated formula. Now apply that formula to and . There are so many arbitrary choices here that you could make a similar number of arbitrary choices and get any number you liked. There is no mathematical significance to having a palindromic digit representation, and no historical reason (for instance in early numerology) for being interested in decimal palindromes. It's only trivia, of a sort liked by people who like trivia about decimal representations, and not even particularly significant among such things. OEIS lists one published paper counting these numbers
[6], not enough to make a case for notability of these counts, and the number 198 appears once in this paper, as a line in a table, not enough for
WP:SIGCOV of its role as one of these counts. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep If we're going to have articles on numbers at all, and it's not immediately clear to me why we should as someone who has never thought about it before, the natural thing to do for a "non-notable" number would be to redirect it to the list of integers between 100-199 as we do with other "non-notable" numbers, but given every other number in the set seems "notable" enough for its own page, the correct "solution" would be to redirect it to a list where it would be the only entry. Therefore, given this isn't a "normal" topic, we "should" probably keep it just out on IAR/organisational concerns.
SportingFlyerT·C 16:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Can we maybe add "just one more" to
WP:ATA? If we repeatedly applied that principle to numbers we would get infinitely many articles, which is obviously an impossible-to-maintain situation. How about stopping where actual notability runs out, instead? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I support the induction of this argument to the ATA hall of fame.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 18:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Because it's not a "just one more" argument, and I don't appreciate you trying to classify my argument as such. I have absolutely no idea why
198 (number) is not notable but
135 (number) is. Is it because 135 has more things to disambiguate? Is anyone arguing the page for 135 (number) passes GNG? Why is the mathematical trivia for
197 (number) valid for notability but not the ones at
198 (number)? Whether we have pages for numbers seems completely arbitrary apart from maybe pi because we're not applying rules consistently, and since we're not applying rules consistently, and the correct thing to do would be to redirect to a page that would list all the "non-notable" numbers between 100 and 200, which for whatever reason is exactly one number. The best option would be to delete this, 135, 197, and all of the other numbers which fail GNG and are only sourced to one mathematical encyclopedia, but I don't expect that would be very popular, so we may as well be inclusive.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:WAX. The 135 article in its current state is nearly as bad as the new 198 article. Also "more things to disambiguate" indicates some confusion; these are not disambiguation articles. We have a separate disambiguation article
135 (disambiguation); number articles are not and should not be confused with number disambiguation articles. I don't know if the three line entry for 135 in The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers[7] counts as
WP:SIGCOV. The existence of other bad articles does not justify one more bad article. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Just to be clear, based on your response, you would be open to an AfD on
135 (number) following this AfD, if it were to close as delete? Because what we're trying to figure out at the moment is whether these numbers are "notable" or not. We do have
WP:NNUM, but since this is at AfD it's clear
WP:NNUM is difficult to apply, if 198 gets deleted but 197 or 135 gets kept for having what amounts to essentially the same article for the lay reader, down to the sourcing, suffering basically the same problem as other recently deprecated SNGs - it's just that NNUM never really needs to be applied at AfD. I think the decision is between deleting a lot more numbers than just 198 or serving readers like myself who aren't computer science professors and who may not necessarily understand why 198 doesn't have an article when every other integer 0-200 does. (Furthermore, if these are not disambiguation articles, then we should probably be cleaning some of them up.
167 (number) is a great example.)
SportingFlyerT·C 19:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I have not yet formulated an opinion on the notability of 135. It would take more external research. The current article does not convince me of its notability, but it might be notable through material not yet present in the article, or through some kind of significance that is mentioned in the article but buried among all the cruft there to the point where I have not seen it.
I have been cleaning many of these up, slowly, with continued friction from some editors who like having them loaded with cruft. It was through attempting to clean these up in 2022, and not finding sufficient material to base an article on, that I initiated the first AfD of 198. I have not yet attempted to clean up 135. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the explanation - I understand your position a bit more clearly now. I'm not familiar with the history so perhaps this was discussed elsewhere before the first AfD as well, maybe at RfC. My argument is pretty simple but features a number of conditionals: if
WP:GNG applies only, then this should be deleted. If
WP:NNUM applies only, if it meets NNUM then it should be kept and if it doesn't then it should be deleted. However, as a SNG, NNUM would let us have these articles and have them not need to meet GNG, which is absolutely fine by me - these are a special category of article, but simultaneously, if the argument is all numbers 0-200 meet NNUM except 198, which is what I believe the initial AfD argued, then we should IAR keep this because the difference between 197 and 198 is not sufficiently different enough in practice that someone who's not into mathematics would understand why one has an article and the other does not, and we should instead keep 0-200 as a set of articles that can be on the site. If we're at the point where everything has to pass GNG, though, after the SNG discussions - I've been on a break - then this should probably be instead merged and redirected somewhere, and we can probably start doing that with other articles in the 0-200 range as well. Barring any specific consensus, I would default to keeping the article in a standalone form.
SportingFlyerT·C 21:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It's worth pointing out here that according to
WP:NNUM: "For the sake of completeness... it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 101 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the others." The cutoff point of 101 seems arbitrary, so there's a case to be made that it should be raised to 200 to smooth out the 198 gap.
The Midnite Wolf (
talk) 21:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Most number articles are written like
WP:TRIVIA anyways. We should have a wider discussion about their purpose. Something like
60 (number) is clearly notable for historical Base 60 reasons alone but it's not really helpful to readers - but that's a conversation for another day.
SportingFlyerT·C 22:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep – I !voted weak delete last time, but the article does not seem significantly below the standard of similar pages. (Although that sounds like
OSE, it does help define the threshold.) Together with the arguments above, we should probably keep 198 to complete our set of 1–200, but it's still marginal.
Certes (
talk) 21:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
delete per common sense. Article is just a collection of trivial data.
Cinadon36 08:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete and restore the previous redirect and history: Does not appear to pass
WP:NNUM and reads as a pile of trivia.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 15:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - I would support keeping, even if this page only had the links to 197 and 199. If the content is a problem - prune it. But don't reduce navigation for our readers by deleting this page. That doesn't make any logical sense at all. - jc37 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Week keep. From
WP:NNUM: "For the sake of completeness... it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 101 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the others. This avoids having, say, a gap for 38." The cutoff point of 101 here is arbitrary and could easily be changed to 200 or 201. I don't see a reason why a single gap below 200 is less unsatisfying than a gap at 38.
The Midnite Wolf (
talk) 21:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
delete per nom, the fact that there is a page for 197 or any other number doesn't make this one better.
Artem.G (
talk) 07:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete it's a bunch of trivia, with no obvious significance. All of the non-notable numbers below 198 should be deleted too imo, just in case someone wants to use the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or "navigational completeness" arguments (the navigational completeness argument makes no sense here anyway, people don't need a list to know what number comes after 197).
AryKun (
talk) 13:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Who benefits from these articles being deleted? Bass77talkcontribs 22:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It gives us practice patching up all the number navigation templates,
List of numbers, etc. to work around a hole in the sequence.
Certes (
talk) 22:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, what makes a number notable? That's really the crux of this entire AfD, but this may not be the best place for that discussion.
SportingFlyerT·C 22:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Honestly, I would argue most numbers aren't notable, even below one hundred. I would think only small numbers -1–20, fundamental constants like e, π, and i, and then numbers with some real-world notability or GNG like 100, 1000, the -illions, and googol should have separate articles.
AryKun (
talk) 01:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I closed the first AFD as "Delete" but this go-round, I don't see a consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete a lot of the arguments are above are about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "niceness", not whether the actual number is notable outside of a set. The "in mathematics" section is almost entirely just math trivia, no different from an "in pop culture" cruft section about a fictional character, and then the rest of it is just run-of-the-mill trivia combined with a disambiguation. There's not actual sources attesting to passing the GNG here, and I don't think any of these articles that are cited to
On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences demonstrate notability.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 18:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak delete and restore redirect, as the keep !votes are largely based on aesthetic arguments without addressing notability. To those wishing to keep the article, I would suggest proposing a change to
WP:NNUM so that it includes all numbers up to 201, rather than 101. Based on this discussion, it would probably gain some traction.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 16:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think delete !votes are any better on this front: "crammed with junk trivia factoids", "cruft", "scraping the bottom of the barrel", "some editors who like having them loaded with cruft", "pile of trivia", and "bunch of trivia" sound like aesthetic arguments to me. jp×g 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Trivia and cruft are relevant to deletion discussions insofar as they describe issues relating to
WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 22:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Also, that was a highly selective and misleadingly cherry-picked set of quotations. In particular, the "crammed with junk trivia factoids", taken from my nomination statement, was from a part of the nomination statement explaining why G4 speedy deletion does not apply. The same nomination statement concludes with a clear guideline-based statement directly addressing (the total lack of)
WP:GNG-based depth of coverage. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 01:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Note that, contrary to many claims, the contents of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not "it is forbidden to make any a posteriori claims whatsoever about consensus". This would be absurd, which is why it is not a policy or guideline. What this link actually goes to is a section of an essay about a specific type of fallacious reasoning where somebody argues for an article to be kept on the sole basis that another (very crappy and unlikely to survive AfD) article exists. It's quite unclear to me how this is supposed to apply to situations in which the "other stuff" is the subject of robust consensus. Here are all of the AfDs for numbers under 200:
1 (joke nom),
7 (joke nom),
9 (keep),
42 (joke nom),
69 (joke nom),
134 (keep),
138 (keep),
155 (keep),
178 (keep),
198 (delete). Here, other stuff does not exist as a random coincidence, but rather because people repeatedly agreed that it should exist. Even apart from that, I don't think that saying something is "cruft" or "junk trivia factoids" is a good deletion rationale (indeed, there is a section in the same essay named after this:
WP:IDONTLIKEIT). As for the merits of the article: there are indeed OEIS citations, but there are also other citations (like the Brazilian emergency phone number, the dollar-coin ridges, and the NumberADay ref). It is not the greatest article in the world, but it seems basically fine to me. jp×g 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The AfD's for 134, 138, and 155 were a decade and a half ago. It's reasonable to question whether that amounts to a meaningful example to follow now. The article for 178 made a better case for its existence on straight-up mathematical properties than this one (it got two "keep" !votes and one "weak keep", from editors who in this discussion have come down as "weak keep", "delete" and "delete" respectively).
XOR'easter (
talk) 16:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject was not mentioned in the
cited book, and the Marathi version of the article relies on the
official website of the temple. Searches online only found two Marathi articles, both were announcements of upcoming festivals that would be held in the temple in 2021. Lacks sufficient coverage to pass
WP:GNG.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk) 15:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as per above. There are no sources that use this name; perhaps this temple is better known by another name.
DreamRimmer (
talk) 16:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete could not find any
WP:SIGCOV in gnews or gbooks. Fails GNG.
LibStar (
talk) 23:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –
bradv 00:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
No evidence of
notability for this one-off tournament. Prod removed without improvements and with arguments which don't really address the lack of indepth sourcing. Sources are passing mentions or routine coverage only.
Fram (
talk) 15:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
It looks like the tournament (or at least one with that name) lasted longer than one year -
this article from 1925 mentions the "twelfth annual Delaware Tennis Club Tournament" and discusses it a bit.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Mention of the 1886 edition
here, but oddly it mentions C. B. Davis as the runner-up (while teamed up with Leigh Bousall) and Remak as the winner (with Cowperthait)?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 20:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Apparently it decided the lawn tennis championship of the southern states:
[8].
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 20:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Other articles on it:
[9][10] and
[11]. The last one makes it seem like there was a doubles and singles event, the former of which Remak/Cowperthait won and the latter I guess Davis won, so that issue is cleared up.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 20:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete -- A one-off tournament held over 130 years ago does not merit an article. Even if it was held annually for some years the answer would be the same. If we had an article on
Delaware Field Club, which apparently staged the tournament, we might have merged there; or
Delaware Tennis Club, but both are apparently NN; and so is the tournament.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Having done extensive research on historical Delaware sports, I can say that the Field Club is almost certainly notable – maybe I could create the Field Club at some point soon and have this merged there, perhaps with the
Delaware Field Club Open as well?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 15:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Peterkingiron - Single events can absolutely be notable and when they took place doesn't matter.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 15:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - not sure how it started but it looks to have sources now and is notable.
Fyunck(click) (
talk) 21:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Possible merge or redirect to
Southern Championships if it can be be established through reliable sources that it was the inaugaural holding of or forerunner to that tournament — it's stated as such in that article. However, the information in Southern Championships seems to conflict with the information provided here, which states it was a one-off tournament. Until this is resolved it's difficult to make a formal recommendation.
Rupples (
talk) 01:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to consider Merge or Redirect. This discussion does need to be closed whether or not a Field Club article is in main space. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. The one person who could help clarify the facts here is the creator of both this and the Southern Championships article
Navops47 who I initially thought hadn't been formally notified of this AfD on their talk page and that was why they hadn't contributed here. About to query this, but a check of their Talk page history shows that notification was indeed made. Without confirmation of the position as to whether this tournament was one-off or the forerunner/inaugaural to the Southern Championships we run the risk of merging incorrect information.
Rupples (
talk) 01:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Non notable, one off event.
Zippybonzo |
Talk (he|him) 13:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep It looks like there's enough sources to support an article. The fact it happened once is of no importance.
SportingFlyerT·C 13:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - I have added more sources to the page, including links to pages for two films which featured the subject as the main subject of the film. I think this certainly counts as 'significant coverage'.
Jwslubbock (
talk) 14:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep, delete, or merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep His life is represented not just his role in the siege, I don’t see how anyone would want this to be deleted on a genuine merit, it’s history and people like to use Wikipedia to read about history
Bobisland (
talk) 22:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Brief mention here
[13]. Nothing else found. appears perhaps to be a memorial page, which wiki is not.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG. Relies exclusively on primary sources. He has not demonstrated individual notability outside of Paramaecium, therefore he shouldn't have his own Wikipedia page, per
WP:BANDMEMBER.
JMB1980 (
talk) 21:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Paramaecium. Per nominator, a quick Google and Wikipedia Library search suggests he doesn't have individual notability outside of Paramaecium. He does appear to have a few positive mentions in album reviews, but these currently are not cited in this article and could be added to the article on the band itself.
Cielquiparle (
talk) 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This footballer made two appearances for the Cayman Islands. I can find no significant coverage of this player in web searches or Cayman Islands news sources. There is a marriage announcement in the Cayman Compass but it is not nearly enough.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I found three items on Google Books which give non-trivial amounts of information about it:
[14][15][16].
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 21:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, in light of the sources posted by Barnards. jp×g 05:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Possible Delete. Lack of reliability pushes me towards delete, unless someone can find at least one
reliable source from somewhere, should any exist. --
StarryNightSky11☎ 20:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Another clear Merge since the label's founder has an article. These types of cases can be handled without further burdening AfD.
Chubbles (
talk) 06:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A plain merge is different than a merge/delete/redirect. Just merging would leave the history intact for any editor to restore, while a delete & redirect would prevent most users from doing that. And that action requires AfD. -
UtherSRG(talk) 11:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
But why would we do that, in this case?
Chubbles (
talk) 05:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - I second the merge into
Nocturnal Emissions; don't care what mechanism is used, just that the content is maintained.
-- t_kiehne (
talk) 18:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom, was also draftified and moved back with no improvements. FatalFit |
✉ |
✓ 21:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I
took a stab but was unable to establish clear notability and forgot to come back to it. I'll have another look this week to see if anything has changed. StarMississippi 01:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I haven't turned up anything of note. If this closes as delete and I do down the road, I'll draftify it and flag for you and whoever closes before restoring. StarMississippi 01:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Trivial coverage, at best. Not notable and I can't find any sourcing. Props for the "what can I do with this degree article" as sourcing though.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 01:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Does not appear notable as a musical performer, no charted singles, no awards. The article (and most sourcing found in BEFORE) is largely related to the legal problems the individual is facing. Likely WP:BLP1E
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's difficult to judge how well known he is. The only coverage I've found is news reports that he's facing criminal charges. There's pieces on social media and on websites but these don't appear to be reliable sources and what coverage there is lacks depth, so I don't think he passes
WP:BIO or the
WP:GNG. Doesn't satisfy the conditions of
WP:CRIME as he's not been convicted. Nothing found on his musical career. Checked the South African official charts website
https://theofficialsacharts.co.za and got zero results under both "Shebeshxt" and "Malome Shebe" so doubt he passes criterion 2 of
WP:SINGER and nothing came up on Discogs search to support criterion 5.
Rupples (
talk) 01:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG - no Google news hits, and as an intersection of two surface roads it is hard to imagine how it could be notable
[17]. Rschen7754 22:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: No indication of notability, just an intersection
Reywas92Talk 03:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: I believe this article is about a community named Mackenzie Junction, not the intersection, despite the way the article is written. This should probably be converted to a redirect to the article
Regional District of Fraser–Fort George.
Mindmatrix 14:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Which sources describe a community with this name? –
dlthewave☎ 16:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
As a road junction, this article is not notable. As a community -
WP:GEOLAND says that populated places are presumed notable (not making a statement about whether this community fulfills that), but the article seems to be written about the road junction. Rschen7754 00:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. I got 7 Google news hits. While the junction is nothing out of the ordinary, it's located in a sparsely populated area and appears to be used as a geographical marker for anything that happens in the area. Perhaps the junction falls within the realm of Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer? An alternative could be a redirect to
British Columbia Highway 39.
Rupples (
talk) 01:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge into
British Columbia Highway 39 for which this junction, tiny community, and service center is a terminal node. The target is short and can use this content.
gidonb (
talk) 02:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Did consider a merge rather than a redirect but quality of sourcing stopped me formally recommending. I do think "Mackenzie Junction" is a plausible search term and therefore should be referenced somehow. If deemed appropriate a merge is the best alternative to deletion as notability looks insufficient to warrant a separate article.
Rupples (
talk) 13:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Rupples, thank you for thinking this through. Actually, there is nothing wrong with the sources except that these do not support notability or importance. Hence we cannot keep the article. The content only needs sources that support data, a lower bar, which is met. The two sentences that should be copied to
British Columbia Highway 39, while once inserting Mackenzie Junction, are the ones that start with it. Plus Mackenzie Junction should be added to infobox as the terminal node.
gidonb (
talk) 13:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge into
British Columbia Highway 39 with "Mackenzie Junction" as a heading in that article and searches redirected there — following
Gidonb's and my reasoning above.
Rupples (
talk) 14:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Intersection has no indication of notability. –
dlthewave☎ 16:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let’s attempt to come to a consensus on whether to merge or delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment What part of Wikipedia's policy makes the number of Google News hits a criteria for inclusion or deletion? Also, the Google algorithm can be misleading in that stories in reliable secondary news sources stop showing up in Google news hits after a few days, but show up when the articles are first published.--
Kerbyki (
talk) 14:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nom, not notable at all
greyzxqtalk 15:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge or keep Possibly to Mackenzie? It's clear there exists a place called Mackenzie Junction - it comes up in a Google Books search, and there's an inn, a restaurant, and a RV hookup there in real life. Whether that's enough for a standalone article is a different question (even though that's the one posed by this discussion), but we should make sure the place is noted somewhere on the site.
SportingFlyerT·C 21:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thinking about this more, it's the junction for the only road to Mackenzie - I think Mackenzie would be a good merge target for the small amount of information that's here, especially considering the Mackenzie visitor centre is by the junction.
SportingFlyerT·C 00:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete There doesn't seem to be anything there to merit keeping as a community (based on looking at maps), and no evidence of notability as a junction (junctions are sometimes notable if historically significant or important, but not every road junction deserves an article). If the inn/restaurant was itself notable, we could move, but it doesn't seem to be. Redirecting to
British Columbia Highway 39 might be possible if this is a genuinely widely-used name for the junction but I'm not sure of that. What happened there? Why is it notable? --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 10:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Because it's widely referred to as a place in articles like this:
[18] and in German guidebooks:
[19] and
here and
a reference to real estate being located there - there's not much, but it's definitely a point on the map people refer to in a very rural part of the world. It's probably not going to be enough to keep this article unfortunately but I feel like that's a failure of
WP:NGEO more than anything else.
SportingFlyerT·C 22:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete A minor intersection, does not meet the notability guidelines.
Avilich (
talk) 20:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I looked on Google Earth. There is nothing there except one combined Petro-Canada gas station / RV park (tiny) / restaurant. There's a building out in back of that which may be housing for workers. There's a cluster of what looks like about a dozen mobile homes on the other side of the
Parsnip River. That's everything within a one-mile radius.--A. B.(
talk •
contribs •
global count) 03:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Did
WP:BEFORE and was unable to find any sources that were not passing mentions or Facebook posts. I searched scholar and there are a couple mentions about how the school was the site of some earthquake improvements but nothing in de[th enough to establish notability. Dr vulpes(
💬 •
📝) 19:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete My searches could not find significant coverage to meet
WP:NSCHOOL.
LibStar (
talk) 23:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If you can find a cite for that section then I'm okay with the merge per
WP:ATD --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah that sounds fine, if there's anything you want me to do just ping me and I'll do my best to give you a hand. Dr vulpes(
💬 •
📝) 21:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge proposal Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Dear
Onel5969, permit me to present an alternate vista upon this rich panorama of sources. The array of evidence available, I argue, draws a vivid portrait of our subject that fulfills, if not surpasses, the parameters of
WP:SIGCOV.
Reflect, if you will, upon the sheer diversity of contexts in which our subject appears. From being the
voice of authority as a parade administrator, to sharing personal insights in a
magazine interview, his presence permeates a wide spectrum of discourse.
Furthermore, his inclusion in a political committee carries weight, especially when the announcement of such is is
accompanied by a profile and direct quotes - an indication of his significance within the milieu
Similarly, the honoring by the Westchester County
board of legislators and the
Aisling Irish Community Centre of New York are not mere passing platitudes, but substantive statements describing a community's recognition of his achievements. Such accolades do not find their way to individuals of ordinary standing, but to those who have made substantial impact.
Consider, too, the quality of the sources. The Irish Times, a publication of undisputed credibility, deemed our subject's
views valuable enough to include in a discussion of national import. This is not the mark of an individual of passing interest, but rather of one whose insights hold weight.
Esteemed colleague, upon a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the sources at hand, it is my conviction that they provide the 'significant coverage' required by our revered guidelines. The collective breadth, depth, and diversity of these sources underscore the subject's noteworthy influence and contributions in his sphere, thereby affirming his rightful place in the annals of Wikipedia. I propose that the evidence at hand is a testament to our subject's multifaceted significance.
His influence and the recognition he's earned, coupled with the breadth and depth of coverage across a range of reputable sources, come together to advocate strongly for his retention within our compendium. It is my belief that his journey and contributions warrant our attention, and that his tale should remain within Wikipedia's archives, for the edification of all who seek knowledge.
Jack4576 (
talk) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect to
New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade. While
Jack4576 has offered a
lengthy opinion above, my own review of the sources (in the article and found elsewhere following a
WP:BEFORE) indicate that much of the subject's notability relates primarily to his connection with the NYC parade/committee. Otherwise, apart from local/regional sources (like the
Roscommon Herald and
Sligo Champion pieces) most of the sources are either press releases, interviews, and opinion pieces written by the subject (and therefore not independent). Or are mentions by/about the subject in news pieces which are substantively about something else. A redirect (as an
WP:ATD) seems reasonable in this sceanrio...
Guliolopez (
talk) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't think his contributions are particularly significant, but that's not what GNG measures. They have gained enough international publicity, in the form of in-depth stories about him in multiple reliably-published and independent newspapers and magazines in Ireland, to pass GNG. And some of them are about one thing and some another (his work with the parade, and with the treaty organization) so
WP:BIO1E is not in play. The
WP:VAGUEWAVE comments visible above do not convince (although neither does Jack's prolixity on the other side). —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - Leaning more towards a delete/merge per Guliolopez's argument. The case for WP:GNG seems weak.-
KH-1 (
talk) 01:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 04:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
PROD by
User:TimothyBlue which I endorsed as we are not a Soccerway mirror site. Recreated in what appears to be the exact same form, with no attempt to address the issues. Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Appears to be a footballer playing at a very low level in the Greek women's football system with no claim to notability whatsoever. In Greek searches, I found only trivial coverage.
Sport Drama is a copy of a press release from
Amazones Dramas and is clearly not independent of Koskeridou.
Xronika Dramas is probably the best source but it's nothing more than a quote from her, a squad listing and two passing mentions in the minute-by-minute match summary.
Aelole (translated) mentions her once.
Proinos Typos mentions her twice in passing. None of the above demonstrates the need for a stand-alone article, especially for a player with such an insignificant career. Should her career take an upward turn and if significant coverage is ever produced, then this can be recreated.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not meeting MUSIC, no charted singles, nothing found in reliable sources; some coverage in DJ Mag, nothing I can find for extensive coverage.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, I'll add more references then??
BiggestBidder (
talk) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
We're looking for extensive coverage of the person in reliable sources, not blogs or websites. If you can find some, please share with us.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Here are some good ones. If you want me to add these to the article, I will. Not sure what's wrong with the current sources though? There isn't even much information that would need many references.
These are not so good. All three sources are interviews which is neither secondary nor independent of the subject. The nom already mentioned "some coverage in DJ Mag", but the second link and another on the article are interviews with the subject.
Saucysalsa30 (
talk) 02:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep the article now references a significant piece in DJ Mag, a full review in Pitchfork, a bio on AllMusic and other coverage that passes
WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 20:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The piece in DJ Mag is an interview (primary information and not independent of the subject), which does not meet GNG. The Pitchfork source is a short review of an EP and says nothing of the subject himself. The bio on AllMusic is not significant coverage, not RS, and submitted by a "Paul Simpson", whoever that is. Other coverage is weaker in making a case for GNG than these which already fail. Aside from not passing GNG, GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. It's a remarkably low threshold to say that on a superficial level one can assume without sounding preposterous that there's a case for notability.
Saucysalsa30 (
talk) 02:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 01:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Sources on the article are a mix of non-RS, primary sources, not independent of the subject especially interviews, not significant coverage, which do not help make a case for notability. Research done by the nominator, BiggestBidder, and I have turned up more of this. Take the McCollum piece in DJ Mag on the article, probably the best source available. It's an interview with the subject, which is primary information and not independent of the subject. Fails
WP:GNG, which is only a minimum bar presumption for notability.
Saucysalsa30 (
talk) 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
AllMusic is an established reliable source as per
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. and has a byline written by Paul Simpson who is a staff writer at AllMusic. The
Pitchfork review is four paragraphs long and the first paragraph is biographical information directly about him, and it is also independent criticism of his music which of course is relevant to him. The DJ Mag piece is significant coverage in a reliable source so there is enough to pass
WP:GNG imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 22:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I spoke to each one here.
[20] Adding a little more.
The AllMusic source, in just 280 words, is puffery and discography in all but 50 words. Hardly prime biographic material.
The
Pitchfork review on an EP has a whopping 2 sentences about him biographically, mentioning 3 cities he's lived in.
I'll repeat, the DJ Mag piece is not independent of the subject and is mostly primary sourcing, being an interview. It's as dependent on the subject as it could possibly get.
WP:GNG does not accept this and neither does NMUSIC: "This criterion includes published works in all forms .. except for the following: .. publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves"
GNG is not met. The nomination still stands. The subject appears to be a minor DJ with a smattering of low depth coverage. Worth reminding that GNG is not any guarantee to keep an article either. It's a bare minimum threshold to consider notability without sounding preposterous. Unfortunately,
Lsdxoxo does not meet this low threshold.
Saucysalsa30 (
talk) 05:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think the AllMusic bio and Pitchfork review provide significant coverage of this artist; I don't buy the argument that their focus on a musician's musical output disqualifies them as sources.
Hatman31 (
talk) 21:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Leaning to Keep as meets
WP:MUSICBIO. Allmusic is a reliable source with a staff writer bio, and subject also has a short bio in
Resident Advisor which is also an
WP:EMRS. Seems notable enough to have done a cover mix for
Mixmag -
here. Mixmag also included his single 'Burn The Witch' as one of the 120 best tracks of the decade:
[21]. Resonant
Distortion 16:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Also has a residency on a major national radio station
BBC Residency and has done a substantial 2 hour broadcast on Pete Tongs
Essential Mix -
here. Further points which meet musicbio#12. Lsdxoxo is more than a 'minor DJ'. Resonant
Distortion 16:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, PROMO, not meeting GNG. Name is rather common, turns up in various USA media, with no relation to this person. Seems to be a municipal employee, but I can't tell from the article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per above, promotional only.
Karnataka (
talk) 22:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This footballer played 2 games for the Cayman Islands in 2008. I don't see much coverage searching online and in Cayman Islands news sources. I can see some passing mentions in the Cayman Compass and
one piece that provides a little more prose.
All told I don't believe the subject of the article meets GNG.
MarchOfTheGreyhounds (
talk) 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete not a single source in Greek. Totally unknown
ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (
talk) 00:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 sources brought up by Link20XX and Xexerss.
Fulmard (
talk) 19:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Tagged as an advert since 2012, and, apparently, now out of date. The only accessible source in the article is an archive of the resort's own website. My searches haven't found any significant coverage of the farm or the resort.
John of Reading (
talk) 10:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete appears to have been transformed into a non-notable off-road park/track. Still a Delete. The wrongful death case isn't helping notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Appears that isn't notable.
CastJared (
talk) 15:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
sourced entirely to primary sources, fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 12:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. This school has been in existence for over 100 years. We generally keep public high schools (not policy, but that's what happens). Sources do not have to be in the article, they need to
WP:NEXIST, and they don't have to be online. This is the second oldest school I've ever seen nominated. As to the article, it is at this point a pitiful stub, which needs great improvement, but why delete it instead of fixing it?
Jacona (
talk) 13:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
We can't presume notability due to age, notability comes from sources which must be shown to exist, improvement of an article requires sourcing to show it passes
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG.
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 14:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Page 3 of the August 29, 1922 issue of the Idaho Statesman (based in Boise) has
WP:SIGCOV about the expansion of the high school from a 3 year to a 4 year curriculum. That's the oldest
WP:RS I've found thus far. I have found trivial mentions as far back as 1901. —
Jacona (
talk) 14:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
One source is not
WP:SIGCOV, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Trivial mentions do not count towards
WP:GNG.
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 14:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Lavalizard101, First, this is not a trivial mention. Second, it's not the only source, but I've provided this one to show this school has existed and has significant coverage as far back as over a century ago. I don't really intend to waste a lot of effort to show that sources exists for a public high school in the U.S. that is so old, as experienced editors should know that sources are going to
WP:NEXIST, both online and off. Just as a comment, before I nominate any articles for deletion, I always do a search on newspapers.com. There is a wealth of coverage. You can access it for free at the Wikipedia Library —
Jacona (
talk) 14:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying that that source is a trivial mention, my comment about trivial mentions is a response to your "I have found trivial mentions as far back as 1901".
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 14:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Also
WP:NEXIST also states "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive".
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 14:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This is why
Newspapers.com and
Newspaperarchive.com are important, as one can check some newspapers. One issue is that not all sources are online and some sources require visits to in-person centers for microfilms. This puts a very large burden on ordinary people trying to get sources for articles. We are lucky that the Idaho newspapers do have articles about the school online.
WhisperToMe (
talk) 03:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - I just made a clipping of "
May Enlarge Curriculum: Council High School Seeking to Teach All Four Classes" so Wikipedians can see the article for themselves and determine whether it meets SIGCOV. There should be a priority in ensuring articles on government-run comprehensive high schools have the necessary sources to meet SIGCOV, because Wikipedia does function as an almanac, and documenting public facilities such as schools are an important ingredient in being a good almanac. As per
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools, any American school operated by a school district which doesnt meet notability should be folded into the respective school district article.
WhisperToMe (
talk) 03:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: I checked
Newspaperarchive.com and found coverage of the school fire and the subsequent efforts to build a new building from the Idaho Free Press of
Nampa, Idaho. A school fire almost completely destroying the building is not routine coverage, and the articles delve into
Wikipedia:SIGCOVWhisperToMe (
talk) 03:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - Jacona's argument is compelling, and between the sources he and WhisperToMe have brought forward, GNG is clearly met. Aa a side note, the community it's located in had a local newspaper up until the early 90s. It hasn't been Archived anywhere online, but is available in both the local library and the Idaho state repository library at Boise State University. It's a fair assumption that there would be some highly detailed articles in it. And as the newspaper of record for the county, it should be considered a reliable source. There's a vast world of information beyond the internet.
69.92.163.38 (
talk) 16:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sources provided by
Jacona and
WhisperToMe easily meet requirements for non-profit schools under
WP:ORG and
WP:AUD: The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. (Italics mine.) The tip above about the local newspaper is also an appreciated reminder of life beyond the internet. Finally, notability requirements for public (non-profit) schools are
WP:ORGorWP:GNG, and this article meets both.
— Grand'mere Eugene (
talk) 21:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet
WP:GNG. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
sourced entirely to primary sources, fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 12:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - sufficient sourcing exists to meet GNG. Nominator should be reminded that AfD is not about the article, but rather about the subject of the article. Your comment was inappropriate.
69.92.163.38 (
talk) 16:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I added a few sources, and there are more on newspapers.com, which I will add in the next few days. Meets
WP:NSCHOOL and
WP:GNG.
— Grand'mere Eugene (
talk) 23:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Update -- I've clipped articles through 1975, excluding the quarterly/annual honor roll listings, reports of Future Farmers of America and of Future Homemakers of America, band performances, theater performances, Boys' State attendees from Castleford, dances, and commencements. In short, there were MANY articles I have not clipped about school activities. There were two article (so far) about bomb threats, and multiple articles about the school's dress code, involving girls' skirt length (too short) and boys' haircuts (too long), that in 1975 resulted in expulsion of nine males and multiple stories in local and statewide newspapers; all nine were readmitted with their too-long hair. I'll be adding what I have found so far to the article's talk page, for any editors who want to expand the article with content that could be an ode to small-town American life. I will try to return next week to newspapers.com for stories from the last half-century. Now for some corn on the cob and strawberry shortcake with my grandkids...
Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet
WP:GNG. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
sourced entirely to primary sources, fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 12:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep -
This article from the Idaho Statesman appears to be enough on its own to satisfy GNG. Additionally, the athletic achievements detailed in the article, along with the achievements this small school has achieved in music not in the article would indicate more sources are available. Please understand that notability guidelines are not proscriptive (telling us what we can't do); but rather descriptive (telling us what we usually do). Most US schools have sufficient sources somewhere; high achieving schools even moreso. And if it's a toss up, we keep. Although notability is admittedly weak for this school, IMO it's sufficient to keep.
69.92.163.38 (
talk) 18:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I added a few historical details supported by newspapers.com sources, and as a non-profit, the school meets
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG.
— Grand'mere Eugene (
talk) 17:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet
WP:GNG. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep there is enough coverage identified in this discussion and referenced in the article for a pass of
WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
There is sufficient sourcing in the article to meet
WP:GNG, so we should Keep this article.
Jacona (
talk) 15:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 14:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
1) This was created by a blocked user. 2) There are concerns about paid edits. 3) I've gone through
WP:PROF and I don't think the subject is notable.
Dr. Vogel (
talk) 11:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 14:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Does not appear to be a good reason why this school should be considered notable. Fwiw there appear to be many schools affiliated to
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan which have WP pages but with questionable notability
JMWt (
talk) 11:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. If any schools in
India are not notable, it will be deleted because, it can't pass
WP:GNG and
WP:NSCHOOL.
CastJared (
talk) 15:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The school doesn't meet the notability requirements stated on
WP:NSCHOOLErtrinken (
talk) 17:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A Teahouse visitor has asserted, with coherent argument, that this place was never inhabited, and is merely a railway siding. I will copy their text as comments.
Elemimele (
talk) 07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The teahouse-guest,
ClevelandExPat asked for correction of this article, initially posting the following text:
"I have found an article that is very inaccurate in that it has turned a former mail stop along the old Pennsylvania Railroad tracks in Ohio into an "unincorporated community," which it never was. (No streets, no buildings other than an exterior platform and at most a mail distribution point - before Rural Free Delivery started in 1905. This place had no school, no churches, no grange or hall of any sort. Its simply a grade crossing created by a railroad. Portraying this as "community" is causing problems on other sites that insist that place was more than it was and as an unincorporated community that there were members of said "unincorporated community," when there were none. I just want the correct information to stand and remove this fictitious portrayal of what was a mail stop and perhaps a small post office that only functioned from 1895-1905 as an "unincorporated community" The factual information is already assembled, what remains is what to do with the "box" used for places. I just want this to be accurate, without deepening involvement. Is it possible to make this happen?"
They subsequently added:
"Thank you for the reply. USGS has a point on a map. And evidently, McGraw Hill maps do as well. However, Lynn, the railroad siding, was never occupied. Even as a postal sub-office, it existed as "Benzler" or "Lynn" had no residents, no place for people to gather. As for the defunct, yes, as of 1905 when its reason for being was closed with the advent of RFD routes. So it should be labeled as defunct in that its purpose for being ended 118 years ago. And it should be labeled as such, because there is nothing there. As for why people continue to list it on maps, it's probably "We have always done it that way," and the decision is being made by people who have never been there. If you look it up on Google maps, you'll see that there is just a crossing, nothing else. "
Based on these arguments, it's not clear that this is genuinely a notable place. I am not an expert on US inhabited locations, and am therefore bringing it here, for the attention of those who are.
Elemimele (
talk) 07:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I edited the article to say "...is a former post office and railroad
siding ..." The article already had two references. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs) 15:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - "Unincorporated community" was sourced only to GNIS which is unreliable for that claim; the train station and post office do not indicate the presence of a community nor do they meet GNG. –
dlthewave☎ 18:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Post offices from that era do not necessarily correspond to communities; often they were just run out of a home or store and named after the owner. Better sourcing would be needed to establish as a notable place or community.
Reywas92Talk 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:GEOLAND. There is no automatic notability for ex-post offices and railroad sidings, only for legally recognised communities, which this wasn't. The passing mentions cited clearly aren't enough to meet the
WP:GNG. Hut 8.5 18:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Something not delete Are we sure the information is correct? I've found
[34] which shows someone was the pastor of a church in Lynn, Ohio earlier in the 19th century and
[35] talks about electors from Lynn, and also mentioned here:
[36] - I don't know where that comes from, but are we absolutely sure about this one? Even if we are, the information here should be merged elsewhere.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
See also
[37] and
[38] which shows the post office pre-dates what we currently have in the article, and
[39] this from 1911. Though this could very well be referring to some other place in Ohio? Something's odd about this.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not a community, fails WP:GEOLAND.
Avilich (
talk) 00:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I entered the coordinates in Google Earth. All that's there is a one-track railroad crossing over county road 123 (not even a state road). There's no sign of a station or a siding. --A. B.(
talk •
contribs •
global count) 03:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The consensus here is that there is not sufficient reference material to demonstrate
notability. If anyone would like to work on this article as a draft, let me know and I will put it in draft space for you.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me 16:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter.
Subject fails GNG as fight announcements and fight results sources are merely routine reports
Subject also fails
WP:NMMA for not ranked top ten in the world. As present he ranked 131 in welterweight.
Cassiopeiatalk 04:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: to win TUF 29 is not a qualify for GNG nor NMMA. And not sources url are given. Note: Yahoo is not a source where we need to have original independent, reliable source and Sportkeeda is not are reliable sources and some of the articles in the site are written by fans - see "SportsKeeda.com is owned by the fans. Yes, you read it right; We have placed the control of the website right in hands of the fans. As a fan,, you are invited to write an article, comment on articles and even do interviews wiht sporting celebrities. You cannot only just create your own content; you can easily shere it via social media such as Facebook, Orkut and Twitter. Today, we live in the digital age and there is no digital sport site in India which has handed over control to the user" - see source
here.
Cassiopeia I know TUF does not constitute notability, GNG is number 1. I just mentioned it because fans want to read about subject because of this accomplishement and it's the reason why he gets so much coverage. I listed 9 sources, even if you remove Yahoo and Sportskeeda, subject has plenty of significant independent coverage. Subject definitely meets
WP:GNG.
Lethweimaster (
talk) 08:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
KeepPer Lethwimaster also fighter have 3 or more bouts in UFC also with his recent win he is more then enough notable.
DarkHorseMayhem (
talk) 01:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Commment, 3 or more bout in UFC does not meet NMMA or GNG.
Cassiopeiatalk 01:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not close to meeting
WP:NMMA. Fight announcements, fight results, and MMA databases are not enough to meet
WP:GNG. The number of UFC fights is not an indicator of notability.
Papaursa (
talk) 03:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The first source is a local news article about him winning the Ultimate Fighter, the second is a local news report on a victory, and the third is an interview. Fight results and interviews do not generally constitute significant coverage.
Papaursa (
talk) 21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - It seems a thoroughly comprehensive and well-researched article.
Wafflesvarog (
talk) 20:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
As this is your first AfD, you might want to familiarize yourself with WP policies such as
WP:N. Editors often disagree, and even change their minds, so I would be interested in hearing your specific reasons for saying this subject is WP notable. Thank you.
Papaursa (
talk) 00:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify seems ok. Does seem like TOOSOON, likely in another year they'll hit it big. NO pun intended.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets WP:GNP fighter is enough notable espically with his latest win also additional source has been added.
DarkHorseMayhem (
talk) 14:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)(striking duplicate vote)reply
Please strike one of your !votes.
JoelleJay (
talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, per Papaursa. If he's notable in the future this can be undeleted or a new article can be created, but as it stands now he fails GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk) 18:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 01:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm bringing this here and not to RfD because articles that have been boldly redirected seem to be rejected procedurally there.
There was no "battle of Pelusium" in 343 BC. The creator copied without attribution information on second Persian conquest of Egypt from
Artaxerxes III#Second Egyptian Campaign (old diff from 2015), and apparently invented the title as an analogy to the
battle of Pelusium of 525 BC (the first Persian conquest of Egypt). Since the name is wrong and the content is already in the edit history of the original page, and the second conquest is already covered at
second Achaemenid conquest of Egypt, I don't see how a merge or redirect would be useful. The creator was blocked for copyvio and hoaxing, and of
all his creations this is one of few which haven't been speedied yet.
Avilich (
talk) 03:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Sentence added
Avilich (
talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. What you say seems reasonable, and full deletion is better to resolve, but I notice that the confusion might be more widespread then even in Wikipedia per this in the Encyclopedia Britannica, who use the title "
battles of Pelusium".
Aszx5000 (
talk) 11:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Interesting, but only one of the entries, the one of 525, actually has "battle of Pelusium" verbatim; the 343 one merely speaks of a defeat. According to the sources I checked, Pelusium was simply one of several fortresses (the most important, and I assume that's why the Britannica has telescoped the entire conquest to that location) that surrendered during the conquest, with no actual pitched battle fought near it.
Avilich (
talk) 15:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. It is more often called the siege of Pelusium. A bad title is no reason to delete. Nor is there any reason the material belongs more to
Artaxerxes III than
Nectanebo II. The battle is covered in extenso in chapter 18 of Stephen Ruzicka, Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525–332 BC. The primary source is Diodorus. His dating, however, is wrong. This is noted in P. J. Rhodes, A History of the Classical Greek World, 478–323 BC.
Srnec (
talk) 21:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is
WP:CONTENTFORK, an especially malformed one. If you wish to propose a split, do so on the talk page, not the AfD. That has nothing to do with the appropriateness of this article in particular.
Avilich (
talk) 14:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I saved you the trouble and created
second Achaemenid conquest of Egypt. I don't have Ruzicka's book, but the others I looked at have very little on the siege of Pelusium (only the extended conquest), so that doesn't seem to meet GNG.
Avilich (
talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per nominator, the article seems to largely be the product of confusion.
Ifly6 (
talk) 18:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested draftification. Was returned to mainspace without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 14:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I looked for sources to support this when it was first created and found nothing. If anyone else can find anything to support this I’m prepared to reconsider.
Mccapra (
talk) 20:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Mccapra Coverage is offline (most of it) and is in
Sindhi language. We need help of someone who understands Sindhi. That being said, there are two in-depth articles just about him cited already and one of them is an in-depth entry in Encyclopedia Sindhiana. You should reconsider your vote.
BookishReader (
talk) 16:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep but rename to
Hashoo Kewalramani. Some additional coverage is given below:
The Wire India has described him as "the founder of the modern nationalist ideology of Sindh" (
[43])
Per this, there is a school named after him called "Hashoo Kewalramani School of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences"?
This article says "
Ayaz was deeply impressed by leftist intellectual Hashoo Kewalramani".
This magazine article notes "Under the able leadership of Hashoo Kewalramani, 'Sindhi Samaj' Delhi also worked hard in this respect. Various Sindhi sammelans were held after 1951."
I think the coverage is more than enough and would like to kindly ask @
Onel5969: to please withdraw this nomination. Thank you.
BookishReader (
talk) 17:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The book is certainly significant and the new newspaper source is also good. The other refs you posted above are passing mentions and don’t help demonstrate notability.
Mccapra (
talk) 17:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Rest assured, I only create an article if it is really notable. Even though I'm not Sindhi, I managed to locate another in-depth book for you that covers his biography:
This magazine article notes: "The pioneering role was played by Hashu Kewalramani, a journalist trained at the United Kingdom (UK). Hashu remained in the UK for seven years and was a close associate in India League of Krishna Menon, a Leftist, who later became a right-hand man of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Hashu returned to Karachi in 1936-37. He organised the students and brought them under the banner of the All India Students Federation with himself as the President and Kishin Motwani and Abhichandani as its General Secretaries. Very soon the organi-sation became a powerful movement and spread to all the towns of Sindh. At Karachi an office was set up to solve the problems of the students and to discuss the political issues. Pritam Tahiliani, Santosh Kumar Dharmani, Rocho Pardasani, Sarla Ahuja, Moti Motwani, Radhakrishnan Wadhwani, Sukhram Virwani, Rijhu Abichandani, Rochi Pardasani, and Hashu’s own younger brother were active members of the AISF." and "they arrested a large number of students including Hashu Kewalramani, President of the AISF, Pritam Tahilramani and Santosh Kumar Dharmani. Hashu Kewalramani was prosecuted and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment."
BookishReader (
talk) 18:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 02:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I’ve struck my delete vote as there’s apparently enough in Sindhi to take that off the table, but since I can’t read Sindhi I can’t really vote to keep.
Mccapra (
talk) 22:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented by BookishReader. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. In hindsight, it was inadvisable to bundle the nominations of these pages together into a single AfD. The AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator. No prejudice against creating AfDs for individual articles, if desired.
—ScottyWong— 16:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Follow-up to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries.
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH, fail
WP:LISTCRITERIA (the lists equivalent of
WP:NONDEFINING), and long series of precedents confirming that language family is
WP:NONDEFINING for countries, territories, dynasties, and individual people. Many users at the "Turkic" AfD urged me to nominate the "Iranian" list and similar lists as well, so here they are. Additional suggestions are welcome if I have missed anything. I'll file the categories separately because it is a different procedure with different criteria, but the fundamental issues are the same, and I'm mentioning it for everyone's information. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 08:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Maintaining such content on Wikipedia under overarching categories like 'Germanic dynasties and countries' can inadvertently fuel ethnic nationalism, leading to prolonged debates and contentious issues between Iranian Wikipedia users and users from other communities. What we need to understand is that these peoples and states were not brothers but rather distant cousins, many of them were unaware of their connections during their respective reigns. Instead of allowing Wikipedia to become a battleground for historical disputes and ethnic nationalism, our focus should be on fostering an environment of mutual respect. In line with recent deletions, it appears that Arab and Turkic dynasty lists have also been removed. It seems that Arab and Turkic dynasty lists have also been deleted. Deleting such things might create a more peaceful atmosphere.
I'm not sure I see the problem here -
List of Kurdish dynasties and countries is well sourced, for instance, as is
List of Pashtun empires and dynasties. I don't understand the LISTCRITERIA argument either as some of these lists have very clear criteria, and the
WP:OR argument requires that no sources have discussed these articles. I'm not a topic expert, but's not clear to me why the
WP:OR has been levied for some of these articles. I can understand the Iranian one a little bit, but it still seems like it could be a potentially valid list under
WP:LISTN. So there's something here I'm clearly not understanding about these nominations apart from the fact the Iranian article could be cleaned up.
SportingFlyerT·C 10:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, what was "Pashtun" about
Hamidullah Khan (r. 1926-1949), for example? His entire article doesn't mention it. He was an "Indian Muslim", and it seems like English and/or Hindustani were his native/professional languages. So why should we consider him part of a "Pashtun dynasty"?
According to the scope of
List of Pashtun empires and dynasties, states, princely states, empires and dynasties in the regions of Central, Western and South Asia which were founded by rulers of Pashtun ancestry are automatically "Pashtun" in their entirety. In the case of
Bhopal State, some Pashtun soldier named
Dost Mohammad of Bhopal became a warlord and founded
Bhopal State in 1707. This is an ancestor of
Hamidullah Khan, whose family over the course of 200 years became significantly Indianised. Although he was still a Muslim, there is not a trace of "Pashtun" heritage.
WP:COP-HERITAGE also says The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable. Identifying every descendant of A as "Pashtun", no matter how many generations, just because A was a Pashtun, is quite a stretch and
WP:NONDEFINING/
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 13:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Hamidullah Khan also isn't listed in the List of Pashtun empires and dynasties, either, but "Pashtun dynasty" brings up a decent number of hits in scholarly sources, so there are definitely dynasties that are defined by being Pashtun. Whether that includes the entire dynasty or not isn't really a notability issue, but a content issue for the talk page, and certainly isn't an argument for deleting the entire page.
I would suggest nominating each of these individually over time so we can have a discussion about them, as these articles are not closely related enough to delete them as a group. One may be
WP:SYNTH but I see some decently sourced, potentially valid articles here.
SportingFlyerT·C 13:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Maybe you're right. I've already made
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arabian Houses a separate AfD (see "Update" below). The Pashtun list turns out to be a bit more complicated than I expected, and cannot lean on the language family argument because
Pashto is a single language. There is disagreement about whether there is 1 or multiple Kurdish language(s). A similar problem exists with the Mongol states, which were Turkicised over time, but many probably began with the same common language of
Middle Mongol. I assumed that "Maratha" referred to language family, but it can mean
Maratha (caste) and
Marathi language. I guess I've been (uncharacteristically, hopefully) careless with this AfD. Perhaps I should withdraw this bundled nomination and start over, only nominating
List of Iranian dynasties and countries again for now...
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 14:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong keep for
Kurdish emirates. Plug the term into Google Scholar to see why.
Srnec (
talk) 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong keep Actually, I'd suggest close this car crash of an AfD as the lists cited are so wide and disparate, you're never going to get agreement on deleting the whole lot in one fell swoop. The list of Arabian Houses is not my favourite thing, but I see no reason for its deletion and certainly fail to see how discussing its deletion in among this whole other bunch of nominations is constructive. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk) 13:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Withdraw (as nom) I've been a bit careless in bundling these pages together in a single nomination (more details in my reply to SportingFlyer). I'm glad people pointed this out. I'll withdraw this bundle and start over by nominating the pages separately after more thorough preparation.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arabian Houses is still on. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 14:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nederlandse Leeuw, as there is an editor advocating Delete, this AFD can't be closed as Keep even with your withdrawal of the nomination. LizRead!Talk! 03:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Oh so as soon as anyone has !voted for any particular outcome, withdrawal is no longer possible? I didn't know that.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 13:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment The Turkic one had an issue of being very little defined and as well as disputed. Pages like
List of Pashtun empires and dynasties are very clear especially in the pages description that said dynasties were
Pashtun in origin. @
Aintabli See the point above in the discussion between SportingFlyer and Nederlandse Leeuw.
Noorullah (
talk) 20:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep:
Kurdish emirates, Neutral on
List of Mongol states, and Delete the rest per the previous AfD. I think the Kurdish emirate one is fine for notability as it was a unique and linear circumstance that has received scholarly attention, while the Mongol states one is different enough than the others to warrant a separate discussion.
Curbon7 (
talk) 22:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keepfor the Kurdish dynasties which is apparently well sourced and as to my knowledge had the collaboration of some well respected editors. The Kurdish emirates I'd keep as well, not all of them have their own articles. On the rest I have no opinion.
Paradise Chronicle (
talk) 22:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
For the closer of the discussion: The delete and keep votes are often not meant for all articles.
Paradise Chronicle (
talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Good point. It seems that some of the nominees will get enough votes for a keep, while others will get enough votes for a delete. This is gonna be a complicated tally.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
He was for some years rector of a local university, but this doesn't validate
WP:BIO OR
WP:PROF per se. Not enough academic achievements, since he is not in any list with highly cited researchers or with any highly impact publication.
Chiserc (
talk) 07:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment There seems to be coverage in Norwegian media. This
[45] appears to be in a RS.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, there is some coverage. I have found some sources based on
WP:BEFORE:
Vettimes,
E24, and the one source you mentioned. However, I don't think this coverage is enough for notability.
Chiserc (
talk) 14:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
There are academic publications that had some impact, I agree with that, but there should be always a caution with
Google Scholar, as mentioned in the
citation metrics. I have seen his Scopus profile
Lars Moe and his h-index is 22. I don't have access on his Web of Science profile to double-check it, but I don't think his impact is quite convincing to establish
WP:PROF.
Chiserc (
talk) 10:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep based on the comments above, regarding his impact factor.
Oaktree b (
talk) 18:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:OR,
WP:SYNTH,
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Partial follow-up to the deletion of
Comparison of the Turkic states at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries. Unlike the "Turkic" page, these 3 articles are not arbitrary
WP:CROSSCATs between language family and countries, and the terms "Baltic states", "Benelux" and "Nordic countries" are well-established. Other than that, however, they show the same issues, with arbitrarily chosen, SYNTHed data, of which the overall added encyclopedic value is not clear at all. A reader could also just open three tabs or windows in their browser putting the infoboxes of three countries next to each other; we don't need to do that for them. Nor do we have to assume it is more relevant or interesting for the reader to compare the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg than, say, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark; nor that Finland is more interesting as part of the Nordic countries and Estonia as part of the "Baltic" states, when Finland and Estonia arguably have more in common with each other than the other states they are usually associated with. (With the emphasis on arguably, because it is all quite subjective. It's not an opinion I necessarily share, but I've frequently heard and seen it expressed, with the argument that Estonian is not a Baltic language, but closely related to Finnish, which is true, but the significance of that is unclear). Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Even if we were to assume that the information there has some encyclopedic value, all could be summarized on
Benelux,
Nordic countries, or
Baltic states.
Aintabli (
talk) 11:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I was expecting a bit more to these, but no, it really is just a few parameters of the infoboxes collated together. Not necessary articles, also easily summarized elsewhere per Aintabli.
Reywas92Talk 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, random trivia that if relevant, can be presented with secondary sources at the more general pages mentioned.
CMD (
talk) 14:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete purely or. (
t ·
c) buidhe 16:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete these states have barely anything to do with each other. It’s like making a comparison of anglophone states or Romance states because ay they all speak roughly the same, were part of a large former empire and eat similar weird foods right?
Dronebogus (
talk) 21:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
All three articles are about sets of countries who have a lot to do with each other. That's not something these articles make up. The
Baltic states,
Benelux and the
Nordic countries are well-established units. /
Julle (
talk) 22:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Haha well it's more than just that. You do see these countries generally cooperating more closely with each other in political, socio-economic, cultural, environmental etc. affairs than with other European countries around them. But I don't think that is significant enough to be creating and hosting this still rather randomly generated "comparison" articles. That's fun stuff for a blog or tabloid as a page-filler, but everyone here seems to agree it's quite redundant and arbitrary.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
PS: Yeah what Julle says. Funnily enough, he's from Sweden and I'm from the Netherlands, we both recognise these sets of countries as well-established units, but we also both agree these 'comparison' articles should be deleted.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You could say anglophone countries cooperate more than other regional states, since most of them are in the
Commonwealth of Nations and the US is close allies with both the UK and Canada. But I don’t think there’s a huge amount to “compare” between, I dunno, South Africa and New Zealand.
Dronebogus (
talk) 21:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, it’s just as arbitrary
Dronebogus (
talk) 23:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Dronebogus Cool, thanks for helping me find them! I'll remove both tables if this nom results is the overwhelming Delete that is looming.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 23:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
List of largest metropolitan areas of the Middle East does not use a definition of
Middle East at all (although any of the doubtful cases of Palestine, Cyprus, and Akrotiri and Dhekelia probably do not contain metropolitan areas that have a population of over 1.5 million), but the whole article is
WP:SYNTH by the admission of the opening sentence itself: population according to different sources.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 14:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Cousin marriage in the Middle East feels confident in including "
Cousin marriage in the Middle East#Other areas" (Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan) outside the article's scope. According to the first sentence, apparently we can lump in other Muslim countries worldwide such as Pakistan, as if all countries in the Middle East are "Muslim" [sic], even though there is also a
Cousin marriage in the Middle East#Jews subsection. The second sentence equates it with the Arab world, as if all countries in the Middle East are "Arab" [sic]. The third sentence adds Arab or Islamic world, Arab countries, yet more
WP:SYNTH.
Genetic history of the Middle East doesn't really define its geographical scope apart from Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Arabia, the Levant, and other areas, but apparently this does include Cyprus, Israel and Palestine.
Demographics of the Middle East and North Africa does not actually define its geographical scope. It just says Debates on which countries should be included in the Middle East are wide-ranging. The Greater Middle East and North Africa region can include the Caucasus, Cyprus, Afghanistan, and several sub-Saharan African states due to various social, religious and historic ties. The most commonly accepted countries in the MENA region are included on this page. before randomly picking some countries in its subsections:
List of banks in the Arab world arbitrary set of 19 countries representing the "Arab world". Rescoping to "Arab League" probably best solution.
List of Arabs by net worth arbitrary set of 22 rich people based on their citizenship, including 4 people who also have French citizenship. It's
WP:ONESOURCE, and has nothing to do with the Arab Leage as an intergovernmental organisation.
Arab–American relations is a mostly
WP:UNSOURCEDWP:COATRACK to talk about U.S. foreign military policy in the Middle East, and has very little to do with the Arab League as an intergovernmental organisation.
In many instances these tables are an affront to "summary style", and the duplication of basic country statistics to such articles virtually guarantee they'll be out of date.
Draken Bowser (
talk) 19:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed. If they mention dates at all, the basic country statistics will be outdated eventually.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 21:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Disagree. Most of WP content is going to be outdated. This is a reason for updating pages (and yes, providing dates and references), not deletion.
My very best wishes (
talk) 19:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Infoboxes are regularly updated, demographics articles are regularly updated, but those comparison articles/sections? Why bother? Unless we're making some sort of
Template:Excerpt construction, so that the contents of comparison tables will always synchronised and up to date, I really don't think it's worth the trouble. And even if we do, we are admitting we are duplicating contents anyway.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 20:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
All these pages are legitimate
Wikipedia:Lists supplementing main pages on the corresponding subjects. Something can be unsourced on a lot of pages, but this is not a reason to automatically delete them.
My very best wishes (
talk) 19:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying all articles I'm mentioning here should necessarily be deleted. I'm just identifying lots of similar issues across articles, and especially the country comparison sections should probably just be removed from the international relations articles that should otherwise be kept intact.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 21:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
To be honest, I think the arguments to delete these pages and remove such content from all main pages are strange. Consider something like page
Proteases. Providing a table with comparison of different proteases on such page would be great. Same is here.
My very best wishes (
talk) 15:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I just found out this morning that an RfC about removing them altogether had been initiated on 11 June (before, and apparently completely independent of, my AfD here):
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables. It turns out that this saga already started in 2018, and we've still not established a consensus about what to do with such country comparison sections across English Wikipedia. For my part, I've made a passionate argument to get rid of them once and for all, based on an elaborate documentation of precedents and background discussions that I had mostly already gathered here. Never knew it could instantly be reused for an RfC about the same topic!
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 17:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
There is nothing wrong with making such comparisons, but they should be made in proper sections and placed to certain context like
Nordic_countries#Geography.
My very best wishes (
talk) 02:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep ormerge. Since we have pages
Benelux,
Nordic countries, and
Baltic states, these "comparison" pages are legitimate
WP:list additions to these main pages. They are not WP:SYN any more than any other list page. These list pages could be "merged" to their main parent pages we have, but they are better readable as standalone lists. That's why we have list pages.My very best wishes (
talk) 21:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
In any case, it would be better to make these pages "redirect" to corresponding main pages, i.e.
Benelux,
Nordic countries, and
Baltic states, rather than outright delete. That would allow merging their content to the corresponding main pages if anyone wants.
My very best wishes (
talk) 15:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as unjustified and inherently unjustifiable
WP:SPINOFFs. Our articles present, analyze and contrast, without rubbing in what FUNCTIONS sentences and sections fulfill so not to insult the intelligence of the reader. As articles develop, headers may be added based on subject matter, better identifying subjects within (paragraphs also need to be written around ideas) and, eventually, spinoffs or spinouts may be justified. Everything along delimitations of content and NOT by functions! These articles, however, are written around functionality (yikes!). Much more went wrong. These are NOT lists so they must be judged by the prose. However, the prose is almost entirely to entirely (for the Benelux) missing in action. So there is no there there. There is
WP:OR in two articles, where parts of North America are included into regions in Europe. Finally there is a misnomer of geography. This is an all-WP problem and well-beyond. The
Benelux,
Nordic countries, and
Baltic states ARE geographies so identifying only some physical characteristics as "geography" spits in the face of human geography. On the bright side, I did not identify SYNTH. No objection to copying some of these tables to the main articles, into the appropriate sections.
gidonb (
talk) 01:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete theoretically, some version of these articles might be salvageable. What we have are a few arbitrary data tables, all of which would be better presented in some other format.
Walt Yoder (
talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:SYNTH. So Latvia has more water than Lithuania, what is the significance of that? Or that the 3 countries have different international calling codes. The most relevant information can be included in
Benelux,
Nordic countries, and
Baltic states, but "comparison" articles are not necessary.
LibStar (
talk) 00:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Well if Lithuania ever finds itself faced with a water shortage, it can borrow some from Latvia! This is why international relations between these two countries are very, very important.JokeNederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 17:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Lists can be in table form and can even be broken up by headers, such as
here, but it does not apply to these articles. These articles are NOT lists but, rather, proseless prose or plainly travesties. I ENCOURAGE everyone to follow the link you supplied and the one I supplied to understand what a sortable or tabled list looks like. It's easy to see how these are different from the AfDd articles!
gidonb (
talk) 22:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree, these are not good as standalone pages. Some info is useful, but it is either already included to other pages or should be included differently.
My very best wishes (
talk) 15:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Absolutely. I explained above in some detail why comparisons should not be spinoffs. It accumulates information by function, instead of subject matter topic which is the correct way to spin off. There are more issues with these articles, also listed in my opinion above.
gidonb (
talk) 18:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The discussion has ground to a halt after several relists, but essentially more people think there are not enough sources to be able to sustain a standalone article. As this is a
biography of a living person, policy behooves us to err on the side of not including things.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Non-notable entertainer, all links used are to social media, nothing found outside of these either. Not meeting GNG or MUSIC.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. I disagree with you. He is quite popular in Northeast India and has performed in many shows across Assam and the Northeast region. He has worked with popular singers like Zubeen Garg, Kaysee, and Deeplina deka. However, I recommend adding more references to the article to support these claims.
Thesaurabhsaha (
talk) 02:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:GNG as all sources are unreliable. I couldn't find any suitable sources to add to the article either. @
Thesaurabhsaha: I recommend reading Wikipedia's core notability policies
WP:SIGCOV and
WP:N.
JML1148 (
talk) 01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Sorry for the interruption, but I have mentioned some reliable references for the article below, which are already mentioned in the article "Minimi (Rapper)."
Hindustan Times - Hindustan Times is one of the largest English-language daily newspapers in India. It has a reputation for providing reliable and credible news to its readers.
Assam Tribune - Assam Tribune is a widely circulated English-language daily newspaper in the state of Assam, India. Established in 1939, it has a long history of providing news and information to the people of Assam and the Northeast region.
East Mojo - East Mojo is a digital news platform that focuses on providing news and information from the Northeast region of India.
The sources are reliable, but they are only trivial mentions of this individual.
Oaktree b (
talk) 11:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
No, it's not a trivial mention in Hindustan Times. The article on Hindustan Times has more than 3-4 paragraphs on Minimi (Alternate name: Minimi NL/ Real Name: Nilotpal Lahkar). So, I think you should close the AFD request. In the meantime, I will add more references to the article as soon as I find them on the internet. Thank you.
Thesaurabhsaha (
talk) 06:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The link you used for the Hindustan Times is one sentence and a few photos. It looks like a badly formatted mobile version of the article, can you provide a better link?
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The Assam Times mentions him appearing at a festival and the Mojo is a link to a youtube song and one sentence underneath, these are both trivial coverages. Useful, but not helping notability here. We need more then a mention of him; even if the Hindustan Times article is fine, it's only one article. You'll need a few more of that length, IF it's useful in the first place.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Sure, here the article without any paywall.
Hindustan Times. Ps: I am aware of the copyright status of the newspaper and I am not promoting the use of third-party apps to bypass the paywall.
Thesaurabhsaha (
talk) 02:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That is better, he's mentioned in the bottom third of the article, but then it seems to disappear again/the article blanks out. I'll give that as one RS.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Here, I am mentioning two additional articles from popular and reliable sources. Minimi serves as the primary subject of the articles. Both articles are written in Assamese. So, i would recommend you to use Google Translate to read them.
By the way, East Mojo has dedicated a paragraph to him and his song "Bangladeshi," which gained popularity during the Anti-CAA Movement, in Assam. The song sparked controversy throughout the state, prompting the authorities to initially ban it from streaming or public play. However, as tensions subsided, the ban on the song was eventually lifted.
Assam Times Post - Assam Times is an online news portal that focuses on providing news and updates related to the state of Assam in India. It covers a wide range of topics including politics, current affairs, sports, entertainment, and culture.
Rupali Parda - Rupali Parda is an online entertainment portal that provides news, reviews, and updates on Jollywood films (Assamese films), celebrities, and the jollywood entertainment industry.
Keep (article creator). Hindustan Times, East Mojo and other sources seem enough to establish notability.
Thesaurabhsaha (
talk) 13:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. No real SIGCOV from a high-quality RS on the subject - if the major Indian papers don't want to do a full piece on him (i.e. SIGCOV), then why would Wikipedia consider him notable?
Aszx5000 (
talk) 23:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Even if major Indian papers may not have covered someone extensively, there might be other local reliable sources that establish their notability in a different context, such as News website, Entertainment Portal. Why can't local language newspapers be acceptable as sources on Wikipedia if they meet the criteria of reliable sources? Wikipedia's guidelines emphasize the use of reliable sources in any language, including local languages. We should consider
The Assam Tribune,
East Mojo and
Rupali Parda along with
Hindustan Times as reliable sources. All of them are used in many articles related to Assam.
Thesaurabhsaha (
talk) 08:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The issue Thesaurabhsaha is that in most of these RS, the article is not about Minimi, but about another topic that happens to mention Minimi participating. The best RS so far is the Hindustan Times which seems to be about several artists, of which Minmi is profiled at the end. However, you have not been able to present +2 RS with a full article about Minimi (per SIGCOV). Therefore, if no decent paper in India wants to do a full article on Minimi, why would Wikipedia consider him notable?
Aszx5000 (
talk) 09:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Your personal opinion does not hold significance in determining a reliable source on English Wikipedia. Rupali Parda and East Mojo have already been used as reliable sources in numerous articles.
Furthermore, Assam Times Post and Rupali Parda have published articles on the subject. In essence, Rupali Parda can be considered as the "Bollywood Hungama" for Assamese Film Industry aka Jollywod.
Thesaurabhsaha (
talk) 17:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You are right, I don't, but you need to convince the community at AfD that they are RS quality, and I don't think that will happen. I would rather search for better RS on the person and solve it that way. Even if this BLP managed to get through AfD with these refs, it would be renominated soon again.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 17:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No new participants, new opinions are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Timothytyy (
talk) 07:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Article subject doesn't appear to pass
WP:MUSICBIO or
WP:GNG. While there are a number of sources uses, a chunk of them are unreliable while others just include passing mentions. I don't believe
WP:SIGCOV has been met in this case.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 14:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: According to the Point 10 of
WP:MUSICBIO, Anyone who has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, or inclusion on a notable compilation album is eligible for
WP:GNG.
He has worked in
Kaaneen - A Secret Search movie, which itself a notable film, and won the Silver Camera Award at 2nd Guwahati International Film Festival 2018.¹
The sources mentioned in the above article, namely Hindustan Times, East Mojo, Rupali Parda, Assam Times Post, and others, also appear to be sufficient in establishing notability. All of them have a reputation for providing reliable and credible news to their readers.
Delete. No real RS here to support GNG. The BLP's creator, User:Thesaurabhsaha, has tried as best they could, but there is nothing here (including the latest refs presented above), and if it wasn't deleted now, it would be sent straight back to AfD. Perhaps, the notability of the subject will improve over time, and at least Thesaurabhsaha has gotten a better understanding of what is needed for GNG.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 08:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: He is a popular rapper singer from Assam in the North East (India). -
Kuldhar Rabha (
talk) 14:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Are you going to provide any references to support that? AfD is not a vote.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 15:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
All the above refs presented have been translated with Google where required.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 06:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If you have new refs, in any language, you can present them here.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 06:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 07:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 11:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete unless independent coverage can be found. I was unable to turn anything up with a quick search.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 22:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not seem to meet
WP:Corp - only source cited by article is the company's website, and a quick google search only finds this and some database style entries/ways to track the company's stock. (There may be notable sources in languages other than English but I am not able to find these.)
Nerd1a4i (they/them) (
talk) 01:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinions on NCORP and the redirect option are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Timothytyy (
talk) 09:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect: There is a summary paragraph about this plant at
Kokshetau#Industry. I don't think there is enough
independent coverage of this plant to sustain an article in itself; I am not sure that the
Kazzinc article is a durable target, as a substantial proportion of the venture's financial backing appears to involve a Dutch holding company ("Floodgate Holdings B.V."), so the article about Kokshetau may be a better redirect target.
AllyD (
talk) 15:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. Original reasoning was: Blatant
WP:PROMO; fails
WP:NCORP. While on second look the promo is not obvious, the second part of the reasoning still holds.
Jalen Folf(talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Since the prod reasoning was repeated, I will repeat my contestation: "Certainly not blatant promo, since the founder appears notable, and with six potentially notably signees could qualify as an important indie in WP:MUSIC's sense. It's possible there is walled-garden activity here, but it's not clear to me (a nonexpert on African pop) that's happening". Certainly, there is no reason for this to be at AfD (to create a redlink here), since at worst the applicable action would be to merge into the founder's article.
Chubbles (
talk) 04:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Timothytyy (
talk) 09:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: The record label qualifies for inclusion based on the founder's notability and its potential impact within the independent music scene, aligning with WP:MUSIC guidelines. While the presence of walled-garden activity is uncertain, it does not justify deletion without concrete evidence.
PushaWasha (
talk) 06:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - according to
[46] it is the largest label in Tanzania. Additional coverage at
[47],
[48],
[49],
[50],
[51],
[52]. It is fairly clear that the label is of significant cultural importance in Tanzania, that it meets GNG, and would qualify as "one of the more important indie labels."
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 01:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Record label certainly appears notable enough, especially after seeing 78.26's findings immediately above.
CycloneYoristalk! 09:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Nominated for a major music award; enough to meet WPMUSICBIO.
116.92.232.6 (
talk) 02:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep IMA award nomination is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO. IMA can be a considered a major award since it has a Wikipedia page of its own.
Hkkingg (
talk) 07:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. I don't think the IMAs are major enough for
WP:NMUSICBIO (unlike the awards listed for NMUSICBIO). I can't find any real SIGCOV in a quality RS on him, and can't see the refs that would therefore give him GNG?
Aszx5000 (
talk) 23:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 04:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not convinced the Independent Music Awards are notable; most of the "winners" don't even have articles, so it appears to be a minor award. I can't find much for sourcing for the DJ otherwise.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Draftify. Oaktree b is an established user, and if they believe they can improve it, there's no reason not to allow that. StarMississippi 02:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Was closed as no consensus, but zero folks participated, even after 2 relists. Other than the crime, no in-depth coverage of this government bureaucrat. Delete as per
WP:PERP,
WP:BIO1E.
Onel5969TT me 00:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Subjects appears to be a
WP:BLP1E for the crime and not notable for his government position. Per
WP:CRIME, this article should be deleted too. - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Coverage in al Jazeera and the Jakarta Post appear ok, should be notable.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Definitely doesn't meet the threshold of
WP:CRIME; a minor government official arrested for corruption is certainly not novel, and the coverage entirely extends from that content (so a textbook BLP1E.) With the caveat that we're only a few months out from the story, there doesn't appear to be sustained coverage that this is a major story that has continued on or had material effects beyond the single criminal case as of yet.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 11:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd be ok if we sent to to Draft and let it incubate for a bit, see if notability happens.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
In this case, it doesn’t look like the subject will become more notable in the near future. I think we either keep or delete the article, draftifiying isn’t the answer in my opinion. - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Failed
WP:GNG and
WP:NACTOR with majority of the entry unsourced and/or unsourceable to Wikipedia standards. A quick search shows that all of the subject's roles are either supporting or guest which are rarely reported by South Korean media hence making reliable sourcing even harder. The sourcing included are mostly passing mentions with no
WP:SIGCOV. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝) 05:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: for having significant roles in multiple television shows per NACTORJack4576 (
talk) 06:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Jack4576 Any
reliable sources to support "having significant roles in multiple television shows" as I don't find any of such. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝) 06:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
the sources (such as HanCinema) are reliable enough to support the bare fact that they had the roles in the shows that they did; I think they're unreliable for anything beyond that bare fact, as they're not independent sources
Jack4576 (
talk) 06:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Jack4576 If so, where is the
WP:SIGCOV as part of
WP:GNG to justify Keep? Clearly,
HanCinema and any database websites alikely (e.g. and/or i.e.
WP:IMDB, in fact you can't use IMDB in BLP per
WP:IMDB/BLP) is not enough to justify it's has SIGCOV hence I asked for
reliable sources to prove SIGCOV because you stated "having significant roles in multiple television shows". —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝) 06:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Your nomination didn't mention SIGCOV, I'd agree SIGCOV has not been met here.
Jack4576 (
talk) 06:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Jack4576 SIGCOV is part of
WP:GNG btw. Regardless, I don't see that you want to answer my initial reply hence we'll just keep it at that unless you would like to otherwise. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝) 06:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Its OK I withdraw my keep vote. You have a better understanding of the depth of coverage in the sources.
Jack4576 (
talk) 06:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:SIGCOV met, searched and found multiple reliable sources.
33ABGirl (
talk) 08:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
33ABGirl Care to provide the "multiple reliable sources" you found? As I couldn't find any showing
WP:SIGCOV other than
WP:PASSINGMENTIONS hence I'm curious how you manage to find it, if any to begin with. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝) 09:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 14:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak delete. Though the website seems to be a popular news outlet in Iran, English-language web search reveals little to no in-depth coverage.
2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (
talk) 17:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 14:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Coverage in foreign languages counts toward notability.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 22:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 04:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
PROD removed as I was told to "consider potential notablity of other subjects that redirect here", but I don't see how that effects the notability of this page. There are three redirects here (
AJ Pinkerton,
CG5 (YouTuber), and
NateWantsToBattle), but if none of those are notable enough for their own pages (though Nate might be given the coverage his music has been getting lately) then surely they aren't notable enough to get profiles on an article that itself isn't notable. And as I said in my PROD, I see no apparent claim to notability here.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 00:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete All sources are youtube or un-RS. Non-notable web series, the article looks like a fan site rather than a wiki article. Way too long of a list for every episode and not much critical discussion of the thing being mentioned in the article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 07:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. It has the one source that discusses it in the title of the article, but other than that, it doesn't seem to have the same level of attention. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk) 14:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Some articles cover multiple related subjects. If any of the subjects is notable, the article is a keeper. ~
Kvng (
talk) 17:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This page is here to cover one series, not every person who happens to being involved in it. Those subjects should get their own articles to be judged independently for their own notability. And even if they are notable,
notability is not inherited.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 01:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
✗plicit 01:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. There were already multiple sources and I have added another one.
Ffranc (
talk) 08:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 07:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, as the article seems good, at least now. Btw, it is a good use of Wikipedia, to provide coverage of conspiracy theories, IMHO. --Doncram (
talk,
contribs) 18:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep a lot of reliable greek sourscew about the subject, websites and books.
ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (
talk) 00:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 12:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 04:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 07:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Only school databases could be found as sources. Fails
WP:NSCHOOL. -
MPGuy2824 (
talk) 07:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: I'm not familiar at all with Turkish politics... But he is the Chief of the Cabinet of the president, this should only mean that he
passes the SNG for politicians. Apmh 14:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: "Chief of the Cabinet" seems to be a mistranslation of
this office, which translates more accurately as private secretary or chief of staff. Not sure this is an
WP:NPOL-conferring position, but may still pass by
WP:GNG, as there appear to be several sources providing
WP:SIGCOV, including (but not limited to)
this and
this.
Curbon7 (
talk) 17:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. He is not the "Chief of the Cabinet of the Turkish President". The Turkish term is Özel kalem müdürü, which is nothing close to the "chief of the cabinet". It's basically the "manager" of the president, in other words someone who plans the president's schedule, the events the president attends, etc. He is not notable. I don't think the biographical articles on the given news sites above would suffice for "significant coverage", since you can find plenty of such entries for people whose Wikipedia articles would easily get deleted for notability issues, if they had one.
Aintabli (
talk) 17:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment- In India, any newspaper having
Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) is a enough to be included in Wikipedia.
This (page no 292) says this newspaper's RNI is 71814. We can consider to keep for time being.
Twinkle1990 (
talk) 07:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The guidelines of the English Wikipedia only require the inclusion of several trustworthy sources. No mention of having Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI). Sorry
BoraVoro (
talk) 07:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was up for deletion over a year ago and passed with a "keep", but has not had a single edit between then and my nominating it for AfD today. The article is only three sentences long and consists mostly of vague assertions which are not supported by the only cited source, the 1913
Catholic Encyclopedia. "The will and testament of clerics is a controversial issue for a number of Christian denominations"? There is no evidence given of any controversy nor any explanation of what that controversy is, nor is any specific denomination mentioned in this article. "Many churches have rules on the way in which property that is owned by a cleric can be distributed on death"? That would seem to be primarily an issue for churches whose clergy have taken a vow of poverty and/or are celibate, as I would expect that churches with married clergy would allow the clergy to leave their property upon death to their spouse and/or children. If churches with married clergy do have such rules, no evidence has been provided of such rules. And with regard to the Catholic Church, which does have rules about the wills and testaments of clerics, there is no indication in this article of what those rules are. Since there was no attempt to improve the article after the last AfD, I believe it would be best to delete this article altogether, with the opportunity to re-create it if substantive, sourced content can be found later. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 04:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination, and like a comment in the last nomination said, this is essentially a non-subject of relevancy to nothing. It doesn't help that the closer simply gave the reason of: "The result was keep." to an outcome of obviously weak consensus. We do not create articles based on vaguely supported subjects mentioned a few times in various references (like this one) which is why there is no article for say "
sharpness of knives" - Apmh 05:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I remember this from last year. Still nothing terribly notable has been added to the article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: I can imagine a decent article named "Clerical property in the Catholic Church" considering the plethora of sources on that, but the current article is not about a subject worthy of its own article per rationales stated above. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 15:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete It's not very often that I vote delete, but there isn't really anything here to save. If somebody wants to write a proper article at some point, all power to them.
Noel S McFerran (
talk) 22:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The references are Mr. Dubuis's own writings and other such primary sources. I looked for better ones and found only self-published or dubious-seeming books on alchemy and esoteric spirituality.
gnu57 03:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep "dubious-seeming books on alchemy and esoteric spirituality" are appropriate references for this topic. If you can add them in that would do as independent references. I added in an independent external link, that is about a third of what is needed for GNG proof.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 23:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to see more participation here. It would make a closure more straight-forward. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep echoing @
Graeme Bartlett the chief complaint here seems to be the nature of the sources cited, not the lack of sources. Aside from the primary sources (not unusual for an author) the article cites a number of websites that treat Dubuis as important, for example
[59],
[60]. I just added this
[61] from the
Theosophical Society. These independent sources vouch for his importance among members of the community of alchemy researchers, substantiating
WP:NAUTHOR#1, namely that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
Oblivy (
talk) 05:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 23:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The notability of the article is not verified by references to reliable sources. The article is based on the creator's own research of church books and passenger lists.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 03:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete no coverage in RS found. (
t ·
c) buidhe 22:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
WP:NPASR applies.
✗plicit 03:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
At present, the article only cites a single primary source. I have conducted a Google search, as well as individually searched for the book on Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, and Shelf Awareness to check for reviews or other indications of notability. I have not seen references to the book aside from from booksellers and primary sources.
Significa liberdade (
talk) 01:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I'll note the author has no article, but
this looks arguably RS.
Jclemens (
talk) 15:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with Jclemens that the site looks reliable but haven't been able to access the full review because of their paywall. Same with
this from
The Hindu.
This from Indian Express is more about the author than the series but does provide some coverage. There's also
this passing mention in a story about Indian LGBT books. I strongly suspect that soemone with full access to these sources would find enough information to demonstrate notability under our guidelines, but since I'm unable to verify this 100% myself I'll not formally vote to keep but yeah that's what I suspect.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 20:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 03:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
✗plicit 03:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Not evidence of significant coverage outside of its own published material and a couple of secondary references. The firm's notability might be considered insufficient if it doesn't meet these guidelines.
NortonAngo (
talk) 15:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Please check
WP:BEFORE before nominating again, none of these references are published by Cowin Capital. I'm not seeing any reliability issues with the references that are used, either. Dylan |
✉ |
✓ 17:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong delete Only one source could qualify as a reliable source - the London Business School. The rest are not reliable at all. The page should be deleted as it does not fulfill the NCORP criteria. --
159.118.233.94 (
talk) 13:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
The article notes: "Against this background, the Shenzhen Cowin Venture Capital fund represents a perfect opportunity for a case study by the London Business School’s Coller Institute of Private Equity. ... The result is Cowin Capital: The Evolution of the Chinese PE & VC Industry, produced by Professor Talmor, together with MBA students Wei Cao, Masaki Takeda and Carolyn Tiet. Founded during the dot-com bubble in 2000, Cowin survived the ensuing crash that saw many nascent Chinese VC funds fold. Not only that, but it went on to achieve impressive success following the regulatory changes of the mid- 2000s. "The key questions are: how Cowin has managed to transform itself and what it is doing to perpetuate its success," says Talmor. Cowin grew from cautious beginnings to become one of Shenzhen's leading PE lights. Having launched six funds in total, the firm currently manages RMB 5.5bn of capital and assets valued at more than RMB 7.5bn. As of June 2012, 31 of its investments had resulted in distributions to Cowin's investors, including 23 IPOs and eight buybacks or trade sales. Its success has earned Cowin founder Weihe Zheng the moniker "Star Shooter"."
The book has an entire subsection about the company. The book notes: "2000年6月26日,同创伟业成。 2004年,随中小的开,同创伟业资的达基实现IPO,随后在2005年轴研科技也顺利实现了IPO,同创伟业在中小开前50 中占据两。达基是同创伟业首个IPO项目,也是本土创首个上例。 2007年6月26日,同创伟业先发起成中国一有合伙制"
From Google Translate: "On June 26, 2000, Cowin Capital was established. In 2004, with the opening of small and medium-sized enterprises, Daji, which was funded by Cowin Capital, realized its IPO, and then in 2005, Axis Technology also successfully realized its IPO, and Cowin Capital occupied two of the top 50 small and medium-sized enterprises. Daji is the first IPO project of Cowin Capital, and it is also the first domestic case. On June 26, 2007, Cowin Capital was the first to initiate into China's one-owned partnership system."
He, Shasha 何莎莎 (2010).
"同创伟业 顺势而为" [Cowin Capital seizes opportunities]. 投资与合作 [Investment and Cooperation] (in Chinese). No. 9.
ISSN1004-387X. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via
CQVIP [
zh.
The abstract notes: "用硕果累累来形容深圳市同创伟业创业投资有限公司(以下简称为同创伟业)最近的投资表现一点都不为过。 2010年8月12日乐视网在深圳交易所创业板挂牌、8月3日深圳欧菲光科技正式在深交所上市、7月8日湛江国联水产开发股份有限公司登陆深交所创业板、5月26日康芝药业于深交所创业板实现上市"
From Google Translate: "It is not an exaggeration to describe the recent investment performance of Shenzhen Cowin Capital, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Cowin Capital) with fruitful results. On August 12, 2010, LeTV was listed on the GEM of the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. On August 3, Shenzhen OFILM Technology was officially listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. On July 8, Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Development Co., Ltd. landed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange’s GEM. On May 26 Kangzhi Pharmaceutical was listed on the Growth Enterprise Market of Shenzhen Stock Exchange."
Zheng, Weihe 郑伟鹤 (2011).
"同创伟业 健康成长" [Cowin Capital: healthy growth]. 投資与合作 [Investment and Cooperation Magazine] (in Chinese). No. 2.
ISSN1004-387X. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via
CQVIP [
zh.
The abstract notes: "2010年,同创伟业共投资了30个项目,并且有8个项目IPO,平均回报率达到10倍。"
From Google Translate: "In 2010, Cowin Capital invested in a total of 30 projects, and had 8 IPO projects, with an average rate of return of 10 times."
Zhao, Di 赵迪 (2009).
"郑伟鹤:做创业者的同行者" [Zheng Weihe: being a fellow entrepreneur]. 股市动态分析 [Stock Market Dynamic Analysis] (in Chinese). No. 12.
ISSN1001-0432. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via
CQVIP [
zh.
The abstract notes: "2000年,郑伟鹤创建了深圳市同创伟业投资有限公司,从一名律师转型为一名私募股权投资基金经理人。截至2009年6月,在同创伟业投资的项目中,已经有四个项目在中小企业板上市。如今,已经跨入不惑之年的郑伟鹤依旧在执着于他的PE理想。正如他公司的名称———同创伟业所诠释的那样,做创业者的同行者。"
From Google Translate: "In 2000, Zheng Weihe founded Shenzhen Cowin Capital, transforming from a lawyer to a private equity investment fund manager. As of June 2009, among the projects invested by Cowin Capital, four projects have been listed on the SME board. Today, Zheng Weihe, who has entered his forties, is still obsessed with his PE ideal. As the name of his company --- Cowin Capital explained, he is a fellow entrepreneur."
The abstract notes: "如果说一家医药企业不以患者安全为最高准则,那么即使它倒下,也将是社会的一大收获。而一家资金显赫的创投企业,投资资金入股一家这样的医药企业,作为如今盛行的创业投资资金Pre-IPO项目,PE盛宴之后。"
From Google Translate: "Abstract: If a pharmaceutical company does not regard patient safety as the highest criterion, even if it falls, it will be a great harvest for the society. And a well-funded venture capital company invests funds in such a pharmaceutical company, as a pre-IPO project of venture capital funds that is prevalent today, after the PE feast."
Deng, Shuanglin 邓双琳 (2020).
"同创伟业 捕捉科创板"隐形冠军"" [Cowin Capital captures the "hidden champion" of the Science and Technology Innovation Board]. 创业邦 [Entrepreneur] (in Chinese). No. 7.
ISSN1674-3601. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via
CQVIP [
zh.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The first two references listed by Cunard above meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing++ 19:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
✗plicit 03:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Apart from the billboard, there is nothing remarkable. Redirecting this to
Dennis Robbins may be a better alternative.
DreamRimmer (
talk) 02:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Would at least be worth a merger rather than just a straight redirect. The song is mentioned on Robbins' page, but the Billboard review isn't and the specific charting isn't in prose. Although I did also find blurbs and charting in Cashbox (
[62][63][64][65][66]) which could be enough to keep.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 10:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a few more opinions before closing this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is of insufficient depth to meet N:ORG StarMississippi 02:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Osmow's is not notable- there is very little significant media coverage, if any about it. Most media coverage is trivial. It is a small family-business with a handful of locations in Canada. Most information about Osmow's comes from the company itself, or places like Narcity, which are only talking about their food promotions and not why this company is notable. There are fast food places like Shanghai 360 or Villa Madina, which are similar to this one and have a few locations in Canada, and they are not notable enough either (and don't have their own articles on Wikipedia). Therefore, I think that this article should be deleted due to a lack of notability.
747pilot (
talk) 20:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Firstly, I'm not really sure what your definition of "a handful" is. Using your chosen stores for comparison, Villa Madina has 24 locations nationwide, and Shanghai 360 has 22 nationwide. Both of those brands mostly operate within mall food courts. Shanghai 360 doesn't even have a website. Therefore, it makes sense that there is no article about them. I fail to see how they're "similar" to Osmow's in any way. Osmow's, on the other hand, has over 140 locations, and it keeps opening new stores rather quickly. Since this article was written, there's a new location that opened in Winnipeg and that hasn't been updated yet in the article. Not only that, they tend to open a lot of stores in small towns that would never have known what shawarma is and the company has been important in introducing shawarma to the wider Canadian society. I'm not sure how that isn't notable.
Osmow's has also done advertising campaigns that are pretty much unheard from companies of its size, including the NBA Finals commercial that was mentioned in the article.
There are a bunch of articles on Wikipedia on Canadian chains that have less locations, less sources, and frankly a large number of them would also have to be deleted if going by the criteria that you listed.
Secondly, with regards to sourcing, there are other sources that detail its history and its growth that are in the references section of the article. There are only two articles that are about food promotions.
@
Andrepoiy: just because they have 140 stores doesn't mean they are notable. See
Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Notice that a lot of the media coverage is trivial. It's not substantial. Places like Tim Hortons have substantial media coverage and they are notable. But this fast food restaurant just isn't notable.
747pilot (
talk) 01:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:GNG. The number of locations a company has doesn't constitute notability. --
TheInsatiableOne (
talk) 08:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: a
ProQuest search returns dozens of hits. Many are of the form "Osmow's opens new restaurant in [LOCATION]", but a few seem to be more in-depth articles. I cannot access the articles to assess their value.
Mindmatrix 17:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - there's decent GNG coverage in the article - the Mississauga News article in particular is excellent.
Nfitz (
talk) 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
that article is behind a paywall, which hampers an assessment of notability.
TheInsatiableOne (
talk) 09:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That's a promo article masquerading as news, it relies entirely on information provided by the company and it owners and has zero "Independent Content" which is a requirement (see
WP:ORGIND).
HighKing++ 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Obviously some information in the article comes from various interviews over time. But that to say it entirely relies on information provided by the company is false. Why would the company have provided the Mississauga News information about the business winning the 2018 Mississauga News award? That just doesn't make sense. The article meets GNG.
Nfitz (
talk) 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
All of the information which might qualify as in-depth information was provided in the interview or by the company. I've no comment on why it doesn't make sense to you - I mean
the company used boast about the award on their website so it makes sense to me. The article isn't independent so it can't meet GNG.
HighKing++ 13:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 18:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No comments since last relist. Let’s form a stronger consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I know this chain, we have some in my locality (great shawarmas too). Agreed that most sources are simply about a new location opening. Some sponsorship details for the World Cup
[67] with a Canadian athlete, but it's all PR stuff.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete THis is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP criteria applies. I am unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing++ 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
As noted above, the Mississauga News article meets GNG.
Nfitz (
talk) 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Just cos you wish to ignore NCORP (which provides detailed explanations and examples of how to interpret GNG for companies) doesn't mean that you can interpret GNG in a less meaningful manner and then claim the article meets the criteria for establishing notability. The article is advertorial, relying entirely on an interview with company execs. It is not independent. If you think otherwise, that's your perogative - but others will disagree and the closing admin will weigh everything according to consensus and applicable guidelines.
HighKing++ 13:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This subject is simply not notable. It reads like a simple fanpage/vanity article. A BEFORE search came up with nothing useable.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 00:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:JOURNALIST. Most of the coverage is articles written by her and not
WP:SIGCOV about her. Out of the sources supplied 2,3 and 6 are primary.
LibStar (
talk) 23:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Leaning delete as it seems
WP:TOOSOON in her career, although there is
one feature article about her in The Chronicle (which quotes her but also includes some editorial prose which was presumably fact checked). Happy to reconsider if another article is found, but at the moment the content itself also seems thin. Draftification could be another option. No prejudice if this article is recreated again in the future once there is more independent secondary coverage about her. Doesn't satisfy
WP:NJOURNALIST as I'm not seeing evidence that her work is widely cited (via Google.com.au and Wikipedia Library).
Cielquiparle (
talk) 09:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete There's this brief mention
[1]. Plenty of mentions in the Daily Mail, which isn't an RS. Hasn't met GNG.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Re: Daily Mail, in this case the problem is that she wrote articles for them as well.
Cielquiparle (
talk) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete.
WP:TOOSOON makes one think that in the future the article could be re-created, for which a history would be useful, but there is nowhere to redirect, I suppose.
Suitskvarts (
talk) 12:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. 198 appears to be right on the hairy edge of the upper limit of sequential integers that deserve an article. It is nearly identical to its neighbor articles,
197 (number) and
199 (number), although it has quite a lot more references (probably owing to its more embattled history at AfD, DRV, and AfC). Keep/delete voters are split right down the middle, numerically speaking. Delete voters at this discussion argue that the number isn't notable enough for its own article, and that the number doesn't have enough significant or interesting properties to write about. Keep voters argue that deleting this article would result in an awkward gap in the number articles from 1-200 (which is obviously not based on any policy, but more of an
IAR argument, albeit an arguably valid one), potentially causing issues with navigation templates. Keep voters also implied that, in practice, notability criteria for numbers seems to be inconsistently applied, and applying the same level of scrutiny would likely result in the deletion of many other number articles between 101-200, which would be an outcome that most likely wouldn't find consensus if it were proposed.
This is a difficult discussion to close. While the policy-based arguments favor deletion, there are some convincing IAR arguments that pull it back in the other direction and make it impossible to find a solid consensus here. Some participants suggested a further discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (numbers) on whether the top end of the range of "automatically notable" integers should be expanded from 101 to 201, and I agree that this would be a useful discussion to have before nominating this article for deletion again.
—ScottyWong— 15:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nothing has really changed since
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/198 (number) (March 2022) and
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 9.
User:Robert McClenon promoted this from draft space over
significant objections from participants in those discussions. There still are not multiple properties of any mathematical significance for this number (
companion Pell number might count, but that is only one property and doesn't even have its own separate article), and no in-depth coverage of this number in any reliable sources (its coverage in OEIS is merely as one among many other numbers in several unimportant database entries). The article has been crammed with even more
junk trivia factoids than the version from the AfD, saving it from G4 speedy deletion, but that does not make it notable. Note that the draft discussion also debunked the claim that there was ever a consensus for the statement in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers that we should automatically include all numbers up to 200. Without in-depth coverage of this specific number in any reliable source, this does not pass
WP:GNG. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per the nomination, my comment at the previous AfD and my comments during the AfC process
[2][3].
XOR'easter (
talk) 20:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Being the only number from 1-200 that didn't have an article, it seems rather sad to not include it. It is far better sourced than many of the others, (I know all about
WP:OSE too). It seems to be a net benefit for the encyclopaedia to include it.
Theroadislong (
talk) 20:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The very first "citation" is to a website that does not include the stated claim (or any other useful content, for that matter). The rest is "this integer appears somewhere in OEIS" level cruft, which is no better than the referencing was in, say,
431 (number), which was turned into a redirect
[4]. If we're going by personal feelings of sadness, I'd say that it reads like scraping the bottom of the barrel for bullet points, more like a TV-Tropes-for-Numbers than an exposition of mathematics from which anyone could learn anything, which I find rather less than happy.
XOR'easter (
talk) 20:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Are articles about numbers necessarily required to be "an exposition of mathematics"?
Theroadislong (
talk) 20:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I have now provided a justification for why the first property is true in the article itself. That citation was an accident.
Natureader (
talk) 00:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That's
what we call "Original Research" and is not suitable for Wikipedia. We don't include mathematical facts, even if provable, if there's no written documentation showing that others have discussed them first.
XOR'easter (
talk) 00:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, I have instead found another source. I read in the WikiProject Numbers page that if you can verify it with a pocket calculator, it doesn't need a citation, so I thought it didn't need a citation. Thank you for your explanation. Best,
Natureader (
talk) 00:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep per Theroadislong's decision.
CastJared (
talk) 20:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete and restore the previous redirect along with history. Firstly, I agree this article should be deleted for all the reasons already stated. Secondly,
this deletion review resulted in the previous incarnation of the page being restored (as a redirect) in order to preserve history. That history now appears to have been lost - I assume the article was unceremoniously deleted to make way for this new draft? I think we must keep the previous history. IIRC the previous incarnation of the article had a sensible Talk page conversation about interestingness and why the article should remain a redirect. It's a pity that the nature of deletion means we now can't refer to that discussion in this discussion.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 21:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Ask
User:Robert McClenon where the history went — he performed some complicated sequence of round-robin moves between multiple numbered versions of this title in draft space, some of which have been subsequently deleted as "obviously made in error", in order to clear out the title from article space and move the draft into it. Probably the history went into one of those numbered drafts. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Answer - The history is in
Draft:198 (number), right where I put it. That wasn't one of the trivial errors that I made.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 22:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
'Comment' - 1. Why do you think that I tagged the draft {{
R with history}}? But you didn't look at the draft, because you thought reasonably that it was the draft. 2. The next time that I do this, I will put a comment on the talk page of the accepted article telling where the history is.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 22:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keeping the history in the draft namespace seems unwise. There is a good chance of it being speedily deleted after 6 months of inactivity.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 06:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I now also think we need to merge talk page history (if that’s even possible) as both old and new articles now have discussions on notability. If deletion prevails and 198 becomes the lowest number without an article, it will become/remain a magnet for reincarnation, and all these discussions need to be kept visible to avoid retreading the same ground.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 07:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It's policy. It applies everywhere. Number theory is just as susceptible to oddities, frivolous curiosities, and trivia as any other area of human activity.
XOR'easter (
talk) 22:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete and restore the previous redirect and history. --
Whpq (
talk) 00:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep By that metric of applicability, every mathematical property that is not immediately relevant to
an application of Number Theory is frivolous and needs to be thrown out. If we were to truly apply that rule to the articles we currently have, almost no number passes them. Try to tell me
100 has any content if you remove the trivia? It doesn't even have three facts that link to OEIS sequences where it is in the first five terms, which is the metric David Eppstein seems to think determines whether a number should be given an article or not. "But 100 is important because it is too small to not have its own article/significant in base 10." That's completely subjective, i.e. there's a humanistic reason why it should be included in our encyclopedia (we like base 10 and consider that number small). By that standard, there is nothing wrong with including 198, especially since it is otherwise a rather dissatisfying gap in a long list of articles. We're not concerned about
space availability, and there's enough content here that it isn't a pointless stub (the primary concern of
WP:NUM's guidelines on creation) in comparison to when it was previously deleted. Bass77talkcontribs 03:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
100 has more than half a page in the Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers[5]. 198 has no entry. 100 is also very early in the nice sequences
OEIS:A011557 and
OEIS:A000537 both of which have Wikipedia articles (I'll leave finding them as an exercise), and has a lot of cultural significance. (We have numbers whose notability rests mainly on cultural significance;
117 (number) is an example.) 198 has none of that. Also, see
WP:WAX. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 05:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
198 is "very early" in the nice sequences
https://oeis.org/A050250 and
https://oeis.org/A001078 too, as I mentioned in the draft comments. Why are they not acceptable as interesting? I think at least the first one (nonzero palindromes less than 10^n) should be interesting enough. This and the property of being the first number representable as the sum of four squares in ten different ways (which has an article about the sequence:
Jacobi's four-square theorem) were not mentioned in the previous 198 article, as far as I checked.
Natureader (
talk) 08:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Ok, let me explain why I don't think A050250, "Number of nonzero palindromes less than 10^n", is an interesting property. The number of palindromes of length , over an alphabet of any fixed size , is easy to count: . The number of palindromes of length at most has a more complicated formula. The number of palindromes of length at most where for some reason exactly one of the alphabet symbols is forbidden in the first position has an even more complicated formula. Now apply that formula to and . There are so many arbitrary choices here that you could make a similar number of arbitrary choices and get any number you liked. There is no mathematical significance to having a palindromic digit representation, and no historical reason (for instance in early numerology) for being interested in decimal palindromes. It's only trivia, of a sort liked by people who like trivia about decimal representations, and not even particularly significant among such things. OEIS lists one published paper counting these numbers
[6], not enough to make a case for notability of these counts, and the number 198 appears once in this paper, as a line in a table, not enough for
WP:SIGCOV of its role as one of these counts. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep If we're going to have articles on numbers at all, and it's not immediately clear to me why we should as someone who has never thought about it before, the natural thing to do for a "non-notable" number would be to redirect it to the list of integers between 100-199 as we do with other "non-notable" numbers, but given every other number in the set seems "notable" enough for its own page, the correct "solution" would be to redirect it to a list where it would be the only entry. Therefore, given this isn't a "normal" topic, we "should" probably keep it just out on IAR/organisational concerns.
SportingFlyerT·C 16:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Can we maybe add "just one more" to
WP:ATA? If we repeatedly applied that principle to numbers we would get infinitely many articles, which is obviously an impossible-to-maintain situation. How about stopping where actual notability runs out, instead? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I support the induction of this argument to the ATA hall of fame.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 18:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Because it's not a "just one more" argument, and I don't appreciate you trying to classify my argument as such. I have absolutely no idea why
198 (number) is not notable but
135 (number) is. Is it because 135 has more things to disambiguate? Is anyone arguing the page for 135 (number) passes GNG? Why is the mathematical trivia for
197 (number) valid for notability but not the ones at
198 (number)? Whether we have pages for numbers seems completely arbitrary apart from maybe pi because we're not applying rules consistently, and since we're not applying rules consistently, and the correct thing to do would be to redirect to a page that would list all the "non-notable" numbers between 100 and 200, which for whatever reason is exactly one number. The best option would be to delete this, 135, 197, and all of the other numbers which fail GNG and are only sourced to one mathematical encyclopedia, but I don't expect that would be very popular, so we may as well be inclusive.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:WAX. The 135 article in its current state is nearly as bad as the new 198 article. Also "more things to disambiguate" indicates some confusion; these are not disambiguation articles. We have a separate disambiguation article
135 (disambiguation); number articles are not and should not be confused with number disambiguation articles. I don't know if the three line entry for 135 in The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers[7] counts as
WP:SIGCOV. The existence of other bad articles does not justify one more bad article. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Just to be clear, based on your response, you would be open to an AfD on
135 (number) following this AfD, if it were to close as delete? Because what we're trying to figure out at the moment is whether these numbers are "notable" or not. We do have
WP:NNUM, but since this is at AfD it's clear
WP:NNUM is difficult to apply, if 198 gets deleted but 197 or 135 gets kept for having what amounts to essentially the same article for the lay reader, down to the sourcing, suffering basically the same problem as other recently deprecated SNGs - it's just that NNUM never really needs to be applied at AfD. I think the decision is between deleting a lot more numbers than just 198 or serving readers like myself who aren't computer science professors and who may not necessarily understand why 198 doesn't have an article when every other integer 0-200 does. (Furthermore, if these are not disambiguation articles, then we should probably be cleaning some of them up.
167 (number) is a great example.)
SportingFlyerT·C 19:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I have not yet formulated an opinion on the notability of 135. It would take more external research. The current article does not convince me of its notability, but it might be notable through material not yet present in the article, or through some kind of significance that is mentioned in the article but buried among all the cruft there to the point where I have not seen it.
I have been cleaning many of these up, slowly, with continued friction from some editors who like having them loaded with cruft. It was through attempting to clean these up in 2022, and not finding sufficient material to base an article on, that I initiated the first AfD of 198. I have not yet attempted to clean up 135. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the explanation - I understand your position a bit more clearly now. I'm not familiar with the history so perhaps this was discussed elsewhere before the first AfD as well, maybe at RfC. My argument is pretty simple but features a number of conditionals: if
WP:GNG applies only, then this should be deleted. If
WP:NNUM applies only, if it meets NNUM then it should be kept and if it doesn't then it should be deleted. However, as a SNG, NNUM would let us have these articles and have them not need to meet GNG, which is absolutely fine by me - these are a special category of article, but simultaneously, if the argument is all numbers 0-200 meet NNUM except 198, which is what I believe the initial AfD argued, then we should IAR keep this because the difference between 197 and 198 is not sufficiently different enough in practice that someone who's not into mathematics would understand why one has an article and the other does not, and we should instead keep 0-200 as a set of articles that can be on the site. If we're at the point where everything has to pass GNG, though, after the SNG discussions - I've been on a break - then this should probably be instead merged and redirected somewhere, and we can probably start doing that with other articles in the 0-200 range as well. Barring any specific consensus, I would default to keeping the article in a standalone form.
SportingFlyerT·C 21:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It's worth pointing out here that according to
WP:NNUM: "For the sake of completeness... it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 101 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the others." The cutoff point of 101 seems arbitrary, so there's a case to be made that it should be raised to 200 to smooth out the 198 gap.
The Midnite Wolf (
talk) 21:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Most number articles are written like
WP:TRIVIA anyways. We should have a wider discussion about their purpose. Something like
60 (number) is clearly notable for historical Base 60 reasons alone but it's not really helpful to readers - but that's a conversation for another day.
SportingFlyerT·C 22:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep – I !voted weak delete last time, but the article does not seem significantly below the standard of similar pages. (Although that sounds like
OSE, it does help define the threshold.) Together with the arguments above, we should probably keep 198 to complete our set of 1–200, but it's still marginal.
Certes (
talk) 21:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
delete per common sense. Article is just a collection of trivial data.
Cinadon36 08:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete and restore the previous redirect and history: Does not appear to pass
WP:NNUM and reads as a pile of trivia.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 15:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - I would support keeping, even if this page only had the links to 197 and 199. If the content is a problem - prune it. But don't reduce navigation for our readers by deleting this page. That doesn't make any logical sense at all. - jc37 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Week keep. From
WP:NNUM: "For the sake of completeness... it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 101 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the others. This avoids having, say, a gap for 38." The cutoff point of 101 here is arbitrary and could easily be changed to 200 or 201. I don't see a reason why a single gap below 200 is less unsatisfying than a gap at 38.
The Midnite Wolf (
talk) 21:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
delete per nom, the fact that there is a page for 197 or any other number doesn't make this one better.
Artem.G (
talk) 07:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete it's a bunch of trivia, with no obvious significance. All of the non-notable numbers below 198 should be deleted too imo, just in case someone wants to use the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or "navigational completeness" arguments (the navigational completeness argument makes no sense here anyway, people don't need a list to know what number comes after 197).
AryKun (
talk) 13:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Who benefits from these articles being deleted? Bass77talkcontribs 22:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
It gives us practice patching up all the number navigation templates,
List of numbers, etc. to work around a hole in the sequence.
Certes (
talk) 22:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, what makes a number notable? That's really the crux of this entire AfD, but this may not be the best place for that discussion.
SportingFlyerT·C 22:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Honestly, I would argue most numbers aren't notable, even below one hundred. I would think only small numbers -1–20, fundamental constants like e, π, and i, and then numbers with some real-world notability or GNG like 100, 1000, the -illions, and googol should have separate articles.
AryKun (
talk) 01:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I closed the first AFD as "Delete" but this go-round, I don't see a consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete a lot of the arguments are above are about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "niceness", not whether the actual number is notable outside of a set. The "in mathematics" section is almost entirely just math trivia, no different from an "in pop culture" cruft section about a fictional character, and then the rest of it is just run-of-the-mill trivia combined with a disambiguation. There's not actual sources attesting to passing the GNG here, and I don't think any of these articles that are cited to
On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences demonstrate notability.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 18:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak delete and restore redirect, as the keep !votes are largely based on aesthetic arguments without addressing notability. To those wishing to keep the article, I would suggest proposing a change to
WP:NNUM so that it includes all numbers up to 201, rather than 101. Based on this discussion, it would probably gain some traction.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 16:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think delete !votes are any better on this front: "crammed with junk trivia factoids", "cruft", "scraping the bottom of the barrel", "some editors who like having them loaded with cruft", "pile of trivia", and "bunch of trivia" sound like aesthetic arguments to me. jp×g 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Trivia and cruft are relevant to deletion discussions insofar as they describe issues relating to
WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 22:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Also, that was a highly selective and misleadingly cherry-picked set of quotations. In particular, the "crammed with junk trivia factoids", taken from my nomination statement, was from a part of the nomination statement explaining why G4 speedy deletion does not apply. The same nomination statement concludes with a clear guideline-based statement directly addressing (the total lack of)
WP:GNG-based depth of coverage. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 01:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Note that, contrary to many claims, the contents of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not "it is forbidden to make any a posteriori claims whatsoever about consensus". This would be absurd, which is why it is not a policy or guideline. What this link actually goes to is a section of an essay about a specific type of fallacious reasoning where somebody argues for an article to be kept on the sole basis that another (very crappy and unlikely to survive AfD) article exists. It's quite unclear to me how this is supposed to apply to situations in which the "other stuff" is the subject of robust consensus. Here are all of the AfDs for numbers under 200:
1 (joke nom),
7 (joke nom),
9 (keep),
42 (joke nom),
69 (joke nom),
134 (keep),
138 (keep),
155 (keep),
178 (keep),
198 (delete). Here, other stuff does not exist as a random coincidence, but rather because people repeatedly agreed that it should exist. Even apart from that, I don't think that saying something is "cruft" or "junk trivia factoids" is a good deletion rationale (indeed, there is a section in the same essay named after this:
WP:IDONTLIKEIT). As for the merits of the article: there are indeed OEIS citations, but there are also other citations (like the Brazilian emergency phone number, the dollar-coin ridges, and the NumberADay ref). It is not the greatest article in the world, but it seems basically fine to me. jp×g 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The AfD's for 134, 138, and 155 were a decade and a half ago. It's reasonable to question whether that amounts to a meaningful example to follow now. The article for 178 made a better case for its existence on straight-up mathematical properties than this one (it got two "keep" !votes and one "weak keep", from editors who in this discussion have come down as "weak keep", "delete" and "delete" respectively).
XOR'easter (
talk) 16:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject was not mentioned in the
cited book, and the Marathi version of the article relies on the
official website of the temple. Searches online only found two Marathi articles, both were announcements of upcoming festivals that would be held in the temple in 2021. Lacks sufficient coverage to pass
WP:GNG.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk) 15:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as per above. There are no sources that use this name; perhaps this temple is better known by another name.
DreamRimmer (
talk) 16:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete could not find any
WP:SIGCOV in gnews or gbooks. Fails GNG.
LibStar (
talk) 23:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –
bradv 00:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
No evidence of
notability for this one-off tournament. Prod removed without improvements and with arguments which don't really address the lack of indepth sourcing. Sources are passing mentions or routine coverage only.
Fram (
talk) 15:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
It looks like the tournament (or at least one with that name) lasted longer than one year -
this article from 1925 mentions the "twelfth annual Delaware Tennis Club Tournament" and discusses it a bit.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Mention of the 1886 edition
here, but oddly it mentions C. B. Davis as the runner-up (while teamed up with Leigh Bousall) and Remak as the winner (with Cowperthait)?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 20:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Apparently it decided the lawn tennis championship of the southern states:
[8].
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 20:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Other articles on it:
[9][10] and
[11]. The last one makes it seem like there was a doubles and singles event, the former of which Remak/Cowperthait won and the latter I guess Davis won, so that issue is cleared up.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 20:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete -- A one-off tournament held over 130 years ago does not merit an article. Even if it was held annually for some years the answer would be the same. If we had an article on
Delaware Field Club, which apparently staged the tournament, we might have merged there; or
Delaware Tennis Club, but both are apparently NN; and so is the tournament.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Having done extensive research on historical Delaware sports, I can say that the Field Club is almost certainly notable – maybe I could create the Field Club at some point soon and have this merged there, perhaps with the
Delaware Field Club Open as well?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 15:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Peterkingiron - Single events can absolutely be notable and when they took place doesn't matter.
KatoKungLee (
talk) 15:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - not sure how it started but it looks to have sources now and is notable.
Fyunck(click) (
talk) 21:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Possible merge or redirect to
Southern Championships if it can be be established through reliable sources that it was the inaugaural holding of or forerunner to that tournament — it's stated as such in that article. However, the information in Southern Championships seems to conflict with the information provided here, which states it was a one-off tournament. Until this is resolved it's difficult to make a formal recommendation.
Rupples (
talk) 01:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to consider Merge or Redirect. This discussion does need to be closed whether or not a Field Club article is in main space. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. The one person who could help clarify the facts here is the creator of both this and the Southern Championships article
Navops47 who I initially thought hadn't been formally notified of this AfD on their talk page and that was why they hadn't contributed here. About to query this, but a check of their Talk page history shows that notification was indeed made. Without confirmation of the position as to whether this tournament was one-off or the forerunner/inaugaural to the Southern Championships we run the risk of merging incorrect information.
Rupples (
talk) 01:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Non notable, one off event.
Zippybonzo |
Talk (he|him) 13:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep It looks like there's enough sources to support an article. The fact it happened once is of no importance.
SportingFlyerT·C 13:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - I have added more sources to the page, including links to pages for two films which featured the subject as the main subject of the film. I think this certainly counts as 'significant coverage'.
Jwslubbock (
talk) 14:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep, delete, or merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep His life is represented not just his role in the siege, I don’t see how anyone would want this to be deleted on a genuine merit, it’s history and people like to use Wikipedia to read about history
Bobisland (
talk) 22:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Brief mention here
[13]. Nothing else found. appears perhaps to be a memorial page, which wiki is not.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG. Relies exclusively on primary sources. He has not demonstrated individual notability outside of Paramaecium, therefore he shouldn't have his own Wikipedia page, per
WP:BANDMEMBER.
JMB1980 (
talk) 21:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Paramaecium. Per nominator, a quick Google and Wikipedia Library search suggests he doesn't have individual notability outside of Paramaecium. He does appear to have a few positive mentions in album reviews, but these currently are not cited in this article and could be added to the article on the band itself.
Cielquiparle (
talk) 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This footballer made two appearances for the Cayman Islands. I can find no significant coverage of this player in web searches or Cayman Islands news sources. There is a marriage announcement in the Cayman Compass but it is not nearly enough.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I found three items on Google Books which give non-trivial amounts of information about it:
[14][15][16].
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 21:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, in light of the sources posted by Barnards. jp×g 05:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Possible Delete. Lack of reliability pushes me towards delete, unless someone can find at least one
reliable source from somewhere, should any exist. --
StarryNightSky11☎ 20:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Another clear Merge since the label's founder has an article. These types of cases can be handled without further burdening AfD.
Chubbles (
talk) 06:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A plain merge is different than a merge/delete/redirect. Just merging would leave the history intact for any editor to restore, while a delete & redirect would prevent most users from doing that. And that action requires AfD. -
UtherSRG(talk) 11:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
But why would we do that, in this case?
Chubbles (
talk) 05:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - I second the merge into
Nocturnal Emissions; don't care what mechanism is used, just that the content is maintained.
-- t_kiehne (
talk) 18:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom, was also draftified and moved back with no improvements. FatalFit |
✉ |
✓ 21:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I
took a stab but was unable to establish clear notability and forgot to come back to it. I'll have another look this week to see if anything has changed. StarMississippi 01:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I haven't turned up anything of note. If this closes as delete and I do down the road, I'll draftify it and flag for you and whoever closes before restoring. StarMississippi 01:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Trivial coverage, at best. Not notable and I can't find any sourcing. Props for the "what can I do with this degree article" as sourcing though.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 01:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Does not appear notable as a musical performer, no charted singles, no awards. The article (and most sourcing found in BEFORE) is largely related to the legal problems the individual is facing. Likely WP:BLP1E
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. It's difficult to judge how well known he is. The only coverage I've found is news reports that he's facing criminal charges. There's pieces on social media and on websites but these don't appear to be reliable sources and what coverage there is lacks depth, so I don't think he passes
WP:BIO or the
WP:GNG. Doesn't satisfy the conditions of
WP:CRIME as he's not been convicted. Nothing found on his musical career. Checked the South African official charts website
https://theofficialsacharts.co.za and got zero results under both "Shebeshxt" and "Malome Shebe" so doubt he passes criterion 2 of
WP:SINGER and nothing came up on Discogs search to support criterion 5.
Rupples (
talk) 01:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG - no Google news hits, and as an intersection of two surface roads it is hard to imagine how it could be notable
[17]. Rschen7754 22:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: No indication of notability, just an intersection
Reywas92Talk 03:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: I believe this article is about a community named Mackenzie Junction, not the intersection, despite the way the article is written. This should probably be converted to a redirect to the article
Regional District of Fraser–Fort George.
Mindmatrix 14:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Which sources describe a community with this name? –
dlthewave☎ 16:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
As a road junction, this article is not notable. As a community -
WP:GEOLAND says that populated places are presumed notable (not making a statement about whether this community fulfills that), but the article seems to be written about the road junction. Rschen7754 00:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. I got 7 Google news hits. While the junction is nothing out of the ordinary, it's located in a sparsely populated area and appears to be used as a geographical marker for anything that happens in the area. Perhaps the junction falls within the realm of Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer? An alternative could be a redirect to
British Columbia Highway 39.
Rupples (
talk) 01:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge into
British Columbia Highway 39 for which this junction, tiny community, and service center is a terminal node. The target is short and can use this content.
gidonb (
talk) 02:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Did consider a merge rather than a redirect but quality of sourcing stopped me formally recommending. I do think "Mackenzie Junction" is a plausible search term and therefore should be referenced somehow. If deemed appropriate a merge is the best alternative to deletion as notability looks insufficient to warrant a separate article.
Rupples (
talk) 13:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Rupples, thank you for thinking this through. Actually, there is nothing wrong with the sources except that these do not support notability or importance. Hence we cannot keep the article. The content only needs sources that support data, a lower bar, which is met. The two sentences that should be copied to
British Columbia Highway 39, while once inserting Mackenzie Junction, are the ones that start with it. Plus Mackenzie Junction should be added to infobox as the terminal node.
gidonb (
talk) 13:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge into
British Columbia Highway 39 with "Mackenzie Junction" as a heading in that article and searches redirected there — following
Gidonb's and my reasoning above.
Rupples (
talk) 14:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Intersection has no indication of notability. –
dlthewave☎ 16:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let’s attempt to come to a consensus on whether to merge or delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment What part of Wikipedia's policy makes the number of Google News hits a criteria for inclusion or deletion? Also, the Google algorithm can be misleading in that stories in reliable secondary news sources stop showing up in Google news hits after a few days, but show up when the articles are first published.--
Kerbyki (
talk) 14:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nom, not notable at all
greyzxqtalk 15:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge or keep Possibly to Mackenzie? It's clear there exists a place called Mackenzie Junction - it comes up in a Google Books search, and there's an inn, a restaurant, and a RV hookup there in real life. Whether that's enough for a standalone article is a different question (even though that's the one posed by this discussion), but we should make sure the place is noted somewhere on the site.
SportingFlyerT·C 21:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thinking about this more, it's the junction for the only road to Mackenzie - I think Mackenzie would be a good merge target for the small amount of information that's here, especially considering the Mackenzie visitor centre is by the junction.
SportingFlyerT·C 00:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete There doesn't seem to be anything there to merit keeping as a community (based on looking at maps), and no evidence of notability as a junction (junctions are sometimes notable if historically significant or important, but not every road junction deserves an article). If the inn/restaurant was itself notable, we could move, but it doesn't seem to be. Redirecting to
British Columbia Highway 39 might be possible if this is a genuinely widely-used name for the junction but I'm not sure of that. What happened there? Why is it notable? --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 10:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Because it's widely referred to as a place in articles like this:
[18] and in German guidebooks:
[19] and
here and
a reference to real estate being located there - there's not much, but it's definitely a point on the map people refer to in a very rural part of the world. It's probably not going to be enough to keep this article unfortunately but I feel like that's a failure of
WP:NGEO more than anything else.
SportingFlyerT·C 22:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete A minor intersection, does not meet the notability guidelines.
Avilich (
talk) 20:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I looked on Google Earth. There is nothing there except one combined Petro-Canada gas station / RV park (tiny) / restaurant. There's a building out in back of that which may be housing for workers. There's a cluster of what looks like about a dozen mobile homes on the other side of the
Parsnip River. That's everything within a one-mile radius.--A. B.(
talk •
contribs •
global count) 03:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Did
WP:BEFORE and was unable to find any sources that were not passing mentions or Facebook posts. I searched scholar and there are a couple mentions about how the school was the site of some earthquake improvements but nothing in de[th enough to establish notability. Dr vulpes(
💬 •
📝) 19:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete My searches could not find significant coverage to meet
WP:NSCHOOL.
LibStar (
talk) 23:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If you can find a cite for that section then I'm okay with the merge per
WP:ATD --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah that sounds fine, if there's anything you want me to do just ping me and I'll do my best to give you a hand. Dr vulpes(
💬 •
📝) 21:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge proposal Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Dear
Onel5969, permit me to present an alternate vista upon this rich panorama of sources. The array of evidence available, I argue, draws a vivid portrait of our subject that fulfills, if not surpasses, the parameters of
WP:SIGCOV.
Reflect, if you will, upon the sheer diversity of contexts in which our subject appears. From being the
voice of authority as a parade administrator, to sharing personal insights in a
magazine interview, his presence permeates a wide spectrum of discourse.
Furthermore, his inclusion in a political committee carries weight, especially when the announcement of such is is
accompanied by a profile and direct quotes - an indication of his significance within the milieu
Similarly, the honoring by the Westchester County
board of legislators and the
Aisling Irish Community Centre of New York are not mere passing platitudes, but substantive statements describing a community's recognition of his achievements. Such accolades do not find their way to individuals of ordinary standing, but to those who have made substantial impact.
Consider, too, the quality of the sources. The Irish Times, a publication of undisputed credibility, deemed our subject's
views valuable enough to include in a discussion of national import. This is not the mark of an individual of passing interest, but rather of one whose insights hold weight.
Esteemed colleague, upon a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the sources at hand, it is my conviction that they provide the 'significant coverage' required by our revered guidelines. The collective breadth, depth, and diversity of these sources underscore the subject's noteworthy influence and contributions in his sphere, thereby affirming his rightful place in the annals of Wikipedia. I propose that the evidence at hand is a testament to our subject's multifaceted significance.
His influence and the recognition he's earned, coupled with the breadth and depth of coverage across a range of reputable sources, come together to advocate strongly for his retention within our compendium. It is my belief that his journey and contributions warrant our attention, and that his tale should remain within Wikipedia's archives, for the edification of all who seek knowledge.
Jack4576 (
talk) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect to
New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade. While
Jack4576 has offered a
lengthy opinion above, my own review of the sources (in the article and found elsewhere following a
WP:BEFORE) indicate that much of the subject's notability relates primarily to his connection with the NYC parade/committee. Otherwise, apart from local/regional sources (like the
Roscommon Herald and
Sligo Champion pieces) most of the sources are either press releases, interviews, and opinion pieces written by the subject (and therefore not independent). Or are mentions by/about the subject in news pieces which are substantively about something else. A redirect (as an
WP:ATD) seems reasonable in this sceanrio...
Guliolopez (
talk) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't think his contributions are particularly significant, but that's not what GNG measures. They have gained enough international publicity, in the form of in-depth stories about him in multiple reliably-published and independent newspapers and magazines in Ireland, to pass GNG. And some of them are about one thing and some another (his work with the parade, and with the treaty organization) so
WP:BIO1E is not in play. The
WP:VAGUEWAVE comments visible above do not convince (although neither does Jack's prolixity on the other side). —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - Leaning more towards a delete/merge per Guliolopez's argument. The case for WP:GNG seems weak.-
KH-1 (
talk) 01:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 04:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
PROD by
User:TimothyBlue which I endorsed as we are not a Soccerway mirror site. Recreated in what appears to be the exact same form, with no attempt to address the issues. Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Appears to be a footballer playing at a very low level in the Greek women's football system with no claim to notability whatsoever. In Greek searches, I found only trivial coverage.
Sport Drama is a copy of a press release from
Amazones Dramas and is clearly not independent of Koskeridou.
Xronika Dramas is probably the best source but it's nothing more than a quote from her, a squad listing and two passing mentions in the minute-by-minute match summary.
Aelole (translated) mentions her once.
Proinos Typos mentions her twice in passing. None of the above demonstrates the need for a stand-alone article, especially for a player with such an insignificant career. Should her career take an upward turn and if significant coverage is ever produced, then this can be recreated.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not meeting MUSIC, no charted singles, nothing found in reliable sources; some coverage in DJ Mag, nothing I can find for extensive coverage.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, I'll add more references then??
BiggestBidder (
talk) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
We're looking for extensive coverage of the person in reliable sources, not blogs or websites. If you can find some, please share with us.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Here are some good ones. If you want me to add these to the article, I will. Not sure what's wrong with the current sources though? There isn't even much information that would need many references.
These are not so good. All three sources are interviews which is neither secondary nor independent of the subject. The nom already mentioned "some coverage in DJ Mag", but the second link and another on the article are interviews with the subject.
Saucysalsa30 (
talk) 02:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep the article now references a significant piece in DJ Mag, a full review in Pitchfork, a bio on AllMusic and other coverage that passes
WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 20:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The piece in DJ Mag is an interview (primary information and not independent of the subject), which does not meet GNG. The Pitchfork source is a short review of an EP and says nothing of the subject himself. The bio on AllMusic is not significant coverage, not RS, and submitted by a "Paul Simpson", whoever that is. Other coverage is weaker in making a case for GNG than these which already fail. Aside from not passing GNG, GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. It's a remarkably low threshold to say that on a superficial level one can assume without sounding preposterous that there's a case for notability.
Saucysalsa30 (
talk) 02:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 01:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Sources on the article are a mix of non-RS, primary sources, not independent of the subject especially interviews, not significant coverage, which do not help make a case for notability. Research done by the nominator, BiggestBidder, and I have turned up more of this. Take the McCollum piece in DJ Mag on the article, probably the best source available. It's an interview with the subject, which is primary information and not independent of the subject. Fails
WP:GNG, which is only a minimum bar presumption for notability.
Saucysalsa30 (
talk) 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
AllMusic is an established reliable source as per
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. and has a byline written by Paul Simpson who is a staff writer at AllMusic. The
Pitchfork review is four paragraphs long and the first paragraph is biographical information directly about him, and it is also independent criticism of his music which of course is relevant to him. The DJ Mag piece is significant coverage in a reliable source so there is enough to pass
WP:GNG imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 22:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I spoke to each one here.
[20] Adding a little more.
The AllMusic source, in just 280 words, is puffery and discography in all but 50 words. Hardly prime biographic material.
The
Pitchfork review on an EP has a whopping 2 sentences about him biographically, mentioning 3 cities he's lived in.
I'll repeat, the DJ Mag piece is not independent of the subject and is mostly primary sourcing, being an interview. It's as dependent on the subject as it could possibly get.
WP:GNG does not accept this and neither does NMUSIC: "This criterion includes published works in all forms .. except for the following: .. publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves"
GNG is not met. The nomination still stands. The subject appears to be a minor DJ with a smattering of low depth coverage. Worth reminding that GNG is not any guarantee to keep an article either. It's a bare minimum threshold to consider notability without sounding preposterous. Unfortunately,
Lsdxoxo does not meet this low threshold.
Saucysalsa30 (
talk) 05:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think the AllMusic bio and Pitchfork review provide significant coverage of this artist; I don't buy the argument that their focus on a musician's musical output disqualifies them as sources.
Hatman31 (
talk) 21:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Leaning to Keep as meets
WP:MUSICBIO. Allmusic is a reliable source with a staff writer bio, and subject also has a short bio in
Resident Advisor which is also an
WP:EMRS. Seems notable enough to have done a cover mix for
Mixmag -
here. Mixmag also included his single 'Burn The Witch' as one of the 120 best tracks of the decade:
[21]. Resonant
Distortion 16:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Also has a residency on a major national radio station
BBC Residency and has done a substantial 2 hour broadcast on Pete Tongs
Essential Mix -
here. Further points which meet musicbio#12. Lsdxoxo is more than a 'minor DJ'. Resonant
Distortion 16:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, PROMO, not meeting GNG. Name is rather common, turns up in various USA media, with no relation to this person. Seems to be a municipal employee, but I can't tell from the article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per above, promotional only.
Karnataka (
talk) 22:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This footballer played 2 games for the Cayman Islands in 2008. I don't see much coverage searching online and in Cayman Islands news sources. I can see some passing mentions in the Cayman Compass and
one piece that provides a little more prose.
All told I don't believe the subject of the article meets GNG.
MarchOfTheGreyhounds (
talk) 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete not a single source in Greek. Totally unknown
ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (
talk) 00:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 sources brought up by Link20XX and Xexerss.
Fulmard (
talk) 19:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Tagged as an advert since 2012, and, apparently, now out of date. The only accessible source in the article is an archive of the resort's own website. My searches haven't found any significant coverage of the farm or the resort.
John of Reading (
talk) 10:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete appears to have been transformed into a non-notable off-road park/track. Still a Delete. The wrongful death case isn't helping notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Appears that isn't notable.
CastJared (
talk) 15:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
sourced entirely to primary sources, fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 12:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. This school has been in existence for over 100 years. We generally keep public high schools (not policy, but that's what happens). Sources do not have to be in the article, they need to
WP:NEXIST, and they don't have to be online. This is the second oldest school I've ever seen nominated. As to the article, it is at this point a pitiful stub, which needs great improvement, but why delete it instead of fixing it?
Jacona (
talk) 13:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
We can't presume notability due to age, notability comes from sources which must be shown to exist, improvement of an article requires sourcing to show it passes
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG.
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 14:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Page 3 of the August 29, 1922 issue of the Idaho Statesman (based in Boise) has
WP:SIGCOV about the expansion of the high school from a 3 year to a 4 year curriculum. That's the oldest
WP:RS I've found thus far. I have found trivial mentions as far back as 1901. —
Jacona (
talk) 14:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
One source is not
WP:SIGCOV, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Trivial mentions do not count towards
WP:GNG.
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 14:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Lavalizard101, First, this is not a trivial mention. Second, it's not the only source, but I've provided this one to show this school has existed and has significant coverage as far back as over a century ago. I don't really intend to waste a lot of effort to show that sources exists for a public high school in the U.S. that is so old, as experienced editors should know that sources are going to
WP:NEXIST, both online and off. Just as a comment, before I nominate any articles for deletion, I always do a search on newspapers.com. There is a wealth of coverage. You can access it for free at the Wikipedia Library —
Jacona (
talk) 14:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying that that source is a trivial mention, my comment about trivial mentions is a response to your "I have found trivial mentions as far back as 1901".
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 14:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Also
WP:NEXIST also states "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive".
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 14:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This is why
Newspapers.com and
Newspaperarchive.com are important, as one can check some newspapers. One issue is that not all sources are online and some sources require visits to in-person centers for microfilms. This puts a very large burden on ordinary people trying to get sources for articles. We are lucky that the Idaho newspapers do have articles about the school online.
WhisperToMe (
talk) 03:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - I just made a clipping of "
May Enlarge Curriculum: Council High School Seeking to Teach All Four Classes" so Wikipedians can see the article for themselves and determine whether it meets SIGCOV. There should be a priority in ensuring articles on government-run comprehensive high schools have the necessary sources to meet SIGCOV, because Wikipedia does function as an almanac, and documenting public facilities such as schools are an important ingredient in being a good almanac. As per
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools, any American school operated by a school district which doesnt meet notability should be folded into the respective school district article.
WhisperToMe (
talk) 03:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: I checked
Newspaperarchive.com and found coverage of the school fire and the subsequent efforts to build a new building from the Idaho Free Press of
Nampa, Idaho. A school fire almost completely destroying the building is not routine coverage, and the articles delve into
Wikipedia:SIGCOVWhisperToMe (
talk) 03:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - Jacona's argument is compelling, and between the sources he and WhisperToMe have brought forward, GNG is clearly met. Aa a side note, the community it's located in had a local newspaper up until the early 90s. It hasn't been Archived anywhere online, but is available in both the local library and the Idaho state repository library at Boise State University. It's a fair assumption that there would be some highly detailed articles in it. And as the newspaper of record for the county, it should be considered a reliable source. There's a vast world of information beyond the internet.
69.92.163.38 (
talk) 16:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sources provided by
Jacona and
WhisperToMe easily meet requirements for non-profit schools under
WP:ORG and
WP:AUD: The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. (Italics mine.) The tip above about the local newspaper is also an appreciated reminder of life beyond the internet. Finally, notability requirements for public (non-profit) schools are
WP:ORGorWP:GNG, and this article meets both.
— Grand'mere Eugene (
talk) 21:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet
WP:GNG. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
sourced entirely to primary sources, fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 12:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - sufficient sourcing exists to meet GNG. Nominator should be reminded that AfD is not about the article, but rather about the subject of the article. Your comment was inappropriate.
69.92.163.38 (
talk) 16:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I added a few sources, and there are more on newspapers.com, which I will add in the next few days. Meets
WP:NSCHOOL and
WP:GNG.
— Grand'mere Eugene (
talk) 23:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Update -- I've clipped articles through 1975, excluding the quarterly/annual honor roll listings, reports of Future Farmers of America and of Future Homemakers of America, band performances, theater performances, Boys' State attendees from Castleford, dances, and commencements. In short, there were MANY articles I have not clipped about school activities. There were two article (so far) about bomb threats, and multiple articles about the school's dress code, involving girls' skirt length (too short) and boys' haircuts (too long), that in 1975 resulted in expulsion of nine males and multiple stories in local and statewide newspapers; all nine were readmitted with their too-long hair. I'll be adding what I have found so far to the article's talk page, for any editors who want to expand the article with content that could be an ode to small-town American life. I will try to return next week to newspapers.com for stories from the last half-century. Now for some corn on the cob and strawberry shortcake with my grandkids...
Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet
WP:GNG. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
sourced entirely to primary sources, fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 12:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep -
This article from the Idaho Statesman appears to be enough on its own to satisfy GNG. Additionally, the athletic achievements detailed in the article, along with the achievements this small school has achieved in music not in the article would indicate more sources are available. Please understand that notability guidelines are not proscriptive (telling us what we can't do); but rather descriptive (telling us what we usually do). Most US schools have sufficient sources somewhere; high achieving schools even moreso. And if it's a toss up, we keep. Although notability is admittedly weak for this school, IMO it's sufficient to keep.
69.92.163.38 (
talk) 18:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I added a few historical details supported by newspapers.com sources, and as a non-profit, the school meets
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG.
— Grand'mere Eugene (
talk) 17:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet
WP:GNG. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep there is enough coverage identified in this discussion and referenced in the article for a pass of
WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
There is sufficient sourcing in the article to meet
WP:GNG, so we should Keep this article.
Jacona (
talk) 15:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 14:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
1) This was created by a blocked user. 2) There are concerns about paid edits. 3) I've gone through
WP:PROF and I don't think the subject is notable.
Dr. Vogel (
talk) 11:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 14:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Does not appear to be a good reason why this school should be considered notable. Fwiw there appear to be many schools affiliated to
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan which have WP pages but with questionable notability
JMWt (
talk) 11:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. If any schools in
India are not notable, it will be deleted because, it can't pass
WP:GNG and
WP:NSCHOOL.
CastJared (
talk) 15:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The school doesn't meet the notability requirements stated on
WP:NSCHOOLErtrinken (
talk) 17:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A Teahouse visitor has asserted, with coherent argument, that this place was never inhabited, and is merely a railway siding. I will copy their text as comments.
Elemimele (
talk) 07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The teahouse-guest,
ClevelandExPat asked for correction of this article, initially posting the following text:
"I have found an article that is very inaccurate in that it has turned a former mail stop along the old Pennsylvania Railroad tracks in Ohio into an "unincorporated community," which it never was. (No streets, no buildings other than an exterior platform and at most a mail distribution point - before Rural Free Delivery started in 1905. This place had no school, no churches, no grange or hall of any sort. Its simply a grade crossing created by a railroad. Portraying this as "community" is causing problems on other sites that insist that place was more than it was and as an unincorporated community that there were members of said "unincorporated community," when there were none. I just want the correct information to stand and remove this fictitious portrayal of what was a mail stop and perhaps a small post office that only functioned from 1895-1905 as an "unincorporated community" The factual information is already assembled, what remains is what to do with the "box" used for places. I just want this to be accurate, without deepening involvement. Is it possible to make this happen?"
They subsequently added:
"Thank you for the reply. USGS has a point on a map. And evidently, McGraw Hill maps do as well. However, Lynn, the railroad siding, was never occupied. Even as a postal sub-office, it existed as "Benzler" or "Lynn" had no residents, no place for people to gather. As for the defunct, yes, as of 1905 when its reason for being was closed with the advent of RFD routes. So it should be labeled as defunct in that its purpose for being ended 118 years ago. And it should be labeled as such, because there is nothing there. As for why people continue to list it on maps, it's probably "We have always done it that way," and the decision is being made by people who have never been there. If you look it up on Google maps, you'll see that there is just a crossing, nothing else. "
Based on these arguments, it's not clear that this is genuinely a notable place. I am not an expert on US inhabited locations, and am therefore bringing it here, for the attention of those who are.
Elemimele (
talk) 07:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I edited the article to say "...is a former post office and railroad
siding ..." The article already had two references. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs) 15:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - "Unincorporated community" was sourced only to GNIS which is unreliable for that claim; the train station and post office do not indicate the presence of a community nor do they meet GNG. –
dlthewave☎ 18:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Post offices from that era do not necessarily correspond to communities; often they were just run out of a home or store and named after the owner. Better sourcing would be needed to establish as a notable place or community.
Reywas92Talk 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:GEOLAND. There is no automatic notability for ex-post offices and railroad sidings, only for legally recognised communities, which this wasn't. The passing mentions cited clearly aren't enough to meet the
WP:GNG. Hut 8.5 18:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Something not delete Are we sure the information is correct? I've found
[34] which shows someone was the pastor of a church in Lynn, Ohio earlier in the 19th century and
[35] talks about electors from Lynn, and also mentioned here:
[36] - I don't know where that comes from, but are we absolutely sure about this one? Even if we are, the information here should be merged elsewhere.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
See also
[37] and
[38] which shows the post office pre-dates what we currently have in the article, and
[39] this from 1911. Though this could very well be referring to some other place in Ohio? Something's odd about this.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not a community, fails WP:GEOLAND.
Avilich (
talk) 00:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I entered the coordinates in Google Earth. All that's there is a one-track railroad crossing over county road 123 (not even a state road). There's no sign of a station or a siding. --A. B.(
talk •
contribs •
global count) 03:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The consensus here is that there is not sufficient reference material to demonstrate
notability. If anyone would like to work on this article as a draft, let me know and I will put it in draft space for you.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me 16:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter.
Subject fails GNG as fight announcements and fight results sources are merely routine reports
Subject also fails
WP:NMMA for not ranked top ten in the world. As present he ranked 131 in welterweight.
Cassiopeiatalk 04:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: to win TUF 29 is not a qualify for GNG nor NMMA. And not sources url are given. Note: Yahoo is not a source where we need to have original independent, reliable source and Sportkeeda is not are reliable sources and some of the articles in the site are written by fans - see "SportsKeeda.com is owned by the fans. Yes, you read it right; We have placed the control of the website right in hands of the fans. As a fan,, you are invited to write an article, comment on articles and even do interviews wiht sporting celebrities. You cannot only just create your own content; you can easily shere it via social media such as Facebook, Orkut and Twitter. Today, we live in the digital age and there is no digital sport site in India which has handed over control to the user" - see source
here.
Cassiopeia I know TUF does not constitute notability, GNG is number 1. I just mentioned it because fans want to read about subject because of this accomplishement and it's the reason why he gets so much coverage. I listed 9 sources, even if you remove Yahoo and Sportskeeda, subject has plenty of significant independent coverage. Subject definitely meets
WP:GNG.
Lethweimaster (
talk) 08:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
KeepPer Lethwimaster also fighter have 3 or more bouts in UFC also with his recent win he is more then enough notable.
DarkHorseMayhem (
talk) 01:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Commment, 3 or more bout in UFC does not meet NMMA or GNG.
Cassiopeiatalk 01:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not close to meeting
WP:NMMA. Fight announcements, fight results, and MMA databases are not enough to meet
WP:GNG. The number of UFC fights is not an indicator of notability.
Papaursa (
talk) 03:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The first source is a local news article about him winning the Ultimate Fighter, the second is a local news report on a victory, and the third is an interview. Fight results and interviews do not generally constitute significant coverage.
Papaursa (
talk) 21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - It seems a thoroughly comprehensive and well-researched article.
Wafflesvarog (
talk) 20:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
As this is your first AfD, you might want to familiarize yourself with WP policies such as
WP:N. Editors often disagree, and even change their minds, so I would be interested in hearing your specific reasons for saying this subject is WP notable. Thank you.
Papaursa (
talk) 00:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify seems ok. Does seem like TOOSOON, likely in another year they'll hit it big. NO pun intended.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets WP:GNP fighter is enough notable espically with his latest win also additional source has been added.
DarkHorseMayhem (
talk) 14:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)(striking duplicate vote)reply
Please strike one of your !votes.
JoelleJay (
talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, per Papaursa. If he's notable in the future this can be undeleted or a new article can be created, but as it stands now he fails GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk) 18:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 01:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm bringing this here and not to RfD because articles that have been boldly redirected seem to be rejected procedurally there.
There was no "battle of Pelusium" in 343 BC. The creator copied without attribution information on second Persian conquest of Egypt from
Artaxerxes III#Second Egyptian Campaign (old diff from 2015), and apparently invented the title as an analogy to the
battle of Pelusium of 525 BC (the first Persian conquest of Egypt). Since the name is wrong and the content is already in the edit history of the original page, and the second conquest is already covered at
second Achaemenid conquest of Egypt, I don't see how a merge or redirect would be useful. The creator was blocked for copyvio and hoaxing, and of
all his creations this is one of few which haven't been speedied yet.
Avilich (
talk) 03:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Sentence added
Avilich (
talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. What you say seems reasonable, and full deletion is better to resolve, but I notice that the confusion might be more widespread then even in Wikipedia per this in the Encyclopedia Britannica, who use the title "
battles of Pelusium".
Aszx5000 (
talk) 11:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Interesting, but only one of the entries, the one of 525, actually has "battle of Pelusium" verbatim; the 343 one merely speaks of a defeat. According to the sources I checked, Pelusium was simply one of several fortresses (the most important, and I assume that's why the Britannica has telescoped the entire conquest to that location) that surrendered during the conquest, with no actual pitched battle fought near it.
Avilich (
talk) 15:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. It is more often called the siege of Pelusium. A bad title is no reason to delete. Nor is there any reason the material belongs more to
Artaxerxes III than
Nectanebo II. The battle is covered in extenso in chapter 18 of Stephen Ruzicka, Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525–332 BC. The primary source is Diodorus. His dating, however, is wrong. This is noted in P. J. Rhodes, A History of the Classical Greek World, 478–323 BC.
Srnec (
talk) 21:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is
WP:CONTENTFORK, an especially malformed one. If you wish to propose a split, do so on the talk page, not the AfD. That has nothing to do with the appropriateness of this article in particular.
Avilich (
talk) 14:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I saved you the trouble and created
second Achaemenid conquest of Egypt. I don't have Ruzicka's book, but the others I looked at have very little on the siege of Pelusium (only the extended conquest), so that doesn't seem to meet GNG.
Avilich (
talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per nominator, the article seems to largely be the product of confusion.
Ifly6 (
talk) 18:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested draftification. Was returned to mainspace without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me 14:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I looked for sources to support this when it was first created and found nothing. If anyone else can find anything to support this I’m prepared to reconsider.
Mccapra (
talk) 20:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Mccapra Coverage is offline (most of it) and is in
Sindhi language. We need help of someone who understands Sindhi. That being said, there are two in-depth articles just about him cited already and one of them is an in-depth entry in Encyclopedia Sindhiana. You should reconsider your vote.
BookishReader (
talk) 16:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep but rename to
Hashoo Kewalramani. Some additional coverage is given below:
The Wire India has described him as "the founder of the modern nationalist ideology of Sindh" (
[43])
Per this, there is a school named after him called "Hashoo Kewalramani School of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences"?
This article says "
Ayaz was deeply impressed by leftist intellectual Hashoo Kewalramani".
This magazine article notes "Under the able leadership of Hashoo Kewalramani, 'Sindhi Samaj' Delhi also worked hard in this respect. Various Sindhi sammelans were held after 1951."
I think the coverage is more than enough and would like to kindly ask @
Onel5969: to please withdraw this nomination. Thank you.
BookishReader (
talk) 17:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The book is certainly significant and the new newspaper source is also good. The other refs you posted above are passing mentions and don’t help demonstrate notability.
Mccapra (
talk) 17:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Rest assured, I only create an article if it is really notable. Even though I'm not Sindhi, I managed to locate another in-depth book for you that covers his biography:
This magazine article notes: "The pioneering role was played by Hashu Kewalramani, a journalist trained at the United Kingdom (UK). Hashu remained in the UK for seven years and was a close associate in India League of Krishna Menon, a Leftist, who later became a right-hand man of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Hashu returned to Karachi in 1936-37. He organised the students and brought them under the banner of the All India Students Federation with himself as the President and Kishin Motwani and Abhichandani as its General Secretaries. Very soon the organi-sation became a powerful movement and spread to all the towns of Sindh. At Karachi an office was set up to solve the problems of the students and to discuss the political issues. Pritam Tahiliani, Santosh Kumar Dharmani, Rocho Pardasani, Sarla Ahuja, Moti Motwani, Radhakrishnan Wadhwani, Sukhram Virwani, Rijhu Abichandani, Rochi Pardasani, and Hashu’s own younger brother were active members of the AISF." and "they arrested a large number of students including Hashu Kewalramani, President of the AISF, Pritam Tahilramani and Santosh Kumar Dharmani. Hashu Kewalramani was prosecuted and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment."
BookishReader (
talk) 18:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 02:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I’ve struck my delete vote as there’s apparently enough in Sindhi to take that off the table, but since I can’t read Sindhi I can’t really vote to keep.
Mccapra (
talk) 22:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented by BookishReader. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. In hindsight, it was inadvisable to bundle the nominations of these pages together into a single AfD. The AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator. No prejudice against creating AfDs for individual articles, if desired.
—ScottyWong— 16:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Follow-up to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries.
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH, fail
WP:LISTCRITERIA (the lists equivalent of
WP:NONDEFINING), and long series of precedents confirming that language family is
WP:NONDEFINING for countries, territories, dynasties, and individual people. Many users at the "Turkic" AfD urged me to nominate the "Iranian" list and similar lists as well, so here they are. Additional suggestions are welcome if I have missed anything. I'll file the categories separately because it is a different procedure with different criteria, but the fundamental issues are the same, and I'm mentioning it for everyone's information. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 08:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Maintaining such content on Wikipedia under overarching categories like 'Germanic dynasties and countries' can inadvertently fuel ethnic nationalism, leading to prolonged debates and contentious issues between Iranian Wikipedia users and users from other communities. What we need to understand is that these peoples and states were not brothers but rather distant cousins, many of them were unaware of their connections during their respective reigns. Instead of allowing Wikipedia to become a battleground for historical disputes and ethnic nationalism, our focus should be on fostering an environment of mutual respect. In line with recent deletions, it appears that Arab and Turkic dynasty lists have also been removed. It seems that Arab and Turkic dynasty lists have also been deleted. Deleting such things might create a more peaceful atmosphere.
I'm not sure I see the problem here -
List of Kurdish dynasties and countries is well sourced, for instance, as is
List of Pashtun empires and dynasties. I don't understand the LISTCRITERIA argument either as some of these lists have very clear criteria, and the
WP:OR argument requires that no sources have discussed these articles. I'm not a topic expert, but's not clear to me why the
WP:OR has been levied for some of these articles. I can understand the Iranian one a little bit, but it still seems like it could be a potentially valid list under
WP:LISTN. So there's something here I'm clearly not understanding about these nominations apart from the fact the Iranian article could be cleaned up.
SportingFlyerT·C 10:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, what was "Pashtun" about
Hamidullah Khan (r. 1926-1949), for example? His entire article doesn't mention it. He was an "Indian Muslim", and it seems like English and/or Hindustani were his native/professional languages. So why should we consider him part of a "Pashtun dynasty"?
According to the scope of
List of Pashtun empires and dynasties, states, princely states, empires and dynasties in the regions of Central, Western and South Asia which were founded by rulers of Pashtun ancestry are automatically "Pashtun" in their entirety. In the case of
Bhopal State, some Pashtun soldier named
Dost Mohammad of Bhopal became a warlord and founded
Bhopal State in 1707. This is an ancestor of
Hamidullah Khan, whose family over the course of 200 years became significantly Indianised. Although he was still a Muslim, there is not a trace of "Pashtun" heritage.
WP:COP-HERITAGE also says The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable. Identifying every descendant of A as "Pashtun", no matter how many generations, just because A was a Pashtun, is quite a stretch and
WP:NONDEFINING/
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 13:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Hamidullah Khan also isn't listed in the List of Pashtun empires and dynasties, either, but "Pashtun dynasty" brings up a decent number of hits in scholarly sources, so there are definitely dynasties that are defined by being Pashtun. Whether that includes the entire dynasty or not isn't really a notability issue, but a content issue for the talk page, and certainly isn't an argument for deleting the entire page.
I would suggest nominating each of these individually over time so we can have a discussion about them, as these articles are not closely related enough to delete them as a group. One may be
WP:SYNTH but I see some decently sourced, potentially valid articles here.
SportingFlyerT·C 13:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Maybe you're right. I've already made
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arabian Houses a separate AfD (see "Update" below). The Pashtun list turns out to be a bit more complicated than I expected, and cannot lean on the language family argument because
Pashto is a single language. There is disagreement about whether there is 1 or multiple Kurdish language(s). A similar problem exists with the Mongol states, which were Turkicised over time, but many probably began with the same common language of
Middle Mongol. I assumed that "Maratha" referred to language family, but it can mean
Maratha (caste) and
Marathi language. I guess I've been (uncharacteristically, hopefully) careless with this AfD. Perhaps I should withdraw this bundled nomination and start over, only nominating
List of Iranian dynasties and countries again for now...
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 14:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong keep for
Kurdish emirates. Plug the term into Google Scholar to see why.
Srnec (
talk) 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong keep Actually, I'd suggest close this car crash of an AfD as the lists cited are so wide and disparate, you're never going to get agreement on deleting the whole lot in one fell swoop. The list of Arabian Houses is not my favourite thing, but I see no reason for its deletion and certainly fail to see how discussing its deletion in among this whole other bunch of nominations is constructive. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk) 13:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Withdraw (as nom) I've been a bit careless in bundling these pages together in a single nomination (more details in my reply to SportingFlyer). I'm glad people pointed this out. I'll withdraw this bundle and start over by nominating the pages separately after more thorough preparation.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arabian Houses is still on. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 14:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nederlandse Leeuw, as there is an editor advocating Delete, this AFD can't be closed as Keep even with your withdrawal of the nomination. LizRead!Talk! 03:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Oh so as soon as anyone has !voted for any particular outcome, withdrawal is no longer possible? I didn't know that.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 13:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment The Turkic one had an issue of being very little defined and as well as disputed. Pages like
List of Pashtun empires and dynasties are very clear especially in the pages description that said dynasties were
Pashtun in origin. @
Aintabli See the point above in the discussion between SportingFlyer and Nederlandse Leeuw.
Noorullah (
talk) 20:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep:
Kurdish emirates, Neutral on
List of Mongol states, and Delete the rest per the previous AfD. I think the Kurdish emirate one is fine for notability as it was a unique and linear circumstance that has received scholarly attention, while the Mongol states one is different enough than the others to warrant a separate discussion.
Curbon7 (
talk) 22:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keepfor the Kurdish dynasties which is apparently well sourced and as to my knowledge had the collaboration of some well respected editors. The Kurdish emirates I'd keep as well, not all of them have their own articles. On the rest I have no opinion.
Paradise Chronicle (
talk) 22:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
For the closer of the discussion: The delete and keep votes are often not meant for all articles.
Paradise Chronicle (
talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Good point. It seems that some of the nominees will get enough votes for a keep, while others will get enough votes for a delete. This is gonna be a complicated tally.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
He was for some years rector of a local university, but this doesn't validate
WP:BIO OR
WP:PROF per se. Not enough academic achievements, since he is not in any list with highly cited researchers or with any highly impact publication.
Chiserc (
talk) 07:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment There seems to be coverage in Norwegian media. This
[45] appears to be in a RS.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, there is some coverage. I have found some sources based on
WP:BEFORE:
Vettimes,
E24, and the one source you mentioned. However, I don't think this coverage is enough for notability.
Chiserc (
talk) 14:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
There are academic publications that had some impact, I agree with that, but there should be always a caution with
Google Scholar, as mentioned in the
citation metrics. I have seen his Scopus profile
Lars Moe and his h-index is 22. I don't have access on his Web of Science profile to double-check it, but I don't think his impact is quite convincing to establish
WP:PROF.
Chiserc (
talk) 10:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep based on the comments above, regarding his impact factor.
Oaktree b (
talk) 18:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:OR,
WP:SYNTH,
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Partial follow-up to the deletion of
Comparison of the Turkic states at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries. Unlike the "Turkic" page, these 3 articles are not arbitrary
WP:CROSSCATs between language family and countries, and the terms "Baltic states", "Benelux" and "Nordic countries" are well-established. Other than that, however, they show the same issues, with arbitrarily chosen, SYNTHed data, of which the overall added encyclopedic value is not clear at all. A reader could also just open three tabs or windows in their browser putting the infoboxes of three countries next to each other; we don't need to do that for them. Nor do we have to assume it is more relevant or interesting for the reader to compare the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg than, say, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark; nor that Finland is more interesting as part of the Nordic countries and Estonia as part of the "Baltic" states, when Finland and Estonia arguably have more in common with each other than the other states they are usually associated with. (With the emphasis on arguably, because it is all quite subjective. It's not an opinion I necessarily share, but I've frequently heard and seen it expressed, with the argument that Estonian is not a Baltic language, but closely related to Finnish, which is true, but the significance of that is unclear). Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Even if we were to assume that the information there has some encyclopedic value, all could be summarized on
Benelux,
Nordic countries, or
Baltic states.
Aintabli (
talk) 11:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I was expecting a bit more to these, but no, it really is just a few parameters of the infoboxes collated together. Not necessary articles, also easily summarized elsewhere per Aintabli.
Reywas92Talk 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, random trivia that if relevant, can be presented with secondary sources at the more general pages mentioned.
CMD (
talk) 14:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete purely or. (
t ·
c) buidhe 16:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete these states have barely anything to do with each other. It’s like making a comparison of anglophone states or Romance states because ay they all speak roughly the same, were part of a large former empire and eat similar weird foods right?
Dronebogus (
talk) 21:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
All three articles are about sets of countries who have a lot to do with each other. That's not something these articles make up. The
Baltic states,
Benelux and the
Nordic countries are well-established units. /
Julle (
talk) 22:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Haha well it's more than just that. You do see these countries generally cooperating more closely with each other in political, socio-economic, cultural, environmental etc. affairs than with other European countries around them. But I don't think that is significant enough to be creating and hosting this still rather randomly generated "comparison" articles. That's fun stuff for a blog or tabloid as a page-filler, but everyone here seems to agree it's quite redundant and arbitrary.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
PS: Yeah what Julle says. Funnily enough, he's from Sweden and I'm from the Netherlands, we both recognise these sets of countries as well-established units, but we also both agree these 'comparison' articles should be deleted.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You could say anglophone countries cooperate more than other regional states, since most of them are in the
Commonwealth of Nations and the US is close allies with both the UK and Canada. But I don’t think there’s a huge amount to “compare” between, I dunno, South Africa and New Zealand.
Dronebogus (
talk) 21:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, it’s just as arbitrary
Dronebogus (
talk) 23:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Dronebogus Cool, thanks for helping me find them! I'll remove both tables if this nom results is the overwhelming Delete that is looming.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 23:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
List of largest metropolitan areas of the Middle East does not use a definition of
Middle East at all (although any of the doubtful cases of Palestine, Cyprus, and Akrotiri and Dhekelia probably do not contain metropolitan areas that have a population of over 1.5 million), but the whole article is
WP:SYNTH by the admission of the opening sentence itself: population according to different sources.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 14:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Cousin marriage in the Middle East feels confident in including "
Cousin marriage in the Middle East#Other areas" (Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan) outside the article's scope. According to the first sentence, apparently we can lump in other Muslim countries worldwide such as Pakistan, as if all countries in the Middle East are "Muslim" [sic], even though there is also a
Cousin marriage in the Middle East#Jews subsection. The second sentence equates it with the Arab world, as if all countries in the Middle East are "Arab" [sic]. The third sentence adds Arab or Islamic world, Arab countries, yet more
WP:SYNTH.
Genetic history of the Middle East doesn't really define its geographical scope apart from Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Arabia, the Levant, and other areas, but apparently this does include Cyprus, Israel and Palestine.
Demographics of the Middle East and North Africa does not actually define its geographical scope. It just says Debates on which countries should be included in the Middle East are wide-ranging. The Greater Middle East and North Africa region can include the Caucasus, Cyprus, Afghanistan, and several sub-Saharan African states due to various social, religious and historic ties. The most commonly accepted countries in the MENA region are included on this page. before randomly picking some countries in its subsections:
List of banks in the Arab world arbitrary set of 19 countries representing the "Arab world". Rescoping to "Arab League" probably best solution.
List of Arabs by net worth arbitrary set of 22 rich people based on their citizenship, including 4 people who also have French citizenship. It's
WP:ONESOURCE, and has nothing to do with the Arab Leage as an intergovernmental organisation.
Arab–American relations is a mostly
WP:UNSOURCEDWP:COATRACK to talk about U.S. foreign military policy in the Middle East, and has very little to do with the Arab League as an intergovernmental organisation.
In many instances these tables are an affront to "summary style", and the duplication of basic country statistics to such articles virtually guarantee they'll be out of date.
Draken Bowser (
talk) 19:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed. If they mention dates at all, the basic country statistics will be outdated eventually.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 21:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Disagree. Most of WP content is going to be outdated. This is a reason for updating pages (and yes, providing dates and references), not deletion.
My very best wishes (
talk) 19:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Infoboxes are regularly updated, demographics articles are regularly updated, but those comparison articles/sections? Why bother? Unless we're making some sort of
Template:Excerpt construction, so that the contents of comparison tables will always synchronised and up to date, I really don't think it's worth the trouble. And even if we do, we are admitting we are duplicating contents anyway.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 20:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
All these pages are legitimate
Wikipedia:Lists supplementing main pages on the corresponding subjects. Something can be unsourced on a lot of pages, but this is not a reason to automatically delete them.
My very best wishes (
talk) 19:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying all articles I'm mentioning here should necessarily be deleted. I'm just identifying lots of similar issues across articles, and especially the country comparison sections should probably just be removed from the international relations articles that should otherwise be kept intact.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 21:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
To be honest, I think the arguments to delete these pages and remove such content from all main pages are strange. Consider something like page
Proteases. Providing a table with comparison of different proteases on such page would be great. Same is here.
My very best wishes (
talk) 15:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I just found out this morning that an RfC about removing them altogether had been initiated on 11 June (before, and apparently completely independent of, my AfD here):
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables. It turns out that this saga already started in 2018, and we've still not established a consensus about what to do with such country comparison sections across English Wikipedia. For my part, I've made a passionate argument to get rid of them once and for all, based on an elaborate documentation of precedents and background discussions that I had mostly already gathered here. Never knew it could instantly be reused for an RfC about the same topic!
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 17:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
There is nothing wrong with making such comparisons, but they should be made in proper sections and placed to certain context like
Nordic_countries#Geography.
My very best wishes (
talk) 02:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep ormerge. Since we have pages
Benelux,
Nordic countries, and
Baltic states, these "comparison" pages are legitimate
WP:list additions to these main pages. They are not WP:SYN any more than any other list page. These list pages could be "merged" to their main parent pages we have, but they are better readable as standalone lists. That's why we have list pages.My very best wishes (
talk) 21:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
In any case, it would be better to make these pages "redirect" to corresponding main pages, i.e.
Benelux,
Nordic countries, and
Baltic states, rather than outright delete. That would allow merging their content to the corresponding main pages if anyone wants.
My very best wishes (
talk) 15:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as unjustified and inherently unjustifiable
WP:SPINOFFs. Our articles present, analyze and contrast, without rubbing in what FUNCTIONS sentences and sections fulfill so not to insult the intelligence of the reader. As articles develop, headers may be added based on subject matter, better identifying subjects within (paragraphs also need to be written around ideas) and, eventually, spinoffs or spinouts may be justified. Everything along delimitations of content and NOT by functions! These articles, however, are written around functionality (yikes!). Much more went wrong. These are NOT lists so they must be judged by the prose. However, the prose is almost entirely to entirely (for the Benelux) missing in action. So there is no there there. There is
WP:OR in two articles, where parts of North America are included into regions in Europe. Finally there is a misnomer of geography. This is an all-WP problem and well-beyond. The
Benelux,
Nordic countries, and
Baltic states ARE geographies so identifying only some physical characteristics as "geography" spits in the face of human geography. On the bright side, I did not identify SYNTH. No objection to copying some of these tables to the main articles, into the appropriate sections.
gidonb (
talk) 01:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete theoretically, some version of these articles might be salvageable. What we have are a few arbitrary data tables, all of which would be better presented in some other format.
Walt Yoder (
talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:SYNTH. So Latvia has more water than Lithuania, what is the significance of that? Or that the 3 countries have different international calling codes. The most relevant information can be included in
Benelux,
Nordic countries, and
Baltic states, but "comparison" articles are not necessary.
LibStar (
talk) 00:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Well if Lithuania ever finds itself faced with a water shortage, it can borrow some from Latvia! This is why international relations between these two countries are very, very important.JokeNederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 17:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Lists can be in table form and can even be broken up by headers, such as
here, but it does not apply to these articles. These articles are NOT lists but, rather, proseless prose or plainly travesties. I ENCOURAGE everyone to follow the link you supplied and the one I supplied to understand what a sortable or tabled list looks like. It's easy to see how these are different from the AfDd articles!
gidonb (
talk) 22:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree, these are not good as standalone pages. Some info is useful, but it is either already included to other pages or should be included differently.
My very best wishes (
talk) 15:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Absolutely. I explained above in some detail why comparisons should not be spinoffs. It accumulates information by function, instead of subject matter topic which is the correct way to spin off. There are more issues with these articles, also listed in my opinion above.
gidonb (
talk) 18:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The discussion has ground to a halt after several relists, but essentially more people think there are not enough sources to be able to sustain a standalone article. As this is a
biography of a living person, policy behooves us to err on the side of not including things.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Non-notable entertainer, all links used are to social media, nothing found outside of these either. Not meeting GNG or MUSIC.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. I disagree with you. He is quite popular in Northeast India and has performed in many shows across Assam and the Northeast region. He has worked with popular singers like Zubeen Garg, Kaysee, and Deeplina deka. However, I recommend adding more references to the article to support these claims.
Thesaurabhsaha (
talk) 02:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:GNG as all sources are unreliable. I couldn't find any suitable sources to add to the article either. @
Thesaurabhsaha: I recommend reading Wikipedia's core notability policies
WP:SIGCOV and
WP:N.
JML1148 (
talk) 01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Sorry for the interruption, but I have mentioned some reliable references for the article below, which are already mentioned in the article "Minimi (Rapper)."
Hindustan Times - Hindustan Times is one of the largest English-language daily newspapers in India. It has a reputation for providing reliable and credible news to its readers.
Assam Tribune - Assam Tribune is a widely circulated English-language daily newspaper in the state of Assam, India. Established in 1939, it has a long history of providing news and information to the people of Assam and the Northeast region.
East Mojo - East Mojo is a digital news platform that focuses on providing news and information from the Northeast region of India.
The sources are reliable, but they are only trivial mentions of this individual.
Oaktree b (
talk) 11:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
No, it's not a trivial mention in Hindustan Times. The article on Hindustan Times has more than 3-4 paragraphs on Minimi (Alternate name: Minimi NL/ Real Name: Nilotpal Lahkar). So, I think you should close the AFD request. In the meantime, I will add more references to the article as soon as I find them on the internet. Thank you.
Thesaurabhsaha (
talk) 06:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The link you used for the Hindustan Times is one sentence and a few photos. It looks like a badly formatted mobile version of the article, can you provide a better link?
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The Assam Times mentions him appearing at a festival and the Mojo is a link to a youtube song and one sentence underneath, these are both trivial coverages. Useful, but not helping notability here. We need more then a mention of him; even if the Hindustan Times article is fine, it's only one article. You'll need a few more of that length, IF it's useful in the first place.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Sure, here the article without any paywall.
Hindustan Times. Ps: I am aware of the copyright status of the newspaper and I am not promoting the use of third-party apps to bypass the paywall.
Thesaurabhsaha (
talk) 02:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That is better, he's mentioned in the bottom third of the article, but then it seems to disappear again/the article blanks out. I'll give that as one RS.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Here, I am mentioning two additional articles from popular and reliable sources. Minimi serves as the primary subject of the articles. Both articles are written in Assamese. So, i would recommend you to use Google Translate to read them.
By the way, East Mojo has dedicated a paragraph to him and his song "Bangladeshi," which gained popularity during the Anti-CAA Movement, in Assam. The song sparked controversy throughout the state, prompting the authorities to initially ban it from streaming or public play. However, as tensions subsided, the ban on the song was eventually lifted.
Assam Times Post - Assam Times is an online news portal that focuses on providing news and updates related to the state of Assam in India. It covers a wide range of topics including politics, current affairs, sports, entertainment, and culture.
Rupali Parda - Rupali Parda is an online entertainment portal that provides news, reviews, and updates on Jollywood films (Assamese films), celebrities, and the jollywood entertainment industry.
Keep (article creator). Hindustan Times, East Mojo and other sources seem enough to establish notability.
Thesaurabhsaha (
talk) 13:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. No real SIGCOV from a high-quality RS on the subject - if the major Indian papers don't want to do a full piece on him (i.e. SIGCOV), then why would Wikipedia consider him notable?
Aszx5000 (
talk) 23:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Even if major Indian papers may not have covered someone extensively, there might be other local reliable sources that establish their notability in a different context, such as News website, Entertainment Portal. Why can't local language newspapers be acceptable as sources on Wikipedia if they meet the criteria of reliable sources? Wikipedia's guidelines emphasize the use of reliable sources in any language, including local languages. We should consider
The Assam Tribune,
East Mojo and
Rupali Parda along with
Hindustan Times as reliable sources. All of them are used in many articles related to Assam.
Thesaurabhsaha (
talk) 08:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The issue Thesaurabhsaha is that in most of these RS, the article is not about Minimi, but about another topic that happens to mention Minimi participating. The best RS so far is the Hindustan Times which seems to be about several artists, of which Minmi is profiled at the end. However, you have not been able to present +2 RS with a full article about Minimi (per SIGCOV). Therefore, if no decent paper in India wants to do a full article on Minimi, why would Wikipedia consider him notable?
Aszx5000 (
talk) 09:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Your personal opinion does not hold significance in determining a reliable source on English Wikipedia. Rupali Parda and East Mojo have already been used as reliable sources in numerous articles.
Furthermore, Assam Times Post and Rupali Parda have published articles on the subject. In essence, Rupali Parda can be considered as the "Bollywood Hungama" for Assamese Film Industry aka Jollywod.
Thesaurabhsaha (
talk) 17:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You are right, I don't, but you need to convince the community at AfD that they are RS quality, and I don't think that will happen. I would rather search for better RS on the person and solve it that way. Even if this BLP managed to get through AfD with these refs, it would be renominated soon again.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 17:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No new participants, new opinions are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Timothytyy (
talk) 07:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Article subject doesn't appear to pass
WP:MUSICBIO or
WP:GNG. While there are a number of sources uses, a chunk of them are unreliable while others just include passing mentions. I don't believe
WP:SIGCOV has been met in this case.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 14:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: According to the Point 10 of
WP:MUSICBIO, Anyone who has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, or inclusion on a notable compilation album is eligible for
WP:GNG.
He has worked in
Kaaneen - A Secret Search movie, which itself a notable film, and won the Silver Camera Award at 2nd Guwahati International Film Festival 2018.¹
The sources mentioned in the above article, namely Hindustan Times, East Mojo, Rupali Parda, Assam Times Post, and others, also appear to be sufficient in establishing notability. All of them have a reputation for providing reliable and credible news to their readers.
Delete. No real RS here to support GNG. The BLP's creator, User:Thesaurabhsaha, has tried as best they could, but there is nothing here (including the latest refs presented above), and if it wasn't deleted now, it would be sent straight back to AfD. Perhaps, the notability of the subject will improve over time, and at least Thesaurabhsaha has gotten a better understanding of what is needed for GNG.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 08:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: He is a popular rapper singer from Assam in the North East (India). -
Kuldhar Rabha (
talk) 14:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Are you going to provide any references to support that? AfD is not a vote.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 15:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
All the above refs presented have been translated with Google where required.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 06:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If you have new refs, in any language, you can present them here.
Aszx5000 (
talk) 06:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 07:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 11:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete unless independent coverage can be found. I was unable to turn anything up with a quick search.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 22:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not seem to meet
WP:Corp - only source cited by article is the company's website, and a quick google search only finds this and some database style entries/ways to track the company's stock. (There may be notable sources in languages other than English but I am not able to find these.)
Nerd1a4i (they/them) (
talk) 01:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinions on NCORP and the redirect option are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Timothytyy (
talk) 09:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect: There is a summary paragraph about this plant at
Kokshetau#Industry. I don't think there is enough
independent coverage of this plant to sustain an article in itself; I am not sure that the
Kazzinc article is a durable target, as a substantial proportion of the venture's financial backing appears to involve a Dutch holding company ("Floodgate Holdings B.V."), so the article about Kokshetau may be a better redirect target.
AllyD (
talk) 15:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. Original reasoning was: Blatant
WP:PROMO; fails
WP:NCORP. While on second look the promo is not obvious, the second part of the reasoning still holds.
Jalen Folf(talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Since the prod reasoning was repeated, I will repeat my contestation: "Certainly not blatant promo, since the founder appears notable, and with six potentially notably signees could qualify as an important indie in WP:MUSIC's sense. It's possible there is walled-garden activity here, but it's not clear to me (a nonexpert on African pop) that's happening". Certainly, there is no reason for this to be at AfD (to create a redlink here), since at worst the applicable action would be to merge into the founder's article.
Chubbles (
talk) 04:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Timothytyy (
talk) 09:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: The record label qualifies for inclusion based on the founder's notability and its potential impact within the independent music scene, aligning with WP:MUSIC guidelines. While the presence of walled-garden activity is uncertain, it does not justify deletion without concrete evidence.
PushaWasha (
talk) 06:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - according to
[46] it is the largest label in Tanzania. Additional coverage at
[47],
[48],
[49],
[50],
[51],
[52]. It is fairly clear that the label is of significant cultural importance in Tanzania, that it meets GNG, and would qualify as "one of the more important indie labels."
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 01:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Record label certainly appears notable enough, especially after seeing 78.26's findings immediately above.
CycloneYoristalk! 09:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Nominated for a major music award; enough to meet WPMUSICBIO.
116.92.232.6 (
talk) 02:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep IMA award nomination is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO. IMA can be a considered a major award since it has a Wikipedia page of its own.
Hkkingg (
talk) 07:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. I don't think the IMAs are major enough for
WP:NMUSICBIO (unlike the awards listed for NMUSICBIO). I can't find any real SIGCOV in a quality RS on him, and can't see the refs that would therefore give him GNG?
Aszx5000 (
talk) 23:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 04:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not convinced the Independent Music Awards are notable; most of the "winners" don't even have articles, so it appears to be a minor award. I can't find much for sourcing for the DJ otherwise.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Draftify. Oaktree b is an established user, and if they believe they can improve it, there's no reason not to allow that. StarMississippi 02:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Was closed as no consensus, but zero folks participated, even after 2 relists. Other than the crime, no in-depth coverage of this government bureaucrat. Delete as per
WP:PERP,
WP:BIO1E.
Onel5969TT me 00:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Subjects appears to be a
WP:BLP1E for the crime and not notable for his government position. Per
WP:CRIME, this article should be deleted too. - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Coverage in al Jazeera and the Jakarta Post appear ok, should be notable.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Definitely doesn't meet the threshold of
WP:CRIME; a minor government official arrested for corruption is certainly not novel, and the coverage entirely extends from that content (so a textbook BLP1E.) With the caveat that we're only a few months out from the story, there doesn't appear to be sustained coverage that this is a major story that has continued on or had material effects beyond the single criminal case as of yet.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 11:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd be ok if we sent to to Draft and let it incubate for a bit, see if notability happens.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
In this case, it doesn’t look like the subject will become more notable in the near future. I think we either keep or delete the article, draftifiying isn’t the answer in my opinion. - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Failed
WP:GNG and
WP:NACTOR with majority of the entry unsourced and/or unsourceable to Wikipedia standards. A quick search shows that all of the subject's roles are either supporting or guest which are rarely reported by South Korean media hence making reliable sourcing even harder. The sourcing included are mostly passing mentions with no
WP:SIGCOV. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝) 05:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: for having significant roles in multiple television shows per NACTORJack4576 (
talk) 06:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Jack4576 Any
reliable sources to support "having significant roles in multiple television shows" as I don't find any of such. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝) 06:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
the sources (such as HanCinema) are reliable enough to support the bare fact that they had the roles in the shows that they did; I think they're unreliable for anything beyond that bare fact, as they're not independent sources
Jack4576 (
talk) 06:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Jack4576 If so, where is the
WP:SIGCOV as part of
WP:GNG to justify Keep? Clearly,
HanCinema and any database websites alikely (e.g. and/or i.e.
WP:IMDB, in fact you can't use IMDB in BLP per
WP:IMDB/BLP) is not enough to justify it's has SIGCOV hence I asked for
reliable sources to prove SIGCOV because you stated "having significant roles in multiple television shows". —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝) 06:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Your nomination didn't mention SIGCOV, I'd agree SIGCOV has not been met here.
Jack4576 (
talk) 06:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Jack4576 SIGCOV is part of
WP:GNG btw. Regardless, I don't see that you want to answer my initial reply hence we'll just keep it at that unless you would like to otherwise. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝) 06:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Its OK I withdraw my keep vote. You have a better understanding of the depth of coverage in the sources.
Jack4576 (
talk) 06:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:SIGCOV met, searched and found multiple reliable sources.
33ABGirl (
talk) 08:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
33ABGirl Care to provide the "multiple reliable sources" you found? As I couldn't find any showing
WP:SIGCOV other than
WP:PASSINGMENTIONS hence I'm curious how you manage to find it, if any to begin with. —Paper9oll(
🔔 •
📝) 09:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 14:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak delete. Though the website seems to be a popular news outlet in Iran, English-language web search reveals little to no in-depth coverage.
2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (
talk) 17:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 14:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 07:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Coverage in foreign languages counts toward notability.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 22:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 04:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
PROD removed as I was told to "consider potential notablity of other subjects that redirect here", but I don't see how that effects the notability of this page. There are three redirects here (
AJ Pinkerton,
CG5 (YouTuber), and
NateWantsToBattle), but if none of those are notable enough for their own pages (though Nate might be given the coverage his music has been getting lately) then surely they aren't notable enough to get profiles on an article that itself isn't notable. And as I said in my PROD, I see no apparent claim to notability here.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 00:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete All sources are youtube or un-RS. Non-notable web series, the article looks like a fan site rather than a wiki article. Way too long of a list for every episode and not much critical discussion of the thing being mentioned in the article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 03:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 07:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. It has the one source that discusses it in the title of the article, but other than that, it doesn't seem to have the same level of attention. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk) 14:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Some articles cover multiple related subjects. If any of the subjects is notable, the article is a keeper. ~
Kvng (
talk) 17:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
This page is here to cover one series, not every person who happens to being involved in it. Those subjects should get their own articles to be judged independently for their own notability. And even if they are notable,
notability is not inherited.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 01:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
✗plicit 01:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. There were already multiple sources and I have added another one.
Ffranc (
talk) 08:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 07:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, as the article seems good, at least now. Btw, it is a good use of Wikipedia, to provide coverage of conspiracy theories, IMHO. --Doncram (
talk,
contribs) 18:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep a lot of reliable greek sourscew about the subject, websites and books.
ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (
talk) 00:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 12:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 04:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 07:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Only school databases could be found as sources. Fails
WP:NSCHOOL. -
MPGuy2824 (
talk) 07:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: I'm not familiar at all with Turkish politics... But he is the Chief of the Cabinet of the president, this should only mean that he
passes the SNG for politicians. Apmh 14:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: "Chief of the Cabinet" seems to be a mistranslation of
this office, which translates more accurately as private secretary or chief of staff. Not sure this is an
WP:NPOL-conferring position, but may still pass by
WP:GNG, as there appear to be several sources providing
WP:SIGCOV, including (but not limited to)
this and
this.
Curbon7 (
talk) 17:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. He is not the "Chief of the Cabinet of the Turkish President". The Turkish term is Özel kalem müdürü, which is nothing close to the "chief of the cabinet". It's basically the "manager" of the president, in other words someone who plans the president's schedule, the events the president attends, etc. He is not notable. I don't think the biographical articles on the given news sites above would suffice for "significant coverage", since you can find plenty of such entries for people whose Wikipedia articles would easily get deleted for notability issues, if they had one.
Aintabli (
talk) 17:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment- In India, any newspaper having
Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) is a enough to be included in Wikipedia.
This (page no 292) says this newspaper's RNI is 71814. We can consider to keep for time being.
Twinkle1990 (
talk) 07:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The guidelines of the English Wikipedia only require the inclusion of several trustworthy sources. No mention of having Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI). Sorry
BoraVoro (
talk) 07:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was up for deletion over a year ago and passed with a "keep", but has not had a single edit between then and my nominating it for AfD today. The article is only three sentences long and consists mostly of vague assertions which are not supported by the only cited source, the 1913
Catholic Encyclopedia. "The will and testament of clerics is a controversial issue for a number of Christian denominations"? There is no evidence given of any controversy nor any explanation of what that controversy is, nor is any specific denomination mentioned in this article. "Many churches have rules on the way in which property that is owned by a cleric can be distributed on death"? That would seem to be primarily an issue for churches whose clergy have taken a vow of poverty and/or are celibate, as I would expect that churches with married clergy would allow the clergy to leave their property upon death to their spouse and/or children. If churches with married clergy do have such rules, no evidence has been provided of such rules. And with regard to the Catholic Church, which does have rules about the wills and testaments of clerics, there is no indication in this article of what those rules are. Since there was no attempt to improve the article after the last AfD, I believe it would be best to delete this article altogether, with the opportunity to re-create it if substantive, sourced content can be found later. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 04:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination, and like a comment in the last nomination said, this is essentially a non-subject of relevancy to nothing. It doesn't help that the closer simply gave the reason of: "The result was keep." to an outcome of obviously weak consensus. We do not create articles based on vaguely supported subjects mentioned a few times in various references (like this one) which is why there is no article for say "
sharpness of knives" - Apmh 05:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I remember this from last year. Still nothing terribly notable has been added to the article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: I can imagine a decent article named "Clerical property in the Catholic Church" considering the plethora of sources on that, but the current article is not about a subject worthy of its own article per rationales stated above. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 15:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete It's not very often that I vote delete, but there isn't really anything here to save. If somebody wants to write a proper article at some point, all power to them.
Noel S McFerran (
talk) 22:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The references are Mr. Dubuis's own writings and other such primary sources. I looked for better ones and found only self-published or dubious-seeming books on alchemy and esoteric spirituality.
gnu57 03:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep "dubious-seeming books on alchemy and esoteric spirituality" are appropriate references for this topic. If you can add them in that would do as independent references. I added in an independent external link, that is about a third of what is needed for GNG proof.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 23:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to see more participation here. It would make a closure more straight-forward. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep echoing @
Graeme Bartlett the chief complaint here seems to be the nature of the sources cited, not the lack of sources. Aside from the primary sources (not unusual for an author) the article cites a number of websites that treat Dubuis as important, for example
[59],
[60]. I just added this
[61] from the
Theosophical Society. These independent sources vouch for his importance among members of the community of alchemy researchers, substantiating
WP:NAUTHOR#1, namely that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
Oblivy (
talk) 05:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 23:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The notability of the article is not verified by references to reliable sources. The article is based on the creator's own research of church books and passenger lists.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 03:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete no coverage in RS found. (
t ·
c) buidhe 22:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
WP:NPASR applies.
✗plicit 03:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
At present, the article only cites a single primary source. I have conducted a Google search, as well as individually searched for the book on Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, and Shelf Awareness to check for reviews or other indications of notability. I have not seen references to the book aside from from booksellers and primary sources.
Significa liberdade (
talk) 01:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I'll note the author has no article, but
this looks arguably RS.
Jclemens (
talk) 15:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with Jclemens that the site looks reliable but haven't been able to access the full review because of their paywall. Same with
this from
The Hindu.
This from Indian Express is more about the author than the series but does provide some coverage. There's also
this passing mention in a story about Indian LGBT books. I strongly suspect that soemone with full access to these sources would find enough information to demonstrate notability under our guidelines, but since I'm unable to verify this 100% myself I'll not formally vote to keep but yeah that's what I suspect.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 20:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 03:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
✗plicit 03:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Not evidence of significant coverage outside of its own published material and a couple of secondary references. The firm's notability might be considered insufficient if it doesn't meet these guidelines.
NortonAngo (
talk) 15:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Please check
WP:BEFORE before nominating again, none of these references are published by Cowin Capital. I'm not seeing any reliability issues with the references that are used, either. Dylan |
✉ |
✓ 17:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong delete Only one source could qualify as a reliable source - the London Business School. The rest are not reliable at all. The page should be deleted as it does not fulfill the NCORP criteria. --
159.118.233.94 (
talk) 13:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
The article notes: "Against this background, the Shenzhen Cowin Venture Capital fund represents a perfect opportunity for a case study by the London Business School’s Coller Institute of Private Equity. ... The result is Cowin Capital: The Evolution of the Chinese PE & VC Industry, produced by Professor Talmor, together with MBA students Wei Cao, Masaki Takeda and Carolyn Tiet. Founded during the dot-com bubble in 2000, Cowin survived the ensuing crash that saw many nascent Chinese VC funds fold. Not only that, but it went on to achieve impressive success following the regulatory changes of the mid- 2000s. "The key questions are: how Cowin has managed to transform itself and what it is doing to perpetuate its success," says Talmor. Cowin grew from cautious beginnings to become one of Shenzhen's leading PE lights. Having launched six funds in total, the firm currently manages RMB 5.5bn of capital and assets valued at more than RMB 7.5bn. As of June 2012, 31 of its investments had resulted in distributions to Cowin's investors, including 23 IPOs and eight buybacks or trade sales. Its success has earned Cowin founder Weihe Zheng the moniker "Star Shooter"."
The book has an entire subsection about the company. The book notes: "2000年6月26日,同创伟业成。 2004年,随中小的开,同创伟业资的达基实现IPO,随后在2005年轴研科技也顺利实现了IPO,同创伟业在中小开前50 中占据两。达基是同创伟业首个IPO项目,也是本土创首个上例。 2007年6月26日,同创伟业先发起成中国一有合伙制"
From Google Translate: "On June 26, 2000, Cowin Capital was established. In 2004, with the opening of small and medium-sized enterprises, Daji, which was funded by Cowin Capital, realized its IPO, and then in 2005, Axis Technology also successfully realized its IPO, and Cowin Capital occupied two of the top 50 small and medium-sized enterprises. Daji is the first IPO project of Cowin Capital, and it is also the first domestic case. On June 26, 2007, Cowin Capital was the first to initiate into China's one-owned partnership system."
He, Shasha 何莎莎 (2010).
"同创伟业 顺势而为" [Cowin Capital seizes opportunities]. 投资与合作 [Investment and Cooperation] (in Chinese). No. 9.
ISSN1004-387X. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via
CQVIP [
zh.
The abstract notes: "用硕果累累来形容深圳市同创伟业创业投资有限公司(以下简称为同创伟业)最近的投资表现一点都不为过。 2010年8月12日乐视网在深圳交易所创业板挂牌、8月3日深圳欧菲光科技正式在深交所上市、7月8日湛江国联水产开发股份有限公司登陆深交所创业板、5月26日康芝药业于深交所创业板实现上市"
From Google Translate: "It is not an exaggeration to describe the recent investment performance of Shenzhen Cowin Capital, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Cowin Capital) with fruitful results. On August 12, 2010, LeTV was listed on the GEM of the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. On August 3, Shenzhen OFILM Technology was officially listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. On July 8, Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Development Co., Ltd. landed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange’s GEM. On May 26 Kangzhi Pharmaceutical was listed on the Growth Enterprise Market of Shenzhen Stock Exchange."
Zheng, Weihe 郑伟鹤 (2011).
"同创伟业 健康成长" [Cowin Capital: healthy growth]. 投資与合作 [Investment and Cooperation Magazine] (in Chinese). No. 2.
ISSN1004-387X. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via
CQVIP [
zh.
The abstract notes: "2010年,同创伟业共投资了30个项目,并且有8个项目IPO,平均回报率达到10倍。"
From Google Translate: "In 2010, Cowin Capital invested in a total of 30 projects, and had 8 IPO projects, with an average rate of return of 10 times."
Zhao, Di 赵迪 (2009).
"郑伟鹤:做创业者的同行者" [Zheng Weihe: being a fellow entrepreneur]. 股市动态分析 [Stock Market Dynamic Analysis] (in Chinese). No. 12.
ISSN1001-0432. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via
CQVIP [
zh.
The abstract notes: "2000年,郑伟鹤创建了深圳市同创伟业投资有限公司,从一名律师转型为一名私募股权投资基金经理人。截至2009年6月,在同创伟业投资的项目中,已经有四个项目在中小企业板上市。如今,已经跨入不惑之年的郑伟鹤依旧在执着于他的PE理想。正如他公司的名称———同创伟业所诠释的那样,做创业者的同行者。"
From Google Translate: "In 2000, Zheng Weihe founded Shenzhen Cowin Capital, transforming from a lawyer to a private equity investment fund manager. As of June 2009, among the projects invested by Cowin Capital, four projects have been listed on the SME board. Today, Zheng Weihe, who has entered his forties, is still obsessed with his PE ideal. As the name of his company --- Cowin Capital explained, he is a fellow entrepreneur."
The abstract notes: "如果说一家医药企业不以患者安全为最高准则,那么即使它倒下,也将是社会的一大收获。而一家资金显赫的创投企业,投资资金入股一家这样的医药企业,作为如今盛行的创业投资资金Pre-IPO项目,PE盛宴之后。"
From Google Translate: "Abstract: If a pharmaceutical company does not regard patient safety as the highest criterion, even if it falls, it will be a great harvest for the society. And a well-funded venture capital company invests funds in such a pharmaceutical company, as a pre-IPO project of venture capital funds that is prevalent today, after the PE feast."
Deng, Shuanglin 邓双琳 (2020).
"同创伟业 捕捉科创板"隐形冠军"" [Cowin Capital captures the "hidden champion" of the Science and Technology Innovation Board]. 创业邦 [Entrepreneur] (in Chinese). No. 7.
ISSN1674-3601. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via
CQVIP [
zh.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The first two references listed by Cunard above meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing++ 19:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
✗plicit 03:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Apart from the billboard, there is nothing remarkable. Redirecting this to
Dennis Robbins may be a better alternative.
DreamRimmer (
talk) 02:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Would at least be worth a merger rather than just a straight redirect. The song is mentioned on Robbins' page, but the Billboard review isn't and the specific charting isn't in prose. Although I did also find blurbs and charting in Cashbox (
[62][63][64][65][66]) which could be enough to keep.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 10:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a few more opinions before closing this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is of insufficient depth to meet N:ORG StarMississippi 02:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Osmow's is not notable- there is very little significant media coverage, if any about it. Most media coverage is trivial. It is a small family-business with a handful of locations in Canada. Most information about Osmow's comes from the company itself, or places like Narcity, which are only talking about their food promotions and not why this company is notable. There are fast food places like Shanghai 360 or Villa Madina, which are similar to this one and have a few locations in Canada, and they are not notable enough either (and don't have their own articles on Wikipedia). Therefore, I think that this article should be deleted due to a lack of notability.
747pilot (
talk) 20:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Firstly, I'm not really sure what your definition of "a handful" is. Using your chosen stores for comparison, Villa Madina has 24 locations nationwide, and Shanghai 360 has 22 nationwide. Both of those brands mostly operate within mall food courts. Shanghai 360 doesn't even have a website. Therefore, it makes sense that there is no article about them. I fail to see how they're "similar" to Osmow's in any way. Osmow's, on the other hand, has over 140 locations, and it keeps opening new stores rather quickly. Since this article was written, there's a new location that opened in Winnipeg and that hasn't been updated yet in the article. Not only that, they tend to open a lot of stores in small towns that would never have known what shawarma is and the company has been important in introducing shawarma to the wider Canadian society. I'm not sure how that isn't notable.
Osmow's has also done advertising campaigns that are pretty much unheard from companies of its size, including the NBA Finals commercial that was mentioned in the article.
There are a bunch of articles on Wikipedia on Canadian chains that have less locations, less sources, and frankly a large number of them would also have to be deleted if going by the criteria that you listed.
Secondly, with regards to sourcing, there are other sources that detail its history and its growth that are in the references section of the article. There are only two articles that are about food promotions.
@
Andrepoiy: just because they have 140 stores doesn't mean they are notable. See
Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Notice that a lot of the media coverage is trivial. It's not substantial. Places like Tim Hortons have substantial media coverage and they are notable. But this fast food restaurant just isn't notable.
747pilot (
talk) 01:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:GNG. The number of locations a company has doesn't constitute notability. --
TheInsatiableOne (
talk) 08:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: a
ProQuest search returns dozens of hits. Many are of the form "Osmow's opens new restaurant in [LOCATION]", but a few seem to be more in-depth articles. I cannot access the articles to assess their value.
Mindmatrix 17:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - there's decent GNG coverage in the article - the Mississauga News article in particular is excellent.
Nfitz (
talk) 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
that article is behind a paywall, which hampers an assessment of notability.
TheInsatiableOne (
talk) 09:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
That's a promo article masquerading as news, it relies entirely on information provided by the company and it owners and has zero "Independent Content" which is a requirement (see
WP:ORGIND).
HighKing++ 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Obviously some information in the article comes from various interviews over time. But that to say it entirely relies on information provided by the company is false. Why would the company have provided the Mississauga News information about the business winning the 2018 Mississauga News award? That just doesn't make sense. The article meets GNG.
Nfitz (
talk) 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
All of the information which might qualify as in-depth information was provided in the interview or by the company. I've no comment on why it doesn't make sense to you - I mean
the company used boast about the award on their website so it makes sense to me. The article isn't independent so it can't meet GNG.
HighKing++ 13:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 18:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No comments since last relist. Let’s form a stronger consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥
𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I know this chain, we have some in my locality (great shawarmas too). Agreed that most sources are simply about a new location opening. Some sponsorship details for the World Cup
[67] with a Canadian athlete, but it's all PR stuff.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete THis is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP criteria applies. I am unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing++ 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
As noted above, the Mississauga News article meets GNG.
Nfitz (
talk) 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Just cos you wish to ignore NCORP (which provides detailed explanations and examples of how to interpret GNG for companies) doesn't mean that you can interpret GNG in a less meaningful manner and then claim the article meets the criteria for establishing notability. The article is advertorial, relying entirely on an interview with company execs. It is not independent. If you think otherwise, that's your perogative - but others will disagree and the closing admin will weigh everything according to consensus and applicable guidelines.
HighKing++ 13:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This subject is simply not notable. It reads like a simple fanpage/vanity article. A BEFORE search came up with nothing useable.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 00:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.