The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 no consensus for deletion. Editors disagree whether coverage is routine or lasting, and whether the sources contain sigcov or not, in roughly equal numbers for each side. No strong indication that a more targetted merge discussion to Airbus A340 will be supported by the keep !voters, but that could be a next step here. (non-admin closure)asilvering (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minor aviation incident, no serious injuries or fatalities, not a hull loss, no impact on aviation regulations or the air transportation system generally; in summary, no WP:LASTING impact. The incident can be adequately discussed in the Heathrow Airport and Airbus A340 articles (perhaps tellingly, there is no mention of the incident in either article as I write this). Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, for example in: [1.] A Sociology of Commercial Flight Crew, By Bennett Simon, 2016 (originally 2006), Publisher: Taylor & Francis. [2.] The Virgin Way: Everything I Know About Leadership, By Richard Branson, 2014. Publisher: Penguin. [3.] Virgin Atlantic, By John Balmforth, 2009. Publisher: Midland. Item #1 is even a WP:CASESTUDY. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There is this: [1], not certain about reliability. Otherwise it's just routine day-by-day reporting, no WP:LASTING. All other information found is either mundane database entries or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By WP:NEXIST, there is absolutely no lack of sources. Exactly why nom did not raise that. Rather, the question is whether the importance of this event was temporary or is WP:LASTING. Hence, also this fourth and very detailed source carries weight, in addition to the other three, as it proves that the interest in this event continues to date. For that purpose (only) the quality of the publication is of little or no relevance. gidonb (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SimpleFlying does not count towards notability because it isn't reliable - the guideline that you quote does not say that non-reliable sources count for notability - you need to show significant coverage in reliable sources - for the three book sources, there needs to be significant coverage (ie. not just passing mention) - do they show that?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in Simon does not seem to be very extensive - a mention that the incident occured and discussion about how British tabloid newspapers said nice things about the pilot (in a discussion about how flight crew behaviour in accidents and near-misses. Similarly, Branson's book merely talks about how Branson entertained the flight crew on his private island after the incident - again - not really significant coverag. I can't see the Balmforth source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While not all these statements hold water, I will refer you to my previous answer that had already covered the gist of these arguments. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to redirect, IMO, because the incident is covered in Airbus_A340#Accidents, and that's all that is needed. I agree that the Simon book appears to have a mention, but not significant coverage. The Readers Digest coverage seems to be the most extensive, but such a source cannot alone establish GNG. Lamona (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources given by gidonb, the Reader's Digest article as well as The Standard, The Guardian, BBC have given coverage, well past 1997. Regardless of how the incident may be, I'm certain that this article shouldn't be deleted on grounds of WP:GNG. Not to mention the landing gear recommendations given to Airbus with this incident. GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People keep mentioning a Readers Digest article - what reference is this? - as far as I can tell, none of the references are from Reader's Digest.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been found above that seem to indicate both notability and lasting impact. Would also support closing as it seems unlikely that this discussion will yield a consensus towards deletion. Acebulf(talk | contribs)04:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. No objection to a redirect created, but since there are verifiability concerns to go with misguided creation it seemed prudent not to maintain the content StarMississippi01:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the sockpuppet investigation linked is a "misguided newbie" creating user accounts for Indian regiments "in place of draft articles". Dubious that there is COI. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that. It seems like either someone in the Indian Army did actually order soldiers to edit the regiment's Wikipedia articles, or this is some kind of joke, but that's definitely weird. I was not expecting User_talk:PRISH123. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should we create a bulk AfD for all these regimental articles as a result of the COI investigation? If they're all of this quality, likely they can all be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per creation by apparent paid editors and lack of major notability. I can't check for non-English sources, which might be helpful on a more obscure topic like this, but it's not like the article's creator checked the notability policy either when creating it. The unit seems to mostly be notable (from before I deleted the uncited bit) for the use of Grad-P rocket systems (see BM-21_Grad) and being a Rocket Regiment (described at Regiment_of_Artillery_(India), so redirect to one of those, maybe. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. What is a possible redirect target article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I dont find these sources satisfy GNG, for a number of reasons. For example all of them are old and local, and the project died decade ago. - Altenmann>talk
please don't cherry-pick / red-herring: the nom was nn dead. Of course we have on plenty of out-of-business articles. A bit below I also replied why I think it does not satisfy GNG. - Altenmann>talk22:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Defunct or not, I don't see this enterprise as meeting notability. The sourcing isn't helpful; an interview, a primary source and a non-Rs blog-type website. This is all I could find [3], still lacking enough RS to cover this in order to get an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this should have been closed as procedural keep a while ago, as a business being defunct is not a valid deletion reason. While Toronto Blog isn't a great source - it's good for fleshing out articles; and this 2013 article is a better source than the other two used/suggested. Also there are sources out there, such as an article in the magazine Building from 2014 (ProQuest1518921098 and an in-depth article in the City Centre Mirror (ProQuest1328346152) - which while local, is from a major media outlet - Torstar. Speaking of the Toronto Star (the largest newspaper in the nation), there's 2 or 3 sources there, such as this. There's arguments about it being local coverage - however there was a 2014 Canadian Press article carried nationally from coast-to-coast in major and minor papers, from Halifax (ProQuest1774635059 to Kimberly, BC (ProQuest1682143935). Nfitz (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reeks of UPE slop: "Projexity's tools aim to make it easy for the public to submit content such as events and initiatives to organizations directly through their own websites, effectively transforming any website into a dynamic community hub". Gee willikers! No sources, no real demonstration or claim to notability, no cigar. jp×g🗯️11:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP: N. The Krill article is routine coverage, and the rest of the sources are closely affiliated with Userware or aren't reliable. This was dePRODed without any sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain how the most relevant online sources related to software development, such as InfoQ, Visual Studio Magazine, InfoWorld, and SD Times, could be close to Userware? Can you please tell me what you would expect as a source? If I add all the articles written about OpenSilver in the past years, will it increase the relevance according to you? The complete functional source of the framework is on GitHub, with visible contributions from tens of developers and requests from tens of people (I assume representatives of various organizations and individuals who use the framework) for improvements noted under the GitHub issues. OpenSilver is a relevant solution for many organizations trying to find a solution for their Microsoft Silverlight (already discontinued technology) legacy solutions, and it's free and open source. How is it not worth being part of Wikipedia when some of the most relevant online magazines write about its development and growth over the years? Vasbu (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any credentials for David Ramel when I first nominated the article. I took a second look, and it appears he's been writing about technology for awhile at this point. I'll consider him a reliable source then. I'll withdraw if you come forth with another source to establish notability, because notability generally requires multiple sources. On the other hand, the number of contributors and pull requests has not, is not, and will never be a metric for notability. Please keep the discussion about sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Visual Studio Magazine and David Ramel, please find the following list of sources:
InfoQ - It has been one of the most relevant online sources for software development topics since 2006. InfoQ team started following OpenSilver in 2020 and covered several releases of OpenSilver (I assume whenever they identified interest according to their editorial strategy). The writers covering OpenSilver topics are Edin Kapic, a Microsoft MVP based in Barcelona, Spain, and Arthur Casals, an AI Researcher with a Ph.D.
InfoWorld - It is one of the trusted sources of information related to open-source, application development, cloud computing, and other IT-related topics. InfoWorld has also covered OpenSilver, with a few news articles from the past 3-4 years. The OpenSilver-related articles are written by Paul Krill, an editor with 30+ years of experience in InfoWorld Media Group. InfoWorld is a part of the Foundry umbrella along with CIO, CSO, Computer World, Mac World, PC World, and others. They explicitly say they don't accept contributing articles to collect visits and publicity.
I Programmer was founded by Mike James, an editor-in-chief and author of books. I Programmer published a series of articles about OpenSilver in the past years. Besides Mike James other authors covered the articles related to OpenSilver including Alex Denham and Kay Ewbank.
Kurt Shintaku's blog - Kurt Shintaku is a Client Technology Lead at Microsoft, working for about 30 years in the corporation. He found an interest in OpenSilver in the early days when OpenSilver was beta. He recognized OpenSilver as a suitable solution for owners of Microsoft Silverlight-based solutions when Microsoft announced the end of support.
Root.cz - In 2021 Petr Krčmář was writing about OpenSilver, recognizing a potential solution in it for those who have custom developed applications based on MS Silverlight.
Spider's Web Portal - The Polish online magazine Spider's Web published an article about OpenSilver written by Hubert Thaler - an software engineer and manager with 25+ years experience in the domain. He wrote 1000+ articles for the portal.
Le Monde Informatique - One of the leading IT news websites in France. It covers software development, IT infrastructure, cybersecurity, and digital transformation. The site is known for its in-depth articles and industry analysis. They re-published the article by Paul Krill, originally written and published on InfoWorld. Jean Elyan (respected journalist with 25+ years of experience working for companies such as IDG Communications) adopted the French version of the article.
Keep - OpenSilver is the defacto open-source successor to Microsoft's Silverlight framework. [4], [5]. It has independent coverage in notable industry publications including Visual Studio Magazine and InfoWorld. GobsPint (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get another review of these sources brought up in this discussion. Right now, I see no consensus to Delete or Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge into WDNN-CD, as WDNN not only has the coverage to sustain continued existence on Wikipedia, but also the 2 actually seemed to have once simulcasted eachother and share common ownership. --Danubeball (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ordinarily, I'd do the suggested Merge but WDNN-CD is being discussed at AFD, too, so it would be wise to see the outcome of that discussion first. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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, actually. To my surprise, I’m already recovering some stuff about this station. I should be finished straightening up this article soon. Though if you want sources, why not? [1][2][3] For some reason, apparently the times mentioned one of their shows so Danubeball (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep - first a note to the nominator: deletion discussions are about the subject, not the article. It seems to me that the claim sourced to the school of being a pioneer in development of four-handed dentistry is true, that fact would be sourcable to a book on the history of dentistry. WP:BEFORE requires the nominator of an article for deletion to do reasonable research into the subject prior to nomination and specifically mentions that a Google search is not enough. So, did you read any books on the history of dentistry? If reliable independent sources can be found for that bit, my keep would no longer be weak. Second, if it cannot be independently verified after real research, WP:ATD tells us that this title should be a redirect to the university, not a delete. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to go look for a book that may or may not exist. The onus is on you to bring sources forward that would improve the article. Nominators need only conduct a WP: BEFORE search, which I already completed. Anything else is a massive waste of time for nominators. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, this nominator is trolling at my edits. Sources are weak but can be added eventually. He probably has some connections with other schools lol!
"this nominator is trolling" is an ad hom. It's not a valid keep rationale. I don't have any conflicts of interest to declare. In fact, it's common for users to nominate several related articles at once. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not appropriate. You should peobably read the instructions for participation at AfD linked at the top of the page. WP:AGF is a pillar policy and not optional. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge When searching around, I could not find anything special about this school except that it exists for 75+ years. Article is filled with run of the mill info over the school, based on related sources. Sources seem to be mostly social media. So deletion is the best option but a merge into the university is also an option. The Bannertalk23:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: There does not seem be enough sources to justify a standalone article. However, it seems notable as a part of the University of Alabama at Birmingham so merging with the page, adding The School of Dentistry as a subsection of the article seems to be the correct move. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: The article meets the notability criteria for authors. The information is well-sourced and relevant to our readers. I vote to keep it. Waqar💬16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sal2100 Per WP:NAUTHORThe person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. So far I see one independent review posted by Oaktree b, and there is one extremely short blurb in Publisher's Weekly as mentioned below. No other independent reviews have been found, so I wonder how you think the criterion is fulfilled? Broc (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My main concerns are 1) that there are no independent sources and 2) I cannot find any sources for the awards. The Houston Chronicle source on the last one does not verify that award. One book got a review in Publishers' Weekly but that isn't really enough. Lamona (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b pointed out some additional coverage above, of which one is an independent review in a published source. The other two are coverage of her books in newspapers for which she writes/wrote. Two reviews for a book are in my opinion far from sufficient to fulfill WP:NAUTHOR. Broc (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more enthused if those reviews were in major publications. The Gadsden Times and Sarasota Herald-Tribune don't impress me. And the Lodi review says: "...I have never encountered a book as hard to read as this one" and goes on to pan the book in other aspects. So, no, I don't think these sources are sufficient. And may I say that there is nothing in the policies that says: any 2 reviews = author notability. First, reviews can be negative, so we should read them and not just count them. Then, there is a matter of IMPORT. The actual policy criteria at WP:AUTHOR are pretty intense - but they come down to the question of whether the person has made a significant contribution to a field of study or an area of art, and whether there is evidence that the contribution is recognized by peers. Writing two books on how to buy and sell property - books that do not appear to have gotten national attention - doesn't rise to that level, IMO. Lamona (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The delete arguments do seem a bit stronger based on Wikipedia policy, but a clearer consensus might be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Added a few things. If judged insufficient, redirect to Motu Patlu#Recurring. Again, I am inviting the nominator to PLEASE slow down nominations of Indian animated series or to directly and boldly redirect them to obvious related articles if they think apparent notability issues need to be addressed urgently. THANK YOU. Taking a page to Afd with a minimal rationale may take some time but checking sources, improving the page, verifying potential targets, etc, also does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)23:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to boldly redirect articles to other articles because I believe in the significance of discussion and reaching consensus. M S Hassan (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not redirect to Motu Patlu#Recurring because that page segment too has no sources, no inline citation and possibly contains original research. I would have redirect to the production company if they had a page with this spin-off in the list of production. Reviewing the sources, the indepth coverage is insufficient and fails general notability guideline. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the English sourcing is borderline-sufficient for GNG, and there appears to be Hindi-language coverage as well. It might be better to merge with Motu Patlu, but I'm not familiar enough to have an informed opinion. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Closing as Keep. Editors can discuss a possible page move on the article talk page. That's an editing decision. LizRead!Talk!01:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Korfballers vechten hard voor hun club 'De Kapellen' wacht op plek in Schenkel-Oost. "Het vrije volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad". Rotterdam, 27-03-1980, p. 5. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010960497:mpeg21:p047
[2] Hans de Kwant: Door en doorgezond' 'De Bermen speelt korfbal met visie' Van onze medewerker ANDRé KOUWENHOVEN. "Het vrije volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad". Rotterdam, 11-09-1980, p. 5. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010960654:mpeg21:p031
[3] Timmers, Jan (4 December 2023). "KCC/CK Kozijnen belandt in zwaar weer". Het Kontakt IJssel en Lekstreek. Kontakt Media Partners. Retrieved 18 June 2024.
The newer sources are not yet included in the national archives. Among the very recent news sources, the article by Jan Timmers stands out as it contains analysis. Note that the merger itself occurred in the coverage lull so we will need to do with these fine sources before and after. gidonb (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added even more SIGCOV. All in the article. Note that there are also a few sources, including the original one, that only support data. gidonb (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That's full-page coverage in those 1980s papers. We've got just enough for GNG in the articles brought forth by Gidonb, but given the first two articles I'm confident there's also much more out there that we just haven't found yet. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! The merger falls into the website to archive lull. A lot of the information that we remove on Wikipedia does. The sources above and in the article prove beyond any doubt that there is no case for deletion. As the delete sayers do not deal with the sources, their opinions fall under the category of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and bad research. gidonb (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the new sources have more than convinced me the article should be kept. Didn't see the AfD got relisted for so long, but I'm ready to vote keep given the added material. However, I wouldn't call it "bad research", as WP:BEFORE (what I did before nomination) isn't required to be fully exhaustive, although I don't deny your research was great! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The article is in much, much better shape than when I first nominated it. I trust you with the name, although you should be able to move the page yourself as there is no preexisting article there. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 substantial coverage about him that would meet GNG; the one source in the article is a one-line mention. Google search results mainly return other people of the same name. His most prominent role appears to have been 83 episodes of General Hospital, which is insufficient to meet any SNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this individual found, what's used (the one article) isn't sufficient. No coverage, no notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He wasn't even part of the starring cast on General Hospital and even if he was, it would be considered as WP:ONEEVENT which is still not enough to warrant an article for the actor. — YoungForever(talk)23:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I feel a huge problem here is that there's no indication of this thing having any impact or importance outside of its base series or any enduring legacy of said concept. A good paragraph devoted to it is basically gameplay tweaks that mean nothing to anyone that hasn't played Gears, and doesn't provide any reasonable grounds to be a standalone article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and WP:MERGEREASON. Better covered in the context of its respective game(s), in a much more efficient, condensed manner. Current article is bloated and drawn out to an insane degree. It would be very easy to cover most in a much more focused paragraph that didn't branch out into these tangents. Sergecross73msg me18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Eurogamer article here is quite impressive, unfortunately that appears to be the only major coverage for the gun, with the other articles being announcements of balance patches or minor coverage. I likely wouldn't have created this article if I had only these sources available so I will have to agree it fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Even with some reception, it provides more coverage and context if we include this as part of the overall reception of the game and series. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Other articles on non-notable Olympians have been moved to a special draft category where they won't be deleted after six months. That would seem appropriate here. Eastmain (talk • contribs)17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I added a full-length biographical profile as reference, so WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 is now fulfilled, which was the main concern of the nominator. Given the depth of this profile, it is likely a lot of coverage can be found in the sources (likely offline) of the years when he was active. @XabqEfdg: did you perform a WP:BEFORE? Broc (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. All I got were database results and unrelated or unreliable results. I didn't find that article which certainly counts toward GNG. Thank you for finding it. XabqEfdg (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 actually a separate organisation. MoRD recognised Kudumbashree as a National Resource Organisation (NRO). Kudumbashree acts as a nodal agency for executing several schemes of central government in Kerala. This is one among several of such. The article is a content fork of Kudumbashree as it can be integrated within it and also fails WP:SIZESPLIT as there is not enough size to justify article split. Gan Favourite (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Other articles on non-notable Olympians have been moved to a special draft category where they won't be deleted after six months. That would seem appropriate here. Eastmain (talk • contribs)16:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nemanja Markovic seems like a very common name, at least judging from the multiple footballers bearing the name. (Some of them are also found as incoming links to this article. None of them seem particularly notable either.) Geschichte (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: Medium, Soundcloud and a few other websites that don't seem to relate to this individual. I'm not seeing notability with the sources given, nor can I find any we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 per nom. Tone is also highly promotional thanks to this edit, which was when User:Mytrum replaced this page with a promotional rewrite in 2022, which was also the user's only contribution. And hmm, I was thinking of something... Aaron Liu (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, it's all about Mr. Trump in the sources I find, whose name in Finnish sources appears as "Trumpia". Nothing about this software found. Source 6 doesn't even appear to be about the software, maybe a name drop. The rest of the sources used in the article are primary or of questionable notability. The Forbes piece is not notable/not a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 think that this page is very short and needs to be expanded. There is actually a sufficient number of third-party sources regarding to this brand, such as:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess newly found sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!19:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
So before nominating this article for deletion, I consulted with SouthernNights, who has expertise in evaluating academic-related BLPs. They also expressed doubts about the subject meeting our WP:N. I've also conducted a BEFORE search and found nothing that could help establish GNG. Fwiw, this is a PROMO BLP! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, This is awkward! . I must admit I only conducted a GNG check and consulted @SouthernNights for WP:NPROF, who said it doesn't meet the WP:N, and then I proceed to nominate this BLP for deletion. But now you're claiming that it meets WP:NPROF. @SouthernNights, Could I ask you for clarification on this, please. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The page clearly needs a couple of edits to show it more clearly but as David says, this subject clearly meets WP:NPROF in at least two categories; one is enough. Qflib (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It happens. I did take the opportunity to tune up the article a bit so as to make significance clearer and to improve its flow. So, as we've seen before, an Afd can sometimes lead to a better article. Cheers! Qflib (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Biography of a person not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. The attempted notability claim here, "melter and refiner at the U.S. Mint", could get him an article if he were well-sourced as passing WP:GNG on coverage about his work, but is not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him an article without proper sourcing for it -- but the only two footnotes here are a primary source directory entry that isn't support for notability at all and one page of a book about the history of the county where he lived, which is being cited in such a way that it's deeply unclear whether it even refers to Joseph Cloud at all, or merely to an ancestor of his — but even if it does mention Joseph Cloud himself, being namechecked on one page of a book about something else wouldn't be enough all by itself. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived American media coverage and/or history books than I've got can salvage it with better sources than I've been able to find, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mentions in journals from the 1800's [9] and [10] (apparently), but these are tertiary sources, so I can't vouch for the validity of each statement. I can't find anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, it's written: melter and refiner at the Philadelphia Mint, appointed by Washington. Perhaps it can meet GNG due to his role in the primacy of the Philadelphia mint and the early currency development of the United States. O.maximov (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is a measure of the quality of the sourcing present in the article, not of the subjective significance of their job title in and of itself. So getting him over GNG would be a matter of finding adequate sourcing, not just of asserting that he had a prominent role without properly sourcing its prominence. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another obscure Trotskyist international, this one almost entirely associated with its founder Michel Varga. The article cites Robert J. Alexander's book twice: both of which are passing mentions, one in a section about the International Committee of the Fourth International and another which refers to it simply as the "Varga Fourth International". Alexander himself says that the makeup of the organization was unclear and that little is known about the groups that were affiliated with it. A search on Google Scholar yields only two results, one of which is a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, the other is a Czech PhD dissertation that only references it once in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.[11] There's not much on its French name either.[12]
Keep - last time this was listed for deletion, Soman found a long list of French works which mention the international. Unfortunately there was no analysis of whether they were significant mentions, but from what I can tell it does seem to have significant coverage in Benjamin Stora's La dernière génération d'octobre, a shorter mention in Pierre Turpin's Le trotskysme aujourd'hui, and it appears in the index of the Dictionnaire de la politique française and so presumably in one of the volumes which isn't on Google Books. There are some other hits in books with no previews, but I reckon that's enough for an article. Warofdreamstalk20:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of analysis was definitely an issue, because going through some of these now, it seems that most instances are only passing mentions and it appears there may have been false positives in others as well. Looking at Stora's book, the International League gets one single passing mention in a larger section about Varga, Turpin's book doesn't give much detail at all. To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't coverage of this organisation, but I still doubt there is significant coverage. It seems that most of the mentions of International League occur when discussing Varga himself, there don't appear to be any that consider the organisation as an entity independently notable of its founder.
Of what I've seen in English and French sources, the information we could glean specifically on the organisation would never grow larger than a stub. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Of course books about Trotskyism and political dictionaries are going to have passing mentions of this organisation, because that's within their scope. However, is this subject within Wikipedia's scope? I'd also argue no, as despite being around for nearly 18 years, this article still lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, probably because there are none. I find the slightly different argument in the previous second deletion nomination to be non-sensical; Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and should not have an article for everything that exists with a name to it. Yue🌙17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is yet another obscure Trotskyist international with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the two currently cited sources, one is from the organisation's own successor's publication; the other is Robert Alexander's book, which only mentions the TILC briefly in passing, in a section about the Revolutionary Workers League. A search on Google Scholar yields only two results: a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, and a Czech PhD thesis, which only references it once it in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.[13]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is yet another obscure Trotskyist international without any apparent significant coverage in reliable sources. This article has been tagged for multiple issues since 2010 and its only cited inline source is a simple list of abbreviations. Looking this organisation up on Google Scholar, I found only three results:[14] one is a Czech thesis that lists it alongside many other Trotskyist internationals, without any further detail; the other two only give it a passing reference in sections about the Spanish far-left, without any real detail. It apparently only has one notable section, the Spanish Internationalist Socialist Workers' Party, which has little information about it either. The Spanish Wikipedia article doesn't help with finding sources, as it is almost entirely reliant on the FI-ICR's own newspaper La Verite.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
With only one match in lower league as well as database sources listed, this article of a men's footballer obviously fails WP:GNG. The closest thing to significant coverage is SME where he debuted for Senica. My other searches only came up with match reports and passing mentions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆11:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks to be 6 matches in the highest domestic league, not 1 in a lower league, but still that's not really a career, and the lack of sources corresponds to that reality. Geschichte (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – seems to have played in six matches not just one, but I was unable to find any significant coverage of this guy. C67912:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 about a Brazilian singer covers the subject's early career as a child / teenage performer but not the later appearance as a contestant on The Voice Brasil, performing by then as Lais Yasmin. Although this article instance is sourced only to primary social media, its basic details are verifiable in this 2018 online article associated with The Voice appearance. However I don't see the evidence needed to meet the WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing now in the article is social media or primary sources. I don't find anything about this person. Nothing for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: Book reviews are fine, seems to pass AUTHOR. Source 5 shows multiple reviews in multiple journals, that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this person meets either NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. For the latter, his books, save one, have been cited in the middle to low two figures. The other one was cited ~160 times. I'm also not convinced that the fact of having a book reviewed in what are essentially trade journals suffices for AUTHOR. I am unable to get to the EBSCO journals but the fact that most of the reviews are in Library Journal and School Library Journal do not tell me that this is a major author. Like Publisher's Weekly, these are non-academic publications that generally provide short "advice" type reviews (buy this/don't buy this). Looking up "Encyclopedia of Invasions and Conquests" in WorldCat, it's held in 5 WC libraries. It's hard to know what this means since school libraries are rarely found in WC, but I would not consider this person a notable author by any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the EBSCO reviews should be accessible through The Wikipedia Library. That might be relevant if you completely ignored the two substantial academic reviews of Ends and Means in academic journals, the three of Masters of the Battlefield (counting H-net as equivalent to an academic journal), and the two mainstream-media reviews of Masters of the Battlefield. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these reviews indicates that the books are NOT considered major contributions to the field. For example: "This book is a generally accessible book for a mid-brow audience as opposed to a scholarly work." (That's H-War) The Michigan Review states: "Serious students of military history, however, will find here neither a dependable reference book nor an original contribution to the scholarship of command across the ages." The two for Ends and Means are one page each, and one states "Its principle weakness lies in a failure to draw in literature on the Middle East, and especially the Arabic results in gaps and misconceptions. It is nevertheless a strong study of the modus operandi of the British in the area, and of the muddle and misinformation which lay behind their eventual success". This sounds to me like the reviewers are not seeing these books as being major contributions to the field. Nothing in NACADEMIC nor AUTHOR states that if a book (or a few books) get ANY reviews the author is notable. Both of those policies include much more rigorous criteria, and among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics. This person clearly fails that. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in NAUTHOR says anything about the reviews being positive, nor about the reviewed books being scholarly works. They merely have to provide depth of content about the books they review. Your quote "among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics" is completely false. There is nothing in our criteria that reflects that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the 8 criteria in WP:NACADEMIC and indicate which of those this person meets. I don't think he meets any of them. And note that nothing in academic nor author notability mentions book reviews. I don't know why this has become a thing here at AfD, but the mere fact of reviews wouldn't satisfy the policy criteria for either of those categories. If, however, you are looking to see whether a person has (as the policy says) "...made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" then what their colleagues say about their work is evidence.Lamona (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have I even tried to argue for a pass of WP:ACADEMIC? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:POLITICIAN? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:ATHLETE? Do you think that minor politicians who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as politicians, or that minor athletes who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as athletes? How about you address the criterion I am actually arguing for, WP:AUTHOR, instead of trying to make the ridiculous argument that being notable requires being notable for everything? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like you are going for #3 of AUTHOR. Here's the whole AUTHOR list:
This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
I do not see that this person has created a "significant or well-known work" merely because it has been reviewed. I am leaning on the word "significant" and when a book is reviewed as not being dependable (as above) then I don't see it as "significant." As I said, just getting reviewed doesn't make it "significant" and if you're looking at "well-known" then low citations and low library holdings (the only number we have because we don't have access to sales figures) tell me that this greatly stretches the concept of well-known. Also, I'd like to mention WP:CIVIL. Lamona (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4(c): The works have won significant critical attention. Perhaps you are having difficulty with the grammar of that criterion? The word "significant" is a description of the amount of critical attention the works have received, not of the works themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by way of passing the WP:AUTHOR bar. Reviews don't have to be positive; what matters is that attention was paid to the author's work. Nor do we require that the books being reviewed have to be scholarly in a narrow sense. We have articles on authors known for inaccuracy, popularization, and inaccurate popularization. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep also : Not sure why there are profiles, but there appear to be Il Sole 24 Ore covering his return from America, il Fatto Quotidiano covering Italy 2030, what appears to be a book review I'm not sure of the independence of. Along with another book review, these are the only independent reliable sources the book has. Given a couple news stories about him and a number of sources on his books, it seems reasonable to write a short article. He seems to be notable for maybe the Italy 2030 project and his popular books?
Given the large number of sources, I wonder if it's possible to show they pass Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? That would pretty much resolve this debate, because this article would obviously contain the books. And given he has his own news sources, it seems reasonable to also discuss him.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Would it not make more sense to find consensus on ONE of these MOTU characters and handle the rest through merging, redirecting and/or prodding rather than spamming AfD with near-identical nominations? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the character list. Even the brief reception section doesn't discuss anything noteworthy about the character, and all sources appear to be listicles.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Moss Man]] - The character already has a section on the main character list describing the essential information on them, and there is no sourced material here worth merging. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 or merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is a fairly substantial article with a number of secondary sources. A merge would be the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use. And there is at least some content based on secondary sources here which can be used to improve the respective section of the target, so simple redirection would be a step backwards. Daranios (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his section in the character list. Even the few mentions of the character in the "Reception" section aren't even about the chracter, but the toy; and they're all listicles.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. As with the nom, my own WP:BEFORE identified a relatively high number of (seemingly) independent/reliable news sources which deal with the subject org as a primary topic. And in some depth. The nom was, in my view, quite correct in dePROD-ing the article. And opening this AfD. Personally I cannot support deletion. The sources found in my own BEFORE, a number of which I've added to the article, would suggest that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. Certainly I can't support summary/procedural deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello. I created this page myself. This was sometime after the 2019 LEs when I also created for Irish Local Elections across the years 1985-99 and for each City & County Council election of each and have added to others since and created additional ones including individual pages for several elected politicians, past and present and national and local level. Devite (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit of Wikipedia is that in some cases GAA personalities, actors, actresses, comedians and people who then become TDs, Senators and MEPs start out in their first election. The pages I helped create show links to all elections that the people stood in, if they become a significant national or international personality. You understand as a fellow editor. Its the fishing effect that we have in economics to add to the overall level of combined knowledge and this is why I like doing this. Its safe and quiet. Devite (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another section I found on the pages of each Council was a list of Councillors who were Cathaoirligh of each Local Authority. This has been done for each city such as Dublin, Cork, Belfast etc and I felt should be started for each County Council at least. I am happy to discuss this further. If you analyse the list of Coucillors of Monaghan County Council, McNally is also a former Cathaoirleach. Other former Cathaoirligh include some Ministers and TDs and then again some of those weren't Ministers or TDs but significant historical personalities in each county's political history regardless. Indeed some former Councillors are famous national figures despite never having been TDs such as Nicky Kelly from Arklow, profiled in Wicklow County Council Councillor history. That is part of my argument for keeping this McNally article as part of an overall database that could be enhanced. It is the 125th anniversary of Irish local government afterall this year in 2024. Devite (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should say first that I really appreciate the work you did adding each of the very many local elections to Wikipedia. I've edited around the edges of them in the last year or so, and they're an invaluable resource to have here.
That said, even as each of these elections are themselves notable and worthy of Wikipedia articles, and that we can dream of further progress in adding to the series, that doesn't speak to the notability of individual councillors, even long-standing ones. In the case of councillors who do go on to become national representatives, or who had a sporting background, or were otherwise prominent like Nicky Kelly before they were elected, they would get an article, or be eligible for consideration for an article, on the basis of their own notability (WP:BIO), rather than the fact that they were a councillor, or even Cathaoirleach. Seeing someone in blue in these election pages suggests that there is something more to be said of them, beyond their service on the council.
It would be great to have a referenced list for all local authorities of who served as cathaoirleach or mayor, but that doesn't give each of those office-holders notability for an article themselves. The nature of the office is that the chain rotates between councillors who might otherwise be known only locally. Dublin is an exception, being the capital and largest city, so the occupant of the Lord Mayor of Dublin will get an article. It might seen an extreme option now to delete Pádraig McNally's article, considering WP:NOTPAPER. But I also think it's good to keep a consistent standard of who qualifies for notability to merit an article. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:SIGCOV. While I've found and added a few refs, which mention the subject as a primary topic, they are largely of the same type we might expect for any other (even long-standing) local councillor. The coverage of the subject's planned and then actual retirement, for example, is relatively light and only given in (very) local news sources. Can't advocate for a "keep" based on the available coverage. Guliolopez (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy delete per WP:A10. The content is copied basically word-for-word from the main article on the 2024 World Cup. I do not think this is a plausible redirect title due to its length (and users looking for information on this round are more likely to look for the general World Cup article). There is no content needed to merge because content is already at the main article FrankAnchor10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a valid split, no consensus to split and it's an unattributed copy of text from the main article. So should be deleted, probably by speedy deletion as either WP:A10 or WP:G12 (as unattributed copies of text violate copyright). Joseph2302 (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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: The sources provided by Saqib meet WP:SIGCOV standards, with extensive reporting about him, sometimes due to his controversial statements and attempts on his life. If he is not notable, why is there so much coverage about him? Sources like BBC Urdu, as well as Indian and Pakistani news sites, report about him. In my POV the subject meets WP:GNG and the article should be kept. Minor portion of the article which are from non reliable sources can be removed. GrabUp - Talk12:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is just an ordinary Pakistani YouTuber. The reliable sources such as Dawn, BBC Urdu e.g. primarily only focuses on Mirza's arrest whereas nearly the entire article is relying on poor sources such as "MM News", "The Namal", "The Pakistan Frontier", News18 Hindi e.g.Leithiani (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grabup, Of course, this is what happens when 4 days old accounts with a mere 300 edits participate in AFDs. By the way, did I forget to mention? Keep based on the coverage I provided above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Only notable for a single event, so WP:BIO1E applies. - UtherSRG(talk)13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; an unremarkable professional poker player who has not been the subject of substantial press coverage other than routine coverage of tournaments he placed in. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Maxim Novoselov has never been ranked in the top ten, has never beaten a notable fighter (or one with a winning record for that matter), and hasn't fought for any notable promotions/events. Checking his Russian Wikipedia his biggest claims to fame are almost fighting Viacheslav Datsik, getting jailed twice, and setting up a small club in prison. The article is currently orphaned as well. User:ZenZekey (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's hard to evaluate the quality and reliability of these sources. I'll admit to being skeptical about them, but I'm open to being convinced (which is why I didn't vote yet). According to FIAS, the world sambo organization, he's never competed at a world championship and the European sambo association's webpage only has results back to 2010 so I can't confirm his European title. Fightmatrix.com shows his highest MMA ranking was 110th, but he never fought another ranked fighter. He certainly appears to be a scary guy you wouldn't want to cross, but I'm not seeing anything that meets any WP SNG criteria. The question is whether or not he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did manage to dig up evidence of him winning a European championship in 2007.
I'm still not convinced this warrants a Wikipedia page. He certainly doesn't meet WP:MMANOT and actually meets one of the criteria supporting deletion (no fights at top tier organizations). Aside from his Sambo/MMA career all he really has going for him is going to prison a couple times. ZenZekey (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked closer at the article's sources as well as doing my own search. What I found where some fight results, MMA databases, interviews with content that can't be verified--and evidence of criminal activities. None of this convinces me that WP:GNG is met or that he is WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. After discarding views not based on P&G, we're left with a rough consensus to delete. Owen×☎12:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Delete - Eye raising nomination, but that aside, I think this is close. There is a lot of fancruft references, interviews, general announcements, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, etc. And, winning an award or appearing on a television show does not give inherent notability (I think the Indian Telly Awards individual categories may not meet notability either). However, there are at least two references that are bylined and not just routine announcements here and here. I'll reserve a !vote at the moment in hopes someone can point out coverage that isn't routine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: most coverage is about the TV show Big Boss [35], I wouldn't call it extensive coverage. This is a RS, but what's used in the article are all marginal reliability sources per Cite Highlighter, so I'm not sure we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The user who has nominated the page for deletion is a new account created solely to ensure the page is deleted. The previous two nominations have also been a result of fandom war. As for the notability, it has been established the last 2 times as well. She has done 2 lead roles, one major reality, show, numerous music videos, a web series in post production, notable award nominations and wins. [FYI, Indian Telly Awards and Indian Television Academy Awards are two of the most notable ITV Awards regardless of whether the pages are well updated on Wikipedia or not.] The actress has sufficient coverage, apart from all her work and has more on the way. Hasty deletion to fulfill online fan wars makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.32.83 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your contibutions which is only this comment and anyone can say that you are the account created to this comment only. Columbidae5 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is looking like fan made article who is doing undo removed content. Neutral point of view is also missing in the article. It looks like promotional content. Columbidae5 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable personality. Filmography with different credits. Nominations and wins in terms of two known awards. Additionally, this seems to be another potential attempt by online supporters of other actors. The previous deletion discussion of this page was quite similar and was started by a fan of another ITV actress. This seems to be yet another example of social media hate propaganda. OCDD (talk)
Keep as she is a notable actress and model who has gained significant recognition for her role in the popular television series "Udaariyaan," contributing to her widespread popularity. Additionally, her career achievements and public interest make her a relevant figure in the entertainment industry --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please do not focus on the nominator and instead consider whether NACTOR is met and assess the quality of the sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are all passing mentions within routine announcements and contain zero biographical detail. Inclusion on Wikipedia is determined by sourcing, not by number of awards, award nominations, popularity, public interest or strong fanbase. The actress clearly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR.--Ilovetvshows (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to have some concerns that this is a bad-faith nomination by a sock / meat puppet of a blocked editor. My view still stands. Ravensfire (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:SBST, "tabloid journalism is not significant coverage," and that's what this WP:REFBOMB of a promotional article is. Twenty-two citations are to the Times of India's tabloid entertainment channel ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]), which is considered an unreliable source per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. TellyChakkar ([59], [60]), Bollywood Hungama ([61], [62], [63]), TimesNowNews ([64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]), News18 ([71], [72], [73], [74]), Economic Times Panache blog section, Zee News, DNAIndia, and the rest have similar problems (search for these publications on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard). Several links are to WP:YOUTUBE which for these purposes is a primary source. Basically, there is no non-tabloid, non-affiliated, reliable-source WP:SIGCOV of this individual to satisfy the tests of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: It doesn't look like they've had a significant enough impact on the rugby league world to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia page. Maybe if their career takes off in the future, we can revisit this. Waqar💬17:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin(talk)04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. NxcryptoMessage05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [75] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've concerns about articles created by M Waleed, as they often include WP:OR and rely on questionable sources. Despite my advice to use drafts instead of creating articles directly in the main namespace, it appears that my suggestions were not followed- hence this AFD nom. Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A thorough source analysis would be helpful here given the competing claims of one-sidedness. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It focuses on a single viewpoint and doesn't have any independent sources to back it up. Maybe this topic could be added to a bigger article, but right now it doesn't seem like it stands on its own. Waqar💬17:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk)02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This skater doesn't meet WP:NSKATE. Their achievements (junior medals, national championships) seem to fall short of the bar, and searching online doesn't reveal any significant coverage either. There wasn't any defense for the article in the previous deletion discussion either. Maybe this skater will achieve more in the future, but for now, it seems best to remove the article. Waqar💬18:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk)02:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I think we're facing the same issue as with Michał Tomaszewski AfD back then. From what I can read based on my Google search ("Krzysztof Komosa łyżwiarz figurowy"), news sources only refer to Komosa in brief mentions (2001 and 2004); nothing in-depth about himself. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia has been unsourced for nine years and likewise does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. No news have been released on Komosa over 20 years either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆10:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD featured only a bevy of personal insults and zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk)02:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletiion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk)02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough based on the competitions she won, or did not win, having placed only silver in the Nationals, then 17th in the World Championships, then nothing more after that. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She won twice silver medals in Israel. I wouldn't discount the huge efforts that go into that with "only" and "nothing more". A redirect is well deserved and as ATD and CHEAP usually takes precedence over delete. gidonb (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't seem to find anything on this guy. He played in MLS for one year, made one appearance, and then totally disappeared. I've tried several searches, and nothing is coming up, much less WP:SIGCOV or anything approaching WP:GNG standards. Anwegmann (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first Signal article looks fine, but I think the Los Angeles Daily News article and the other Signal article fails WP:YOUNGATH as that source is merely a local paper covering local high school sports. I still think a redirect is the best option for the time being, with the history being preserved in the event more sources appear. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My biggest issue is keeping an article about a player who only made one professional appearance. In any case, I will withdraw my vote for deletion. Svartner (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an issue at all - we can easily have an article on a player with one professional appearance. The issue is whether he passes GNG. SportingFlyerT·C19:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as nom. I think this discussion points most clearly to draftification, as the sources shown don't necessarily do enough to show WP:SIGCOV, but there clearly are some sources that could, with work, produce a reasonable article.Anwegmann (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.
Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix₵02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect per above argument, and per nom. No point having a disambiguation page that just redirects both uses to the same article. —Mjks28 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article lacks notoriety typical for an article. The sources have a vested interest in the subject, which itself is not compelling. Repeated death in committee should itself be evidence for the notoriety level. Jasavina (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent of the subjects intrinsic lack of stature, I have attempted to find non-vested sources on the topic and failed. Jasavina (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start a discussion concerning that other section on the relevant talk page.
As for these source you found, thank you, I genuinely went looking and didn't find those. I'll recall the proposal for deletion. Jasavina (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to List of PlayStation games (A–L) - Official UK PlayStation Magazine reviewed the game in issue 98 per this guide in issue 108 of every game reviewed in OPM up to that point, I was unable to find a copy of that issue to see how in-depth the review was and the guide only gives a score and brief summary. I was unable to find any other coverage on Archive.org. Waxworker (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Waxworker. I did an extensive search on Newspapers.com, Both Naps Team (the game's developer website) and Phoenix Games website (the game's publisher) but ultimately found only this [88]. It being a budget game might explain why there is almost nothing on it. Timur9008 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Repeating my reasoning from 2021, but WP:NBASE now no longer exists:
Not notable. I cannot locate stats or a roster spot for this person on seamheads.com or cnlbr.org or baseball-reference.com. (B-R "Bullpen" [an open wiki] has an article created at the same time and same person that created this article.) The given source is an obit [89] that vaguely refers to playing on a Negro league team at some time. The given team ceased play in 1951 when the subject was 20, but as I stated, I cannot find any other source backing this up. (This palyer should not be confused with Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1908), also a Negro leaguer.) -- BX (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (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, ✗plicit01:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article's one source (an obituary of the kind likely provided by the family to a local paper) claims he played for the Baltimore Elite Giants. A separate article in the Bristol Herald-Courier on his receipt of an award puts dates on it: "After he graduated from high school in 1949, he played baseball with the Bishop Stateliners, the Amonata Slugger and the West Virginia All-Stars from 1949 to 1951. Then he played for the Baltimore Elite Giants of the Negro National League until he joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 1953, where he also played shortstop for the 2nd Marine Division baseball team." However, this is not a possible sequence, since the Baltimore Elite Giants disbanded in 1950. So that casts doubt on the reliability of the source (and thus on the obituary) right there. I'm not finding any other sources that confer notability under WP:NSPORTS (either as a player or a coach), WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the discrepancies laid out above, we cannot verify key facts of his life meaning there's nothing on which to write an article. StarMississippi21:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186(talk)01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Qflib (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186(talk)17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your response may be terse, but it completely misses the point.
My reading of the arguments in favor of keeping are along the lines of "The subject has X citations and an h-index of Y, and I think that's enough to establish notability". Nobody here is disputing citation counts. What is up for discussion is why this level of citation is enough to establish notability. You've also said that 5746 citations is enough to establish notability. Why? There's an equal amount of reason to believe that 5747 citations is the threshold at which we should consider a subject notable.
Furthermore, sourcing generally needs to be in-depth. Citations are often passing mentions in a related work section, which does little to establish notability.
Having specific sources in hand makes this discussion easier. I'm difficult to sell on vague, wishy-washy gestures to a collection of citations and baseless claims that the subject's citation counts just happen to be enough to satisfy the criteria for WP: NPROF. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. I've closed hundreds of AFD discussions and for academics, citation counts are routinely considered in discussing notability. They are not the only factor but they are a factor that shouldn't be casually dismissed as being arbitrary. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:PROF#C1 based on citations which, yeah, like it or not, is the most common way of assessing whether someone meets WP:PROF#C1. Scopus lists 5746 citations to Faingold's papers which, in Wikipedianese, means that there are 5746 reliable sources covering Faingold's work. Most of these will be passing mentions but it is still incredibly unlikely that with more than five thousand potential sources we won't find enough to support a decent summary of his contributions to science. That's enough for an article (biographical details are nice to round it out, but not strictly necessary) and the core logic of WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98(Talk)00:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches didn't come up with any coverage to meet the WP:GNG, but please ping me if there is any coverage unearthed. As it stands, all there is here in terms of sources are interviews and databases. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk)00:55, 24 June 2024 (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, ✗plicit02:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a principle worth adhering to. AfD is crowded, and editors' time to do the WP:BEFORE searching necessary for meaningful AfD participation is limited; if something didn't get consensus the first time, let it breathe a bit before bringing it back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk)00:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The first two sources already in the article each contain multiple paragraphs of in depth, secondary coverage to meet the WP:GNG. WP:NSKATE does not need to be met when there is WP:SIGCOV present, as there is here. I'd encourage the nom to heed other guidelines besides NSKATE in their nomination statements as it pertains to figure skaters. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The assertion that there is "nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases" is obviously disproven by the sources already in the article, which contain WP:SIGCOV. The age and nationality of the subject tells me that there is definitely offline coverage as well, though this claim cannot be substantiated. JTtheOG (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk)00:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BOOKS, with only primary sources used in article. A BEFORE search is complicated by the title of the series. Google Books and Google Scholar turn up citations to individual books in the series, but I can find no secondary coverage of the series as a series. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the book exists! [90][91] and there are reviews [92][93] Not sure where to go with this. It's a massive undertaking so is probably notable in its field but not enough coverage yet— Iadmc♫talk 03:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLogos has the entire 130 volumes for sale electronically for a cool $2365.00 before discounts. Not every book sold by Logos is notable, but many (most?) of them are, and recognized as reference volumes for Christian and adjacent religious studies. How many of the 130 included volumes are individually notable? I have no idea. We've had previous discussions on book series articles recently, and looking at this in that light, I'm relatively certain this should be kept, but more research would be reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was not able to turn them up in my BEFORE search but I would like to keep the article if we can establish additional sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was just a discussion on how series relate to NBOOKS, last month I think, and I believe the general consensus was that a series involving multiple notable books merited an article. Of course, it would then have to list or link to those books, which it currently does not. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From that discussion, actually, I'd say that a series article without individual book articles to link to can be a sensible outcome per WP:PAGEDECIDE when individual books are notable but readers will be better served by series-level coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 Sure, it's here. Looking more closely, there were a few folks who wanted to treat "large general-topic publisher book series" different from, e.g. Game of Thrones-style series. But if folks are able to turn up NBOOK reviews for a few of the individual books in this particular series, there would at least be a case to be made. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see what comes up. After reading the debate, I'm reluctant to withdraw this nomination on the basis of proposals that have not been adopted as policy; my read of the governing policy would still require WP:GNG to be demonstrated for a series even if individual books are notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: I'll throw my two cents in: I think that if the series is published as a series and there are many reviews for the individual books (but those are not independently notable themselves) then the series should be treated as notable. That said, it should absolutely be up to the quality of the reviews and where they were published. Offhand the reviews for the series looks to be pretty numerous. They seem to get routinely reviewed in The Heythrop Journal and Scripta Theologica, but have also received reviews from Isis (journal), New Blackfriars, and so on. My workplace's database is pulling up hundreds of reviews. Granted I haven't been able to verify them all, but that does point fairly heavily towards notability and I do think it would be a disservice to not cover the series because there aren't enough individual volumes that are notable. That's kind of taking a "not seeing the forest for the trees" approach. Besides, with something like this it's usually better to just cover the series rather than the individual volumes in order to prevent the creation of dozens of articles (assuming that the individual books are notable). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offhand I am seeing enough reviews to where I could probably argue individual notability and articles for some volumes, but I think that might be a waste considering that these would likely be multiple stub articles. Better to have the one article and cut off unnecessary individual ones. (Here is what I'm seeing, if anyone is curious.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)14:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are dozens of reviews of articles in the series: people write reviews every time a new one comes out: so the series is certainly notable, with many reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some books in the series are independently notable and were previously published. Augustine's The City of God has been published in many different versions over the centuries, for example, and thus there are many reviews. But are there reviews of the version published in this series? Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I take a look: yes. The reviews are specifically of these editions, and evaluate things like the editors' selection of sermons to include and the usefulness of the footnotes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having had a chance to comb through some of the reviews, I'm seeing too much to justify either deletion, or articles about the individual books. As far as I can work out, all of the 100+ volumes has gotten at least one serious, scholarly review. If you look them up individually by title & translator you start to get clear NBOOK passes, e.g., the first two I tried, vol. 70 [94][95] and vol. 131 [96][97][98]. This appears to be a thoroughly notable series. As for the name, I am not excited about renaming but The Fathers of the Church (series) works for me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
That would seem undue to me — not only is KDTH not even the only Radio Dubuque station, but it is much older than the Radio Dubuque company (which has only owned the station since 2000). Any notability here rests with the individual stations (the company does not inherit any from that). WCQuidditch☎✎04:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. Worth spending some time on the KDTH article as well then, to support with more/better citations. (Have come across newspaper articles in Newspapers.com referring to KDTH's longer history so think it should be straightforward.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any discussion on the proposed merger? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Added more coverage to the article. Leaning keep at the moment; still searching for more. At minimum, if we are to redirect, it would require a merge with the Dubuque, Iowa § Radio. Haven't added to either article yet, but there is coverage outside of the local newspaper that points out that Radio Dubuque is one of the few independents in an Iowa radio market dominated by Clear Channel Communications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
_(16844722920).jpg){kind=icon}
Note: This is is embarrassing so I'll withdraw this nomination. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree Hammad (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)