The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Giving another seven days to be further reviewed for consensus to be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools aren't inherently notable. This one fails GNG, and also fails WP:NORG. Just because it exists doesn't make it notable. Notability needs to be demonstrated, and it hasn't been. ─ The Aafī(talk)17:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, a huge thank to The Banner for your work in tidying up this article. We all know how difficult and time-consuming it is going through an article and removing the advertising, promotion, PoV and unsourced material. Genuinely, I commend anyone who does it so consistently. Thank you. Nevertheless, according to WP:GNG this article needs to be kept as more than one secondary source gives significant coverage to the school, meet exactly the stated requirements for 'significant coverage', which state: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Pjposullivan (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Monitor, and Berkeley Center the mention of the school is critical to the articles, however it is not the main topic of the source material. The main topic being the headmaster, or anti-corruption efforts. Though, I hesitate to mention the PRWeb article, as I'm not exactly sure what the PRWeb article actually is, it's neither a blog, the school nor their owner's website. Pjposullivan (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we just disagree about what is significant coverage, then. The Monitor doesn't say anything more than "The clubs are thriving in Ocer Campion Jesuit College" and "The overall winners of the debate competition were Gulu town-based Ocer Campion Jesuit College", which strikes me as trivial (the 100-word rule is good advice, even if it isn't a formal guideline). The Berkeley Center piece is just an interview, which at least in my view isn't "independent" for purposes of the GNG since it's just the headmaster speaking about his school. I agree with your skepticism of PRWeb: it's presumably just a press release (probably what the "PR" stands for) from some organization that's financially connected to the school. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Why would it be notable, when other such school articles are routinely deleted. Redirect is a good alternative to deletion. The references including the press-release (PRWeb, a site that should never be visted by any editor in good standing) are mostly routine coverage, proving it exists. There is not one secondary source amongst the lot of them. scope_creepTalk11:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 This is sufficient coverage under WP:NMCriteria for musicians and ensembles No. 1 which states; "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The collaboration with John Oates and the covers of Daft Punk music coverage is significant. I also did see some other sources when searching in news on Google about tours, which could be added, but I didn't look too much into those specifically. Waddles🗩🖉20:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where is the evidence? The coverage that is there is due to John Oates and Daft Punk, not him. He is unknown, totally obscure and no referencess have been provided that show him as notable, on this own. It is case of NotInherited. It is worth noting that it is standard industry practice, almost a trope, to do collaborations between new musicians and well established muscians, to promote the new musician. It is as old as the sun. So far there has not be one piece of evidence provides that indicates he is notable. And quoting WP:SIGCOV make it true. scope_creepTalk17:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: While I'm not necessarily a fan of the subject, I've heard of him well before the creation of his Wikipedia article and I'm sure many more can say the same, so he's not really "unknown". Also, he didn't inherit notability from Daft Punk, he covered Daft Punk songs, they went viral, and he gained popularity, meaning he has some self-earned notability here if I'm correct. Waddles🗩🖉17:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't work like that on here, and your confirming he is non-notable by definition. If it was a coupla, hundred thousand of your mates, and they bought or streamed his record, he would be instantly notable. Where the references that satisfy WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV? scope_creepTalk17:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Significant coverage is coverage of the subject or topic by multiple sources with/or multiple news articles, searching "Saxsquatch" into Google News yields multiple results. So there's significant coverage, then now does he meet any of WP:MUSICBIO requriements? Yes, with this significant coverage, he easily satisfies "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself", which is stated at MUSICBIO. Waddles🗩🖉17:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've haven't presented any evidence, so far that he is notable, so far,just oh, he is notable characterisation, which is itself suspect. And you don't need to keep quoting policy. scope_creepTalk17:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're very poor. They are a mixture of primary refs, passing mentions and those are non-specific to the article, e.g. Cale, where the subject is an incidental. None of them are secondary sources, reviews of this work for example, or ones that focus exclusively on him, would be ideal. Not incidental or tangenital links. Proper secondary sources that satisfies Musicbio. scope_creepTalk18:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 Forbes Senior Contributor. Opiniones express by Forbes Contributors are they're own. Low quality sources.
Ref 2 An interview with John Oates, mentioning in his new sigle in his two short paragraphs. It is music release and is not indepth.
Ref 3 Non-RS. It is trademark application
Ref 4 States the headliner in passing mention is Saxsquatch at ACE Adventure Resort. Passing mention.
Ref 5 Somebody making on Twitter. It is non-RS. It is not an official annoucement.
Ref 6 Another teamup, again from the John Oates Context. A passing mention.
Ref 7 4 sentences with a video. The does have 2.583 millions on Youtube. When you search on Youtube his coverage ranges from 16k up to 88k to 112k streams, so he is notable on Youtube.
I don't plan to look at the rest of the references. All of them are in a contextual relationship to John Oates and Daft Punk. All the other is passing mentions. When you do a before on the subject, it comes John Oates teams with Saxsquatch. Here is Rolling Stones [1]] take on it. Again from the John Oates angle. There is not coverage on the musician at this time. He fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO. It is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. scope_creepTalk14:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The fact that a large amount of the coverage involves his collaborations with other artists does not disqualify it from being significant coverage. That's what I was referring to when I said that you were making up notability requirements that don't exist. Also, I'd recommend looking at refs 11 and 13; they both go fairly in depth on who this guy is and what he's done, particularly ref 11. And don't say they're interviews, including a statement by the subject of the article doesn't make them interviews. Mlb96 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are all in references to Oates. The standalone articles that only mentions him, in detail in his own context, that are secondary in-depth sources. Where are those sources? They are not in the article. I provided the Rolling Stone ref, which is I see it is in the article (I didn't see it), to illustrate that point The whole article is about John Oates and nothing else. The subject is mentioned in passing only as an add-on. It is inherited from John Oates. The test of this, is if John Oates wasn't there, he would not be mentioned. The same with Daft Punk. He is a good session player, no doubt about it, but that is the whole it, at this time. scope_creepTalk19:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, he was never associated with Daft Punk, he covered songs from them and gained notability from that. This is the same situation as how artists/groups like Blue Swede gained notability from their cover of B.J. Thomas's "Hooked on a Feeling". If that one song did not exist, they would have been unpopular or completely unknown today. In this case, if "One More Time" did not exist, Saxsquatch would be irrelevant. Since the song does exist, and he covered it without actual collaboration with Daft Punk, he has uninherited notability and passes the SIGCOV and GNG. Waddles🗩🖉19:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating the exact same argument as before even though I already explained why it is wrong: there is no requirement that he be the main topic of the source for the source to qualify as significant coverage. Your contention that The test of this, is if John Oates wasn't there, he would not be mentioned has no basis in policy. Yes, the coverage would not exist if not for the fact that he's doing a collaboration with Oates, but that is completely irrelevant. The reason that the coverage exists doesn't matter (unless it's paid self-promotion, which this clearly is not), what matters is that the coverage does exist. You also continue to request sources even though I specifically pointed out which sources I am referring to. This discussion is approaching WP:IDONTHEARTHAT territory. Mlb96 (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator is correct, despite protests. What coverage is significant is not in reliable or independent sources and what coverage is in reliable sources is not significant. The "does not need to be the main subject" clause offers no protection because the coverage of a secondary subject still needs to be more than a few sentences. It is wholly relevant and, in fact, the essence of the SIGCOV standard that coverage of a subject that exists should exist on the merits of the subject independently. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)16:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
NN bus station. Article gives no indication of anything that would make it notable. Sources do not meet WP:GNG - non-independent and/or non-trivial mentions. Searching does not turn up much more. WP:MILL bus station. MB13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In India, bus terminals are important. I added some news articles that suggest that some bus routes could be shifted to this terminal to reduce traffic congestion. Interestingly, this terminal was officially opened by Buddhadev Bhattacharya, the then chief minister of West Bengal. Eastmain (talk • contribs)14:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sabmilega.com appears to be some kind of web directory filled with misspellings and odd capitalizations, and has only a couple of sentences about this terminal. Doubtful as a reliable source.
This article from The Statesman (India) is also a reliable source but has less than one relevant sentence: "The administration plans to shift the parking area (at Siliguri Junction) to Paribahan Nagar in Matigara, while buses running between Siliguri and Jalpaiguri will depart from the PC Mittal Bus Terminus."
This article from The Telegraph (India) also contains less than one relevant sentence: "'Private buses bound for Calcutta and Bihar will be shifted to Paribahan Nagar, (in the northwest end of the city) while buses running between Siliguri and Jalpaiguri will depart from PC Mittal Bus Terminus (which is in the northeastern parts of Siliguri),' the chairperson said."
Merge to Siliguri#Bus service. It seems like everything noteworthy that can be said about this bus station can fit in a paragraph in the article where it is already mentioned. We really don't need an article saying that a bus terminal has parking and a restroom, or even a bookstore. BD2412T21:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally prefer if they are not merged, as I find separate articles easier to search for (both within Wikipedia and through external search engines) and you lose the cordinate info and "nearby places" info available on the mobile site too. NemesisAT (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP is not a travel guide; mentioning restrooms and the like is unencyclopedic. Would support either merge suggested by BD2412. MB19:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 As it stands, the subject has four good sources, two from the BBC[2][3] and two from the Leicester Mercury[4][5]. Note that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. per WP:GNG so these count as two towards passing GNG (which technically counts as multiple). Also note that all four articles are from the period of July-August 2021 and that GNG requires that the subject has [..] attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. The source from nbsnews.com[6] is a trivial mention and should not go towards GNG. Regarding the statement that we can pretty reasonably assume she's likely to receive further coverage in the future, Wikipedia is not a crystalball per WP:CRYSTALBALL and either the subject has enough significant coverage to pass GNG now or she doesn't. Alvaldi (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment: Your reasoning says the person meets GNG, but only not because of the section “Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time”. However within that section I don’t read something that is in line with this article. That section is mainly written for event, “Brief bursts of news coverage”, WP1event. For a person it says “ If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.” And as pointed out above; that is not the case. SportsOlympic (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SportsOlympic Actually it is exactly the case. This is clearly a BLP1E case, all the press coverage is in relation to the recent Paralympic Games. In addition most of the sources are either routine or simply mentions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is more press coverage during the Paralympics, that is the reason of >80% of the Paralympic articles. With that reason also all medalist at most recent Games would not be notable according to you. And it is not a case for 1 event. That would be the case if all the woth mentioning stuff would be related to the 2020 Paralympics, and it s assumed she will not become notable in another event. The the sources are writing about her for instance also about her 2018 European Championships, 2019 World Championships winning bronze, and winning a 2020 award. So no, she it not only notable for the Paralympics. A redirect to the 2020 Paralympics would not be appropriate for her. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To exaggerate (yes I know!), but with your reasoning, Amber Merritt that became a good article here (and there might be even better examples) should be removed as it has only reliable sources of that Paralympic period in 2012. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The NBCNews.com link Tokyo Paralympic Games welcomes record number of LGBTQ athletes is mentioned twice above for its coverage. It mentions her only once: As with the Summer Olympics, the majority of openly LGBTQ Paralympians are women, including four members of Great Britain’s women’s wheelchair basketball team — Jude Hamer, Robyn Love, Lucy Robinson and Laurie Williams. That is a trivial mention.—Bagumba (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG without multiple sources of significant coverage from independent sources. Only BBC and Leicester Mercury have been identified. GNG says that multiple sources are generally expected, not merely a couple. Does not meet SNGs WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NOLYMPICS, which only presumes notability of Paralympic medal winners. Per the guideline WP:WHYN: We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes the WP:GNG's requirements of "multiple sources", "independent of the subject", and "significant coverage". Respondent above me quotes one thing then claims the opposite. Looks like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument to me, which is a bit troubling, given the topic. Always best just to stick to the facts and the policies. gidonb (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sustained coverage over a significant period of time to pass WP:GNG. While the subject does have four good articles from two publications, the general notability guideline states that coverage should be over a sufficiently significant period of time per WP:SUSTAINED. These four articles are all from July and August 2021, i.e. a brief bursts of news coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What "substantial role"? She played 3/6 matches for a team that finished 4th outta 5 in the group stage, lost their quarterfinal and finished 7th. No notability is gained from competing in the Paralympics. Dougal18 (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her role was sufficiently substantial that it was covered in multiple reliable sources. We keep articles about Olympic athletes based purely on the assumption that they'll have sigcov, but most never get as much coverage as this paralympian. pburka (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka, we have an SNG for the Olympics because the Olympics are viewed as a substantially important sporting event to confer notability. The Paralympic Games do not enjoy the same status. As there is no SNG, our default policy is GNG. Given that all the press is within a month of each other, how does this topic pass WP:SUSTAINED? It doesn't. Therefore WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS does apply, and the topic fails GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 4meter4, I tried to respond to this question below, with a reference to what appears to be the concern of WP:SUSTAINED with regard to 'brief bursts of news coverage' about a single event; this is not WP:BLP1E, including because Robinson is covered for more than one event, and she is not low-profile. Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. They don't. The sources describe her career up to that date, as well as providing substantial biographical information.
Counter-view. They do. Subject lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage. No one wrote on her until this one event. If she were notable for another event, there would be earlier coverage of that event in independent RS of those events. Taking the history of someone once they do one thing that is notable doesn't confer notability on past events covered in a biographical profile.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. She's an international athlete competing at the highest level of her sport, so she's not low-profile.
Counter-view. She is an athlete that only received coverage during this one international event. She may or may not receive further coverage depending on whether she continues to compete in high profile events. WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we shouldn't assume that this will happen. WP:TOOSOON applies. 4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The 2020/2021 Paralympics are significant and her role is well documented.
Counter-view. She is a low profile and low performing para-Olympic athlete that did not achieve anything significant within her field. She played 3/6 matches for a team that finished 4th outta 5 in the group stage, lost their quarterfinal and finished 7th. The ParaOlympics lack an NSPORT SNG because they do not inherently confer notability on their participants.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As discussed above, these are not 'briefs bursts of news coverage' about a single event, due to the in-depth coverage of her and her past career, as well as the WP:SECONDARY commentary about the significance of her participation. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr how exactly? The earlier coverage is from sources too closely connected with the subject to be considered independent (like her university). I'm not seeing evidence of SUSTAINED significant coverage in independent sources.4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr yes I saw that. But the sources you provided above to meet SIGCOV are all within a month of each other. SUSTAINED requires a subject have coverage across time. This generally means over multiple years in the way we interpret at AFD. A flurry of coverage in the news within a month of each other is generally condensed to count as only a single source of evidence towards meeting GNG; no matter how many refs are found in that window. We need two additional quality independent RS that fall outside of that time period (preferably a year or more earlier). Otherwsie WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E apply.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS appears to support a standalone artcle, e.g. it states, In addition to writing in encyclopedic tone, events must be put into encyclopedic context. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and the in-depth coverage and WP:SECONDARY context from multiple independent and reliable news sources allows the encyclopedic context to be created for this article. This is not the 'breaking news' that this policy warns against, because the news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event. And WP:BLP1E is focused on avoiding articles on low-profile individuals, which Robinson is not, and she is also not covered only for one event, so the concerns of this guideline do not apply to this article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added some more sources, including a full length article about her from 2018 about her gold medal win in the IWBF U24 European tournament. There's also this which I was unable to fit in. This should hopefully satisfy arguments about WP:BLP1E and WP:SUSTAINEDCiphriusKane (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Winning gold in a U24 (!) 3 team championship and being nominated for a Pride of Charnwood Award doesn't make anyone notable. I don't see why unnotable "achievements" should be lumped together to argue a GNG pass. Dougal18 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not a subjective assessment, because it is based on the existence of sources that support inclusion per the guidelines and policies. The recently added 2018 news article features Robinson in the headline and the article, includes biographical information about her, and further supports her notability for inclusion per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CiphriusKane This is a good start. However, the Loughborough Echo is a very local newspaper from where the subject and her athletic club reside. As such, it lacks independence and can not be used to surpass WP:SUSTAINED concerns. If we can locate even one source from a major regional paper with similar coverage I would be happy to change my vote.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the factors identified in the guidelines and policies, as discussed in the explanatory supplement WP:INDEPENDENT, a local newspaper does not appear to lose independence simply by being local. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr Yes it does. Per policy at WP:AUD we can reasonably infer that local coverage isn't notable precisely because local stories are targeted to a local audience which doesn't give them enough distance from their community to establish independence or notability for encyclopedic purposes. I'll also point out that this is the normal critique of local news sources at AFD for years. There is a lot of precedent here and you are advocating a novel point of view. 4meter4 (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that WP:AUD applies but we should note that it mainly states that an article can not be solely sourced by local sources and that at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. The subject already has a national source from the BBC. Alvaldi (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that WP:AUD is based around the concept of indiscrimination found at Wikipedia:Independent sources#Relationship to notability; which does apply in all AFDs, including this one. Local new coverage is inherently indiscriminate in their coverage as they cover topics with specifically local interest, but not necessarily wider interest and significance. In order to prove SUSTAINED we need to see SUSTAINED coverage in sources with a wider target audience. That would seem to be the best interpretation of the spirit of our policies. Otherwise we are WP:Wikilawyering to get around what our policies are meant to uphold.4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The arguments for deletion have become severely strained. At first it was that notability guidelines were not met. As the number of in-depth sources increased to the point that it became hard to deny that GNG is superficially met, the argument shifted to a lack of sustained coverage. But how could we expect someone who recently became notable to ever already evince sustained coverage? It cannot be right that I'm forbidden from making reasonable guesses about the probability that this person will receive in-depth coverage in the future when the policy specifically requires that the person "remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". No argument has been made that this person is and is likely to remain a low profile individual, which is an explicit requirement of WP:SUSTAINED. By the time the deletion rationale is that one of the sources is too geographically proximate to the area that the subject is from, I'm satisfied that GNG is met. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm puzzled by the lengths people are going to to try to delete this article. Multiple articles in the BBC establish notability per WP:GNG. Coverage is over three years so clearly WP:SUSTAINED is met. There is no reason why local news can't count for establishing notability. NemesisAT (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
De-PROD'd without any rationale in the edit summary or talk page, and no sources have been added.
My PROD rationale was: Can't find any indication that this is actually a technical term with this meaning. All results are simply phrases using "predictive" as an adjective. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete I agree with user PMC. It is a vague term that can be used in many facets of prediction and forecasting, but not a textbook term by any measure. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Nonetheless, there is sufficient consensus, even when discounting the nomination, for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only known for a single event. Does not have significant coverage from the citations. Zainul Shares a great bond with his city and ventured into ultra marathon running to set an example for them. Seems like the main agenda here is to promote the subject Pillechan(പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)20:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as per nominator. The subject's involvement in the films listed in the filmography is as a line producer or an associate producer, or a film that will be released in 2022 and so is too soon. The references do not establish general notability.
Number
Reference
Remarks
Independent
Significant
Reliable
Secondary
1
Outlook India
An interview
No
No
2
Business Standard
An interview: Talks about the role of a publicist, publicizing himself
No
No
3
Google
Results of naïve Google search
No
No
4
Book My Show
Sells tickets
No
No
No
No
5
Nalanda Home TV
6
Mid-day.com
An interview
No
No
7
Deccan Herald
Interview about covid
No
No
8
Gulf Today
An ad for a film, does not appear to mention subject
Comment - The creator, or an associate of their creator, has now requested draftification, after move-warring to prevent draftification. Please do not move this article while this AFD is in progress, and do not interrupt this AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Closer - If the consensus is to draftify, please include a note that the draft may only be accepted through AFC and not unilaterally. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nominator. All coverages are paid. No reliable sources are found. Even the articles have backlinks of his own website. Seems self-promotional case.Divineplus (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I think it should be sent back in draft as there are many links to Marathi sources of this person which are yet to be submitted, which I am investigating.Thank Yoy. Azaishah2000 (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Research and review is in progress, if able to add few supportive and reliable link so it could not be appropriate to delete it. Zgz.or (talk) 14:52, October 10, 2021 (UTC).
Speedy Keep This is a notable person, who has contributed a lot for regional films, I believe instead of removing this page, put the tag of 'more citations needed'.Thank You.Urbanlife1984 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I am new editor i don't know much about this matter then experienced editor, but after checking this page and collecting information from other sources, i found this person noteworthy who has contributed a lot to Marathi films. It seems to me that better then deleting this page, it would be better to put an advertisement tag on it.Thank You.Priyatungi (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Following WP:BEFORE, first: a read through 5 of the sources that are currently present on the page, even that that labelled as 'Hindi Title' (Google Translate mobile app has translations on the fly. Machine translation aside, it is pretty readable), are of a single press release that promotes the subject's new publicity agency to that effect. Thus, it is possible to remove 4 of the 6 references here. The only exception is the source for Premaatur, which is totally irrelevant to the subject in its content. This backs the analysis by Robert McClenon. Second: A search on Google (Google Search, Google News) reveals that there is no other sources beyond what is cited. Can this article be improved with its current sourcing? No. Can it be improved with new sources? possible. But should the article be kept? On the basis that 5 of 6 sources are a single press release; that the subject has a publicity agency; and a totally brand new editor (and a couple of somewhat new editors) appearing in the AfD and vote stacking, I am inclined to think that there are some elements of WP:UPE, WP:COI, WP:SOCK, and/or meat sock involved. I don't recommend draftification, as an AfC reviewer, I would have rejected the draft (if each of the keep vote here thus far was a declined submission as a draft, given that there was not much of an improvement in the time between their keep votes). Thus, my vote to delete. – robertsky (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
random musing. If this article survives, and an Advertisement tag is placed, wouldn't this be publicity for the subject and the publicity agency? – robertsky (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep; I found the company's market has been developed to Iran, che[7], an American company with a worldwide market. Also It was mentioned as a one the best companies in production of smart AC controllers in 2019.[8]Brayan ocaner (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company was featured on The Express Tribune[9] which is an independent reliable sources. Also two of company's products was introduces as 7 Best Smart AC Controllers For Ductless Fans by Heavy[10] and was featured on The Times of India[11]· passes Wikipedia:CORP.Seddiq Sabri22:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By reviewing the sources, I see that there are multiple reliable sources in article and considering the coverage of one of the company's product by The Times of India, verify this. passes WP:GNG.Mahdiar86 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 couldn't find a working link for News.Yatanarporn.
The first YouTube, at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w9b1syhgegA , is from a verified channel. I have no idea what the video says, but Google translates the text intro as "In commemoration of the opening of Shwe San Nwe Free Eye Hospital led by Shwe San Nwe Sayadaw, rice was donated to the disabled and locals". I also don't know if DVB TVnews is a reliable source (although it has nearly one million subscribers).
Deleteno opinion [see "Comment on change to no opinion", below]. Poor sourcing, and a language barrier, make this a tough one. Proof of notability is sorely lacking. Of the four sources specified (see my comments, above):
The first is a newspaper article I can't translate. Maybe it's a reliable source; maybe the coverage is significant; maybe not.
The second link doesn't respond, and isn't on the Wayback Machine. I've googled and found references to other newspapers in Yatanarpon, but not this one. Not promising as a reliable source.
The third link is to a YouTube channel that is verified, and might conceivably be a reliable source; I don't know. However, based on the text description of the video, and watching the video without understanding what's said, it appears to be Shwesannwe Sayadaw making a brief public statement about a hospital -- not in depth coverage of the speaker.
The last link is to a YouTube channel that isn't verified. Fail! Also, if I were to hazard a guess, it appears to be a video copy of a TV news channel, with no proof of copyright authorization. So....not a reliable source.
In sum, this doesn't look like the coverage suffices. At best, there's one source, or maybe one and one half. I didn't have much luck in finding more, although there were many links. My guess is that, if someone who spoke Burmese, and maybe even was up on religious celebrities, took a crack at the article, they would find more. However, my guess isn't good enough. For now, this means deletion. If it's any consolation, my hunch is that most of the article is unreferenced, and would have to be deleted anyway (although I liked the title of the third publication in the list, which Google translates as "If the needle is missing, search for it with an elephant"). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another comment. I tried to search the Burmese Wikipedia. I searched for what I think is his name - ရွှေဆံနွယ်ဆရာတော် or maybe ရႊဆံႏြယ္ဆရာေတာ - and got no matches. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on change to no opinion. Thanks to Taung Tan for finding more sources. I used Google Translate on the articles. If I understand correctly, both mentioned Shwesannwe Sayadaw only briefly (e.g., as part of a ceremony). However, if he received "one of the highest state religious titiles" that might be enough to satisy WP:ANYBIO #2 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"). I don't know if this award qualifies, so I can't vote keep, but I won't vote delete either. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Traveling Man: Thanks for your comment. For his title, don't translate to English pls use Find in page tool at the source page and search this words "နိုင်ငံတော် ဓမ္မကထိက ဗဟုဇနဟိတဓရ ရွှေဆံနွယ်ဆရာတော်" (his title + name). Cheers Taung Tan (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a highly respected senior monk. He received one of the highest state religious titiles "နိုင်ငံတော် ဓမ္မကထိကဗဟုဇနဟိတဓရ" (Dhamma Kathika Bahujanahitadhara) by government of Myanmar, mentioned in [12]. He also played a key role and representative in the buddhist cooperation between Myanmar and China, reported by the national newspaper see [13]. Taung Tan (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Is there really enough significant coverage by secondary sources independent of Billboard magazine on this specific chart? Sure, it is regularly cited by several reputable sources but tons of passing mentions don't make a subject notable. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification by nominator: I am aware that this chart is incredibly significant and I agree that it is arguably the biggest album chart in the world. But does it need its own stand-alone article? Couldn't it be sufficiently covered at Billboard charts or at Billboard (magazine) in two or three paragraphs? I just don't see the significant coverage required to flesh out an entirely separate article. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Did you do anyWP:BEFORE at all on this? Any music fan or anyone who is in the broadcast industry knows what the Billboard 200 is, and it's reported on every single week by wire services. Nate•(chatter)22:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have done BEFORE of course. Your argument sounds like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I repeat, tons of passing mentions don't constitute notability. In what way exactly are wire services reporting on it? Does their reporting constitute significant coverage? Significant coverage to me would delve into what the chart is, its history, significance, cultural impact, etc. I don't see a lot of secondary sources doing that. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's week to week coverage of the songs that are actually a part of the chart. It would be absolutely time-wasting for the writers of Rolling Stone, iHeart, Audacy, and every radio journal since Your Hit Parade was still a thing to have paragraphs about the history of the chart. This nomination would be like asking to delete the articles for Nielsen ratings and List of highest-grossing films because they didn't explain the history of those entities in every article about them. Nate•(chatter)00:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That does not change the fact that significant coverage is needed for there to be a stand-alone article on the subject. This article is not a stand-alone list and even if it was, it would be subject to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am not asking to delete those articles you list because they have already established their notability through the sources they use. In order to fill this article with information, independent significant coverage by reliable secondary sources is required to provide that information. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Article has existed since 2004. Notable topic. Reasonable sourcing. (I'm not saying it can't be improved but that is true of all articles and it is definitely good enough for a speedy keep.) I tried to count the number of incoming links and I got bored with trying to go through the list page by page, even 500 at a time. 62K people have looked at it in the last month. This is absolutely not what a deletable article looks like. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Length of existence and page views don't constitute notability. Again, sounds like THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Looking at the amount of sources is not enough. It has to be evaluated whether the coverage they provide is significant. The article is poorly sourced, it relies almost entirely on primary sources and large portions go completely unsourced (not that this has any bearing on whether the article should be deleted or not). Throast (talk | contribs) 23:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and possible bad faith nomination. Article needs to be improved, not deleted. Sure it is dependent on references to Billboard itself, and a basic (make that VERY basic} Internet search for information about the chart has even more Billboard piled up near the top. But a more knowledgeable search of terms like <"Billboard 200 analysis"> or <"Billboard 200 history"> in Google or Google Books reveals what everyone here except the nominator already knows: this is the premier albums chart in America for the past several decades and only someone unfamiliar with music would think it is non-notable just by looking at the current state of the article. Here are just a few among hundreds of possibilities: [14], [15], [16], plus dozens of books on chart history that get reviews by pros in both music and literature. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Google nor Google books spur out much independent significant coverage when typing in the search terms you suggest. This is very specifically about the Billboard 200 chart, not about Billboard charts in general (which we already have an article for). The top-three out of "hundreds" of sources you provide also don't go into detail about this specific chart, but rather about Billboard charts in general. The Forbes source is written by a contributor, articles of which are agreed to be generally unreliable.
I'm very aware of the significance of this chart. I'm not suggesting that the term "Billboard 200" should be wiped entirely from Wikipedia. I'm arguing that the chart is sufficiently covered as a supplement on other articles like the one I linked to above, and is simply not deserving of a stand-alone article per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is turning out to be highly contentious. There are assumptions made against me that I feel like I'm allowed to defend myself against. Funnily enough, "Billboard 200 analysis" at either Google or Google Books does not show more than one page of results, which leads me to believe that you haven't even done the research you're claiming to have done. Trust me when I say that I have done my BEFORE on this as I was genuinely interested in improving the article. It is only my duty as a conscientious editor to nominate an article for deletion when it turns out that no material exists to build a fully fleshed out article on. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For me, <"Billboard 200 history"> gets 11 pages of results in standard Google and 9 pages of results in Google Books. <"Billboard 200 analysis"> brings up 2 and 1 pages respectively. In either case, navigating beyond the first few entries at the top reveals the independent sources that you keep insisting don't exist. And those search terms were only two suggestions. I recommended the use of creative searches when a standard search is swamped by the obvious, and you could come up with more creative ideas. Or keep on digging that hole, it's your choice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Something POINT-Y about this nomination. Clearly a notable and established chart, with citations and sources, and with links to countless discography articles of notable albums, artists etc. Very little basis for a genuine deletion nomination. doktorbwordsdeeds05:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It seems the user who has nominated the article for deletion, has personal issues with the article! First he added several tags on article and then nominated for deletion! Although it's completely notable. Brayan ocaner (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I thought this was a joke. This chart is most probably the most notable album chart in existence. I can't imagine what the nominator motivation is, other than to prove a point, whatever that point is. The snowball clause clearly holds, so I propose this be closed and further time wastage avoided. (The one good thing that came out of this is that I got to search Google Scholar for articles about this chart. Happy reading.) --Muhandes (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "wasting time", why not provide actual hard evidence for stand-alone notability? I've nominated because I genuinely couldn't find any good sources to work off of to improve the article. You're providing one source that's behind a registration wall, which, again, I'm not even sure covers this specific chart from reading its title and abstract. If adequate sources are so plentiful and easy to find according to everyone here, why not link to them and cut this short?
I'm baffled by the way this is being handled and by the way I'm being characterized. I believe genuine concerns by fellow Wikipedians should be respected and not dismissed outright like it's being done by many here. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I regret that you are baffled. But if you are a New Page Patroller, Billboard is mighty important for page review. Very very important. I regret your confusion. *Absolutely* *Notable*. This chart is most probably the most notable album chart in existence. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Throast: I am going to break the rules here and show you why we consider Billboard *Absolutely* *Notable*
I am not nominating "Billboard" for deletion. I am nominating the specific article for the "Billboard 200" chart for deletion. I am aware that Billboard magazine and even its charts in general are very much notable. Notability however is not inherited by association. Saying that something is "very, very important" and "absolutely notable" does not make it such. There has to be significant coverage on the Billboard 200 chart in specific, which I and apparently all the editors commenting here, have a hard time finding. I don't see how listing a bunch of Billboard-related templates proves your point that the Billboard 200 chart should have its own stand-alone article. Throast (talk | contribs) 11:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – like others have said, I literally thought this was a joke at first. Regardless of whether the page in its current state "only uses primary sources", this is no joke one of the biggest music charts in the world. Music charts of other countries of this nature are smaller than this article currently so based on your logic what makes them notable? Especially considering how more relevant the Billboard 200 is compared to say the Norwegian Albums Chart. This whole thing and your logic are just confusing. – zmbro(talk)13:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy requires me to nominate every lesser article for deletion first? I know that the current state of the article is irrelevant and it is not part of my argument. I've literally stated that above. If you had read my comments, you would know what my argument is. I have to keep repeating myself. Relevancy is not equal to notability. Is this article exempt from WP:GNG? Again, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES without providing any that constitute significant coverage.
Comment - I'm one of the main contributors to the article, having updated its current #1 every week since the issue dated August 7. I also updated some of the chart's achievements/milestones, such as with Drake and Certified Lover Boy a few weeks ago. In total, I have edited the article 21 times, the most recent being yesterday with the inclusion of this week's number 1 album "Sincerely, Kentrell", and am in the top 12 by number of edits. Having said that, I have to agree with the other participants in this AfD nomination is dumb. Marioedit8 (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the GNG is not a policy, it is a guideline. This chart is clearly notable as can be shown from wire services reporting on it every week. I haven't seen an argument advanced for how deleting this article would actually improve the encyclopedia. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
According to Wikipedia:Notability (books), a notable book should be subject of at least two non-trivial published works that are independent of the book itself. One of the citations in the article is the book itself and two are not about the book. Pahlevun (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Played one game of football over 10 years ago according to the cited source as well as Soccerway, then completely disappeared. He didn't even seem to feature in the second or third tiers of Bulgaria so, if he is active at all, is likely to be at purely an amateur, local level. Clear consensus that such weak WP:NFOOTBALL passes do not automatically mean that the subject passes WP:GNG. Bulgarian language searches in Google News and DDG come back with no results that relate to football so hard to see how Dechev would pass GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)19:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman21:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Played just the one professional game over 10 years ago according to Soccerway and Football Database, which, by consensus, is only a weak presumption of passing WP:GNG. The Sportal reference is just a small injury announcement so doesn't establish notability.
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman21:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, to me, playing a professional match meets GNG and NFOOTBALL, although just one match is not an impressive amount of a career. If he had won some notable individuals honors in the amateur circuits I would be more amicable to a stronger keep. Cobyan02069 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Certainly fails GNG and it looks as if he also fails the SNG as a youth player only. I suspect this article is autobiographical as his name in the infobox is Sourav Ahmed and the author is called Sourav ahmed Khan. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It also seems like an autobiography a hoax. Look at the state of the article, the title says Sourav Chowdhury, the article says Sourav Ahmed, and the references and links point to Shoriful Islam. Clog WolfHowl05:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 cross intersection rule only applies to trivial cross categorizations like 'Albanians employed by Microsoft'. I would hardly consider living recipients of the highest award of Britain as 'trivial' or 'non-notable'. As for the OR, that can easily be fixed by using a magical resource called Google to find reliable sources for the recipients. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 17:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am bemused it can be thought appropriate to describe these people as a "trivial intersection" or members of "associated misdemeanours". There are remarkably few recipients still living even though people can still be awarded the medal. In this sense the membership is unlike war survivors. We can never be certain anyone is still alive but this does not prevent us from having articles about people written in the present tense. Thincat (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can provide sources to support your assertions that this is a remarkable topic (not merely sources which say "X won award" - see LISTN, as linked), your argument basically sums up to WP:ITSINTERESTING or WP:ITSIMPORTANT, both of which are mere personal opinions. Notability is not inherent or inherited, so that doesn't matter either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point (made in no uncertain terms in the closing statement of the above-linked AfD) is that we cannot have articles where the topic may disappear from one day to the next. Not its perceived notability; the topic itself, and any justification for the article's existence, will go away in a few years. [...] a list that by definition will be empty in X years cannot be encyclopaedic. This problem does not apply to the various Lists of Victoria Cross recipients, and would not apply to, e.g., List of last Victoria Cross recipients by nationality. I hope the difference is clear. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep I find these discussions interminable and overly bureaucratic, but as someone who has looked at many sources as I’ve taken articles on VC recipients to FA, I do note that there have been regular news articles in Australia that talk about how many surviving VC recipients there are, often even naming them all, stating who is the oldest and only surviving Vietnam War recipient etc. Not sure if this is relevant to this discussion, but perhaps so. I’m away from a computer for the week, but am happy to source a few of these news articles to prove my point if that would be helpful. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect my feelings are rather the same as yours. As well as the website cited above I found several British articles[17][18][19] and also some lesser sources, but decided that to present them would merely add to the acrimony. The nomination is on the basis of WP:NOTDIR #6 which policy declares that “Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations” are not included as articles regardless of whether reliable sources report on them. Whereas the view ascribed to me above that it is a remarkable topic is declared to be mere personal opinion, that it is a trivial intersection is to be accepted as an objective fact. Separately, it is claimed above that we cannot have articles where the topic may disappear from one day to the next. But the VC is still being awarded. The speculation that one day there will be no living recipients seems to be on the basis of no evidence. These mind-numbing AfDs are so depressing. Sorry to add to the interminable discussion. Thincat (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am also leaning towards Peacemaker and Thincat's reasoning here in that they are covered in separate articles in notable sources as a remarkable topic (therefore ruling out most of the alphabet soup cited in the deletes). This isn't the same as List_of_surviving_veterans_of_the_Spanish_Civil_War as that has a distinct end date. VC winners doe not as Peacemaker rightly points out that they may still be awarded. The VC&GC association keep a list of living recipients so it isn't OR either. I don't follow the argument that the recently deceased section is OR either. Recent deaths are also found on the VC&GC Association website (though I agree that the definition of recent is always up for debate). Woody (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is however very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living Medal of Honor recipients (whatever the most recent nomination is), which was deleted for the same reasons. The award being notable does not mean that every possible sublist of it that can be made is encyclopedic. "Alive" and "received decoration" is one amongst many ways ("Dead" and "born outside England"; "Alive" and "born on a Sunday", ...) to do it, but there's no source to substantiate that those who are alive are actually separately notable (a listing from members of the group itself would not be significant coverage of the subect [it's a mere listing] nor independent [it's very clearly note that members of this association are the same as the subject here, "living VC or GC recipients"]) from the group as a whole. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fundamentally unstable (and therefore unencyclopedic) list which could even become empty for some period of time. This information might reasonably be included in the encyclopedia by adding "death date" columns to the more comprehensive lists of VC recipients, but it shouldn't be a stand-alone list. Anyone who needs this info can use the more authoritative list maintained by The VC & GC Association. pburka (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that none of the references in the article establish the notability of the list ie that this is a group of people who are discussed significantly as a group. (the list - being so short - could also be within the appropriate Victoria Cross article even if not notable as standalone). GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Consensus at AFD recently has overwhelmingly supported not utilizing lists of "living..."; largely because such lists are constantly changing as people age and die and maintaining accuracy and verifiability is a difficult and on-going task. Many editors consider such lists not encyclopedic (because they are inherently unstable) and in contradiction to policy at WP:LISTN. I share that view which I consider now to be the standard modus operandi/precedent at AFD within the application of NLIST in these type of list discussions.4meter4 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN as noted above by Thincat and others. See here for example. I note in current news that the Queen is planning to award further medals as part of her forthcoming Jubilee. Recipients will include living VC holders along with others such as living holders of the George Cross. There is therefore some practical impact to this status. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the situation is different and so the same reasoning does not apply. In the case of the Medal of Honor list the closing rationale was that the list needs to demonstrate that sources deal with this topic independent of the list of all recipients; i.e., that sources have covered the currently living recipients as a body, rather than as single recipients or among all recipients but in this case we have several references completely specific this group – to the living recipients. These references have been supplied both earlier in this discussion and in the article itself. List articles have a greater purpose that merely to inform the reader of how many items are in the list. They also say who or what is in the group and (in this case) provide links to the articles we have about them. Thincat (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you are referring to the "lack of stability" arguments by 4meter4 and pburka. In the Medal of Honor discussion the closer said I'm not even giving much weight to the concerns that this list will have high turnover. For the Victoria Cross list the last substantive change was in 2018 and changes only occur every few years. When appointments are made or recipients die there is considerable press coverage so there are good opportunities for these occasional updates. Surely lists such as List of current United States governors are subject to (much) greater turnover. We have no guideline or policy against articles or list articles where the contents are liable to change but of course people are perfectly entitled to suggest changeable articles should be deleted although personally I would not support such a development. Thincat (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
since the coverage of the group of living recipients coincided with the medal ceremony with Queen Elizabeth, it looks like extended media coverage of the specific event (Just like everytime English football team gets anywhere in the World Cup, there will be articles on what happened the previous times) Which puts it into routine coverage rather than specifically looking at the group as a whole. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN - a prestigious award and an appropriate list of recipients to aid navigation and research. I am unmoved by a rationale which says, "yes I know it is notable but it may be empty some time in the future. At that point we can revisit a delete discussion, but at this point it is a notable list. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. This reminds me of the time someone tried to claim 867-5309 was non-notable. Even ignoring the many covers, remixes, translations, and videos of this song, Sladen's comment on the previous AfD about the significance of this song in the demoscene still seems to be relevant. —Twice Nothing (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Think the comment in [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Apple!!], still stands—though it is nearly 100 edits later and editing has changed the article significantly, perhaps losing the importance of the music/video as a "test card" for computing hardware: previous revisions of the article (Old revision of Bad Apple!!) had a list of the music/video ported to TI calculators, Oscilloscopes and various 1980s computing hardware—where the demoscene/"standard test item"-aspect was more visible. —Sladen (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Would probably benefit from some illustrations of the shadow-puppet imagery for context…?[reply]
Keep. The original song was not particularly notable, but over time it has became a very notable standard test item, much in the same way as the Lenna image. Jpatokal (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about a series of animated shorts, not making any properly sourced claim to passing our inclusion standards for web content. Other than the fact that it exists, the only notability claim being made here is of the "got X number of views on a streaming platform" variety, which is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of actual media coverage -- but this article, as written, is completely unsourced. As always, notability is not "it exists", but "it has enough media coverage about its existence to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing" -- and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any proper sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a list of mostly external links in violation of WP:ELLIST, in addition the whole article is violating WP:NAD, there have been attempts to clean-up the article, and if cleaned-up now it would be pretty much an empty shell. VVikingTalkEdits14:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Not sure how how the list now is violating WP:NAD. Unfair to single out this list amidst many other lists with the same issues. i have removed the URL links that were problematic and have begun to add citations. With time, the large number of editors that have contributed to the list over the past 5 years will quickly add the needed citations so nuclear option is not necessary. Contreb19 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to Keep. got the ping that the list is being considered for deletion. already seeing editors making effort for clean up. i will contribute as well. vote to keep and switch tag to
Delete For this list to be wiki-notable, we need either evidence that the collection of organizations as a whole is noteworthy, or that the individual organizations are. In the latter case, we can have a list of blue links, i.e., a list that points to existing articles, while in the former, our standards can be more relaxed. But I'm not sure the former path is actually a good way to approach the topic of STEM education in Africa. I mean, it's obvious that STEM education in Africa is a noteworthy subject, and we can without doubt find sources about it (UNESCO reports, etc.), but what does a list of organizations tell us about the subject? Our priority should be explaining the history of STEM education in Africa, the challenges it faces, the variations across the continent, and so forth. A list that includes everything from national academies of engineers to weeklong coding camps does not actually inform the reader. Basically, the topic is important, but it needs a completely different article, and the process of getting from here to there would be about the same as writing a new page from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update. XOR'easter made many excellent points, and in the critique, actually ended up highlighting that the list can be turned into something that provides the necessary context to inform the reader. The raw materials are there and it's possible to get from "here to there". For example, one critical update would be to rearrange the list not by name or country but by different categories of STEM organizations along with the historical contexts behind each STEM organization category (e.g., coding camps, academies etc) given what others have discovered in their research. One can even turn the list into a table adding other details about each organization/initiative (e.g., founding year, stated mission, the audience they serve, outcome metrics etc). The article would then continue to provide, in a much more informative/structured way, the state of STEM organizations across Africa. It would provide any reader a strong place to start in their own reading and research. Deleting the current list and pulling it from circulation is a nuclear option which obliterates the current foundation (which i know is weak due to the articulated issues) for readers to do their own reading and research. Again, the issues are acknowledged and everyone is now aware of them via this discussion. Better yet, we can put an appropriate tag on the list to recruit folk to make the necessary changes. Why not build on the foundation and make the necessary updates that XOR'easter has so eloquently suggested? Again, its possible to to get there. Am happy to move the list back to draft mode to make the necessary upgrades. Fmuindi2016 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any other way to make this list better enough to pass WP:LISTN. Nearly every one of those list entries are not notable and there is almost nothing addition that is present that validates them notable as a set. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not pass WP:GNG. The Forbes article is a trivial mention and is over ten years old and lacking an author so I would question the reliability of the source. The NYT article appears to be a press release from DealBook which was buying Wallstrip (also “citing an undisclosed source” does not bode well for reliability). The host, Julie Alexandria, has a short mention at Business Insider, but WP:BI should be taken into account. There’s some WP:ROUTINE coverage of the show being bought and sold by CBS such as this San Diego Union Tribune article, which appears more focused on Lindzon than the show. Searching on Google, Google News, Google News Archive, Google Books, and Google Scholar only yield passing mentions of the show in relation to the hosts or related shows, but nothing that would demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. It’s also worth mentioning that the show does not WP:INHERIT notability from its creator, hosts, or guests. A potential merge or redirect target is Howard Lindzon. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 actually created the article only because when I clicked for an English translation there wasn't one and the Wikipedia software suggested I create one. Is there a way to tag articles in other 'pedias so they don't suggest creating a translation if it isn't wanted?
Jeffrey Henning (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was started by User:Amerikids, who was later blocked because the username was promotional. In addition, the subject may have founded a company named Amerikids. A COI tag was added to the article, which was removed by User:September1947, which has only two edits, both to this article and is thus a WP:SPA. Recently User:GreenKids has been editing the article. I suggested that User:GreenKids might have a COI. User:GreenKids made a number of edits including finally editing Talk:Lynn Rogoff with proposed changes. I've made some of the changes, but I'm left with a feeling that the subject of this article is not notable.
Looking at WP:CREATIVE, they might meet one of the criteria, but not the others. They are not important or widely cited. They have not developed a new concept. They did write No Maps on My Taps, but I don't see a writing credit as meeting the requirements for notability. I could be wrong here. Their work is not a monument or exhibition.
Looking at WP:PROF, I don't see that the subject of the article meets any of the criteria. The awards they have received do not meet the notability requirements.
So, is the subject of this article notable because of their writing of No Maps on My Taps? Is this work a "significant or well-known work"? Is it the subject of "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? I feel it is borderline and would like the opinion of others here. Cxbrx (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added several references to the article to improve it, and weeded out some unverifiable content. COI is not as big of an issue now. She is the writer for an Emmy Award winning documentary which has had sustained notability (with coverage as late as 2017 in The New Yorker). Additionally, her play Love, Ben Love, Emma has coverage in academic reference works as well as reviews. Between these two contributions, she passes criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm happy with 4meter4 edits and removal of COI tag on the article. I felt that this article was borderline notable and wanted to have other editors take a look. I put quite a bit of effort in to the article, but had nagging doubts. I'd like to let this AfD continue to run and see if there is any other input. I'm fine with any outcome, mainly I wanted to be sure that I was not being conned in to keeping a non-notable article. Many thanks for everyone's time. Cxbrx (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that her status as writer for an Emmy Award winning documentary does prove notability, and a fairly wide variety of secondary sources do mention her. 4meter4's point about WP:CREATIVE strikes me as a good assessment. Naomi.piquette (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Questionably-notable periodical, astroturfed by rich donors to (per the editor) fund "culture wars". There are many grandiose claims, but a WP:BEFORE shows very little RS coverage of Standpoint. The four sources in the article are what there appears to be: a launch puff-piece in RFERL, a diary piece on a new editor in the Evening Standard, a reaction to launch publicity in the Independent, a story on funding in FT. The article, and the sources available, fail to show that Standpoint meets any of the prongs of WP:NPERIODICAL. If we look at the magazine as an organisation, the only thing that isn't launch publicity or a fundraising round is the Standard note; this fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. It looks like you can't buy notability. I'm willing to be shown wrong on this, but it would need to be shown, with RS coverage that demonstrates meeting the prongs of WP:NPERIODICAL or WP:CORPDEPTH, which the current, proffered and WP:BEFORE sources fail to. David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I deprodded the article moments ago. This is a conservative magazine. The magazine has existed and published since 2008. Here is an example of the type of conservative writer that have. can you see whow some would want to sensor such a writer? They take donations from people like Jeremy Hosking - who is a conservative. We can find many articles written about them. here is 1 Perhaps the relevant guideline is WP:WEBCRIT which says The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. This is a strong keep. Lightburst (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not really aware of the notability of this publication, or that of The Critic – which the nominator has also listed at AfD. I have added some sources to this article, but I don't know if this fully indicates notability in and of itself; in the past, I have not been a good judge on these things, and Gerard does raise some valid issues in both discussions. So I will abstain from voting one way or another. But I do question the nomination of two right-leaning publications for AfD after a failed WP:PROD deletion by the same user, and as I have said in the Critic discussion, I am finding it hard to assume good faith for these nominations. –Bangalamania (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that in general, positing a political conspiracy theory for a deletion nomination - particularly one with detailed reasons set out - is not a well respected argument in deletion discussions - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the two keeps are not convincing: notability is not inherited; and claiming that something meets GNG/SIGCOV would actually require that sources which show this be provided, not a mere vague wave at the policy. Redirecting would be a valid alternative to deletion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I read this AFD I thought that if a piece in the communist Morning Star was the best that could be found then that was pretty thin. But on searching I almost immediately found a substantial piece in the Financial Times[21] and another in The Times[22]. There is also this in The Drum. I know that last is only a trade magazine for the marketing industry, but it has a claimed circulation orders of magnitude greater than the Morning Star. I don't think I really need to look for any more. SpinningSpark23:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources that were located by Spinningspark above; the Times article was paywalled from me, but the Financial Times article seems to be quite significant coverage, and the Drum piece goes into a good bit of detail as well. These, plus the sources from the Evening Standard, seem like they are robustly about the publication itself (i.e. not an inheritance issue) and certainly enough to clear GNG. jp×g08:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Per WP:NOTPLOT, "Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works." But that's all there is here: plot summary, sourced only to the original works, if at all. Such content belongs in fan wikis. Sandstein 11:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DINC and WP:BEFORE failure. So, I haven't read Foundation, etc. in 30 years, but everyone knows it's one of Asimov's two (later stitched together) masterworks. So, here's my process:
Pick a character at random: Homir Munn. I seriously have no idea who this character is, again, haven't read the series in years.
Plug the name of one single fictional character into Google Scholar.
1, 2, 3 are the first three entries. Fifth is this. That's four non-trivial, independent RS in less than 30 seconds of searching. It seriously has taken me maybe 10 times the search length to write up the process. Sandstein while I appreciate the current state of the article is undersourced, deletion is for things that are unsourceable, and this article is demonstrably sourceable. Please withdraw the nomination. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. What you provide are sources for an entirely different article: an article about Homir Munn and their significance in the history of science fiction. What we have is not that article. What we have is a bunch of hastily thrown together plot summaries with no connection to the real world. No amount of sources can salvage that content. The problem is WP:NOT, not WP:V or WP:GNG. Sandstein 18:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: If we assume that those sources have at least some non-plot information about Homir Munn, but probably not enough to support a stand-alone article on Homir Munn, then these source are relevant exactly for our article here, under the list selection criterion "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria". The example featured in the Wikipedia guideline is the List of Dilbert characters, which very closely resembles our case here. Daranios (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Daranios beat me to it. Sandstein, assuming for the sake of argument that the list as it stands may currently only be plot summary, are you seriously suggesting that a "List of <fictional franchise> characters" that currently does not pass muster, cannot be made a compliant list by ordinary editing? Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With the same argument, you could create an article with the title "Economy of France in the interwar period" and the contents "POOP!", and when somebody objects you just point to pages and pages of sources on Google about the economy of France in the interwar period to make the case that your text "POOP!" should be kept because it is under a title for which there are a lot of sources. That may in fact be the case, but that does not change that here and now the contents of your article are poop, as they are in this case. Sandstein 20:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... Except that that's 1) a WP:WAX argument, and 2) irrelevant to the list under consideration. Really, Sandstein, it's disappointing that you to fail to simply acknowledge that Wikipedia has a ton of "List of <fictional franchise> characters" articles of variable quality. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying that this article should be deleted because there are other bad articles. I'm saying that this article should be deleted because it cannot be improved except by a total rewrite. Yes, we have a lot of similar articles: some are good and should stay, some are mediocre and should be kept and improved by editing, and some like this one are so bad that they need to be WP:TNTed. Sandstein 21:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandsteinthis edit is what I was terming a WP:WAX argument, but that may be overly charitable, because the examples listed in that page all presume an argument is made from the basis of a real argument, rather than a hypothetical argument, which is what yours is. You also fail to understand that "editing is editing" and there is no difference in policy ever made between editing 5, 50, or 100% of an article to improve the content: any amount of editing that doesn't require admin tools is "regular editing" absent any citation you can find otherwise. WP:TNT is an essay that in large part differs from WP:DELpolicy, which at WP:DEL-CONTENT doesn't even have the 'regular' qualifier in the directive that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." I have no problem with you not liking the current state of this article; we agree it could and should be better. I do have a problem with someone who should know better referring to an essay at odds with actual policy as if it could override policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the problem is not that the topic is not notable. The problem is that the entire contents of the article violate WP:NOT, which cannot be remedied by sourcing, but only by deleting. Entirely rewriting the article, which would be needed to fix the NOTPLOT proble, is not "improving by normal editing". Sandstein 20:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:WHATISTOBEDONE supports this AfD. It first suggests "modifying the content of an article (normal editing)". That is not feasible here because the entire contents of the article are worthless; "modifying" does not mean "rewriting entirely". Then it suggests "turning the page into a redirect", which I would be fine with as well, or "nominating the page for deletion", which is why we're here. Sandstein 21:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: You say the reason not to go with the FIRST option of WP:WHATISTOBEDONE is because everything we currently have is "worthless". But what we have is plot summary. And in contrast to your example above (which, by the way, would fall under WP:DELREASON#3, vandalism, rather then WP:DELREASON#14 which we are arguing about here), that is something that is officially wanted. First by common sense - how could an article about a fictional topic be good without a plot summary of its in-universe nature? - and second exactly by the WP:NOTpolicy itself, which says that for creative works we should have commentary "in addition to concise summaries of those works"! So is the WP:TNTessay applicable? I say no because plot summary is not useless, and no because the problem here is not "beyond fixing". Trim the plot summary as necessary, provide references, add non-plot content based on secondary sources. Voilà, you have made this into an encyclopedic article by means of normal editing. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:TNT (which is what Sandstein seems to be having difficulties remembering), it would be possible to delete this if its bad enough (given this is almost entirely unsourced, and the few citations are to the stories themselves (WP:PRIMARY), that's a quite likely possibility - and given this also probably contains a lot of WP:FANCRUFT [just from reading a few entries], that seems almost certain); and obviously allow re-creation afterwards with the kind of sources shown by Jclemens. The alternative, since this is unambiguously notable; would be to draftify and let it be improved there; since it is clearly unfit for mainspace as it stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation series or draftify/delete per Avilich (further below) and Sandstein, and per my own comment, about the fundemantal issue being WP:NOT. This shouldn't be in mainspace as is; and either of these options fixes that problem for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Draftify) per nom - The issue, as described by Sandstein, is not that its impossible to find viable sources discussing the subject of the article's title, its that the current article completely fails WP:NOT and would need to be entirely rewritten as essentially a new article. I have no doubt that an actual article or list that meets our policies' requirements could be created, but until that is done, content that blatantly goes against one of our core policies should not be retained in the mainspace. If, during the course of this AFD, a proper rewrite is actually done I'll be happy to change my recommendation. Likewise, as suggested by RandomCanadian, I have no problem of it being kept as a draft to do the rewrite using it as the base prior to returning to the mainspace. Rorshacma (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The list is very fancrufty, but the series has generated works like Foundation Cast Guide & All New Book Characters Explained (Screenrant) and Jared Harris & the Cast of ‘Foundation’ Get Inside the Minds of Their Characters (VIDEO) (TVInsider). Whether the list was notable a few years ago, before the new sources and attention due to TV adaptation, hmm. But it is probably fine now. Regarding the TNT, which I do invoke myself every now and then, this is not an ureadable ORish mess. It's readable ORish organized content. That's fixable by cutting down fancrufty PLOT, but frankly, it's just plot. Leave it be and expand it with reception, as shown, some exits and more will likely come overthe next few years. PS. Also, there's an academically reviewed book about Asimov's characters: [23]. It probably has enough about all of them to make this list fine, if only someone would bother to read it and rewrite it... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here09:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We had tens of individual articles on most of the characters, which almost all failed to meet Wikipedia:Notability. I performed some mergers into this list, per the Notability guideline which states "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ...". This is what has been done for the Foundation series. --LoЯd۞pεth15:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of this are arguments about notability, which I do not contest. But regardless of notability, per WP:NOTPLOT, we should delete or draftify content that consists only of plot summary. We can then restore the article as soon as it contains substantial non-plot content, such as content about reception, cultural significance, etc. Sandstein 18:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation series or draftify. As per WP:WAF, spin-off articles are not repositories for excess OR/fancruft. In-universe and plot information should be trimmed as much as possible and dealt with in the parent article, which in turn should only be split when the amount of adequately-sourced content allows it. As it stands, this article should not be in the mainspace, and WP:NOT is a policy, meaning it takes precedence over WP:N which is a guideline. Avilich (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... this should be done rather than deleting the page"--but we have multiple pages about the same subject, and this doesn't contradict the general idea in WAF that spin-offs should only be created when the quantity of policy-compliant content demands it. A different article can improved, so your quoted policy becomes kind of useless with regards to the one we're discussing rn. I see you began an editing spree in hopes of belatedly saving this article from extinction. Instead, you could focus your attention on the parent article, as WAF recommends, and allow the list to be removed as uncontroversial housekeeping. If the parent article ever becomes unwieldy (WP has no deadline), the a character list can be split off from it. This doesn't deviate from the spirit of any particular policy or guideline.
In the end, what this discussion is about is whether the available information on the topic should be added to Foundation series (non-keep votes) or to the character list (keep votes). WP:WAF supports the former, and this isn't contradicted by any specific guideline or policy, so I'm going with that. Keep in mind there's no dispute about content or notability here, this is all purely bureaucratic; following WAF would solve the issue with the least amount of effort. Avilich (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich: If that's your take on it I am wondering why you are advocating for a redirect rather than a selective merge. Personally, I think e.g. the individual comparisons between historical figures and Foundation characters are better presented here than in the Foundation series article.
As a side point, I am slightly irked by my "spree" being called "belated", given the fact that step C 3. of the WP:BEFORE process, raising concern and allowing for time to remedy, was skipped here. (In good faith, surely, as the nominator did not see anything worth improving, but I have explained why I disagree with that premise.) Daranios (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Avilich, Daranios is right. You owe him an apology for criticizing his attempts to improve an article during a deletion discussion. Your criticism is categorically inappropriate, per our policies cited here, and unhelpfully worded in a way that comes across as inconsistent with WP:AGF. Jclemens (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios and Jclemens: apologies then, my intention was just to suggest that your efforts might be better spent in the other page or in a hypothetical draft, where (unlike here) you would not have any time constraints, than in a disposable and volatile page. A selective merge is not incompatible with a redirect; the more encompassing alternative makes it easier to reach a consensus. Avilich (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich: Thank you for the clarification. I still hope my input helps to show that changing this into a proper encyclopedic article is not as problematic as some initially thought, and will not ultimately be wasted. I curiously await how this discussion will end/be closed. Daranios (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is not very helpful for lists etc. Someone searching for "List of Foundation series characters" or something like that (using a search engine or from within Wikipedia) would expect a list, not more general information about the series. In that case just deleting is better.Gunnar Larsson (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine too, I don't really care, what matters is that in-universe content should be trimmed, not expanded to multiple articles. A redirect could be undone if a separate article ever becomes appropriate again. Avilich (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: In contrast the the assertion that there is only plot summary, the article contains some inspirations/comparisons of the characters to historic figures. It's not a lot percentagewise, but it's not negligible either. Those points are also not "fancruft", as academic sources deal with them.
The essay WP:TNT has been invoked. I want to point to another essay, WP:WORKINPROGRESS. It says: "Recently, people have been getting themselves in a panic because the quality of Wikipedia is not as high as they'd like it to be. ... If you aren't satisfied with it now, help improve it". So why not spend the energy we are using here into improvement? I've made a bit of a start (and would greatly appreciate improvements of phrasing), so we already have a bit more beyond plot summary now. Daranios (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subject being notable (which does not appear to be denied by anybody) does not address the deletion reason (which is that this is uselessly unencyclopedic; that it fails WP:NOT and WP:V in its current state, and that it would be better to start over or at least move it to draft space so that someone can better presenting something that is informative to our readers and not something that belongs on fandom. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is clearly notable, and will only be more so in the coming weeks and years as the Apple TV series continues. In any case, the content is not so terrible in respect to WP:NOTPLOT that deletion is the answer. Most of the entries are already 1-3 paragraph summaries, and with the exception of The Mule, who's a very major character none take up more than one screen of space. Many of them are grounded in the real world by explicitly referencing the books they appear in or the inspiration for their character. There is a section at the top that deals with sources, including an academic one, discussing the characters as a whole. Definitely needs improvement, but not unsalvageable to the point of TNT. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions06:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Small news portal from India. A7 tag was removed by an IP, so here we are. Appears not notable, and lacks the sourcing quality expected for NCORP. The one noteworthy feature of this site is that they list termination notices of employees (currently around 6 employed, 2 terminations) at their about page. Eostrix (🦉 hoothoot🦉) 11:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject's article appears to have been previously curated as a promotional device, as evidenced by too much detail using primary sources, many of which come from the subject himself. The most attention the subject received from independent sources was from his writing of the screenplay for a mediocre movie, but these sources focus much more on the movie and mentions of subject seem to be driven by publicist activity. His books are also not notable, having received no awards or producing any appreciable impact in literature. Recently, subject hosted a pseudoarchaeology show on the Discovery Channel, which has been reviewed poorly and drew sharp criticism from professional archaeologists--fringe issues apply. One source I added discusses this issue. Taken together, the sources do not even get close to establishing notability. Two IP users (from subject's city) and then a new user arrived last week getting close to edit wars to remove templates and insert promo material. I suggest we delete and wait for this guy to become notable if ever. Qt.petrovich (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's not overwhelmingly notable, but there is coverage for his works Decipher and the screenplay for the 51st State via reviews remarking negatively upon said script. The article definitely needs some judicious cleaning to remove puffery and content source to dubious or outright unusable sources, but that can be done outside of AfD. If IPs and SPAs are posing an issue, we can always put a semi-protection on the page to prevent unhelpful edits. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, we could probably redirect the Decipher page to the main article as there's not much on the book page that isn't already on this main page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)20:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did some research. Guy was recently invited to speak to the Explorer’s Club and was on Josh Gates Tonight, as well as interviewed for the Daily Beast. That’s notable enough for me. Also hosts his own show. That’s not nothing.Madvark (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted)
@Madvark: Please limit the discussion to Pavlou and avoid stating claims about the editor's intent, particularly without proof. Offhand I can see why this page was nominated. I do think that Pavlou is notable, but I can see where they were coming from. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)20:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, pretty borderline notabiltiy for me after looking a bit more in depth. At the very least, as noted previously, the article needs a massive rewrite and to be gutted a lot due to the obvious stain of COI. {{u|Abillionradios}} {Static} 01:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC) I've removed my objections thanks to ReaderofthePack's hard work. {{u|Abillionradios}} {Static} 22:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: I added multiple sources to the article - what's your opinion now? I added coverage for his books, as well as some newspaper coverage of the screenplay and the author. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)20:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of several novels which are read. Host in TV docu which is debated. Has published a hypothesis about Atlantis in a "real" journal which is discussed. For now a clear keep. To be dropped only if it happens that he drops out of public appearance completely after several years.--Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are clearly enough reliable sources on the article to establish notability. It should be noted that there was already a deletion discussion and the vote was keep [24]. I don't see much different in the article content since then but now there are additional references added by ReaderofthePack and others documenting Pavlou's involvement with a new television show. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO (though not so easy to establish when it is a producer) or WP:GNG, which is what I was most hopeful for. Possible WP:ATDs could be redirect to one of the articles that mention him (the lsited albums) but I think that could be misleading, as it would be hard to choose one target and also it is a reasonably common name. Has been in CAT:NN for 11 years, but hopefully we can now resolve it, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 TV channel has some Arabic coverage, considering it falls under the category of notability.Zgz.or(talk) 08:31, October 11, 2021 (IST). — Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Just another neighbourhood that exists. In 2017, I had added a notability tag to it, which was quickly removed sneakily (without edit summary).
I performed an internet search today, and it is still not notable. All I could find was a few mentions in non-notable, local sources. Most of them were like directories, and/or about something from the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood itself lacks significant coverage, making it just another run of the mill neighbourhood that exists. Nothing to make it stand out, no notability. —usernamekiran (talk)21:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I spent some time looking for English sources. Akshaya Bhandar is a real place, but I would describe it as a neighbourhood (in Canadian usage) rather than a suburb. Google Maps shows Akshaya Bhandar as a well-defined area bounded by roads, rather than just as a point of interest. Mysore South lists several suburbs, but the list is not referenced. This Google Search shows lots of companies either giving addresses in or next to Akshaya Bhandar. Searching for ಅಕ್ಷಯ ಭಾನದರ್ doesn't give me any results except for some photos that are either from Wikipedia or not very relevant. [www.onefivenine.com/india/villages/Mysore/Mysore/Akshaya-Bhandar This map page] is further recognition of Akshaya Bhandar, but perhaps it was influenced by the Wikipedia article. Some shop owners in Akshaya Bhandar engage in illegal garbage dumping, according to this article.
I don't know what to say, but I would prefer not to lose the information in the article, and I'm not sure that there is an obvious merger target. Someone else should search in non-English sources for ಅಕ್ಷಯ ಭಾನದರ್ if that is the correct name. Maybe we should leave marginal cases like this one alone. Eastmain (talk • contribs)22:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: Hi. Yes, it does exist, but it is not notable. It is neighbourhood, and thats the problem. In India, there are thousands of neighbourhoods. We cant keep creating/preserving articles on non-notable neighbourhoods. —usernamekiran (talk)15:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with Eastmain that there is some valuable content here that should be preserved in some fashion. I would suggest considering where and how this content could be incorporated under a suitable encyclopedia topic. This might require creating a new article with a broader scope (such as a regional page). Our coverage of this geographic region is pretty poor at the moment. In other words; with no suitable merge target at the moment, keep per WP:PRESERVE.4meter4 (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 All of the information in the articlespace indicates notability but no reliable sources are listed. Unless sources are added, the articlespace lacks notability. Multi7001 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from this which is unfortunately a primary source cbc.ca/mediacentre/bio/wei-chen, I'm unable to find anything else notable/RS about the subject --WomenProj (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets GNG and probably JOURNALIST with national long-term career - and on top of that 3 full-page features about her adoption of her daughter. I've added references to the article - and there are many more, surrounding her moves to and from prominent media anchoring positions. Ping User:WomenProj, User:Multi7001, User:Gentleman wiki. Nfitz (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some sourcing improvement was (and still is) certainly needed here, but the sourcing has started to get improved and Gemini Awards nail the notability of a broadcast journalist to the wall regardless of whether the article is in the best possible shape yet or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
AriaTess, you've misunderstood the guidelines. What MMABIO says is that "Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as UFC." Per MMATIER it's clear that ONE Championship is a second-tier one. So whether he's a champion or not, he doesn't meet MMABIO. Unless there are RS enough to pass WP:GNG, it's difficult to say he's notable. Htanaungg (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AriaTess This is Wikipedia and per Wikipedia ONE has not achieve the top tier mma promotion as per today. To be considered a top tier promotion, the promotion needs to have at least 6 fighters ranked in world top ten for at least a year in Sherdog or Fight Matrix ranking system and ONE has not achieved so far. So the fighter is considered not notable as per WP:NMMA. Cassiopeiatalk19:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has no top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. Routine sports reporting doesn't show WP:GNG is met and the rest of the sources are listings in databases. Right now he doesn't appear close to WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A local politician who is elected to municipal office, which is of a local government level. Search on Google shows limited news coverage. May not qualify for notability under WP:NPOL. – robertsky (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ugandan author who does not satisfy general notability or author notability. This article was moved from article space to draft space once by User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, who cited BLP concerns and notability concerns, but was then moved back to article space by the author. Unilaterally draftifying it again would be move-warring.
An article should speak for itself, and it should not be necessary to check the references to verify notability. However, a check of the references shows that none of them are independent or secondary. (The reference check also found copyvio, which was tagged for redaction.)
Number
Reference
Remarks
Independent
Significant
Reliable
Secondary
1
Caring Hearts Uganda
Her organization
No
No
No
2
Flash Uganda Media
A puff piece
No
No
3
The Independent Uganda
An interview
No
No
4
Lifestyle Uganda
A Q&A piece about the subject
No
No
No
Naïve Google search shows the same information on social media as was found in the references, nothing we didn't know.
Draftify as per source analysis above. (giving this article another chance for improvement is quite generous, since the author had 5 months to improve it but instead chose to re-publish it without any attempt to address the issues) MrsSnoozyTurtle07:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I’m in agreement with the nomination and discussion above. If abandoned the G13 process will handle the case for deletion. 2pou (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is nothing to indicate that this is a notable concept with long-term encyclopedic value. It appears to have been coined in a 2020 article that the article creator has been WP:REFSPAMming across Wikipedia: Lee, Eun Su; Szkudlarek, Betina; Nguyen, Duc Cuong; Nardon, Luciara (April 2020). "Unveiling the Canvas Ceiling : A Multidisciplinary Literature Review of Refugee Employment and Workforce Integration". International Journal of Management Reviews. 22 (2): 193–216.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG and WP:NEO. This is a neologism, and its true that the concept has been added through REFSPAming. However, it does meet SIGCOV in that multiple scholarly publications in peer reviewed journals by different authors have adopted the term and are now using it. I added one more in a further reading section to the article. Given that multiple writers in academia have embraced this neologism, I think it passes GNG and NEO.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any evidence of widespread use of this term in academic sources. Pretty much the only use of this term is in the articles published by the same team of researchers (who are WP:REFSPAMming this across Wikipedia). The article that you added to the 'further reading' section makes one off-hand mention to the concept and does so with the concept within quotation marks (which is not how a widely embraced term in the field is written up). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The use of the term in quotes is exactly how neologisms get written about. When people stop providing quotes then the terms are no longer neologisms as they have progressed to wide acceptance which is the antithesis of a neologism. The issue here isn't if a term has reached wide acceptance, but if the neologism has received significant coverage. One only has to look at the listed journal articles to see that there isn't consistent overlap like you are claiming. Only three journal articles have repeating authors. We have four more journal articles utilizing the term in one fashion or another in multiple journals with no identical authors between articles. It looks to me like this has gained enough traction to pass GNG and NEO.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is incorrect. Citations 2, 4, 5, 7 are authored by the same people. The other citations (1, 3, 6) do not even use the term "canvas ceiling". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per Snooganssnoogans (especially 3/4 October). WP:GNG requires multiple refs other than the primary origin. It's not really the same as glass ceiling and too WP:NEO to merit a redirect/mention there (a little too different a meaning, and WP's role isn't to promote adoption of new terms). Per Neutrality, it could be a ref in Refugee employment as long as it's written in a way that does not over-sell the adoption of this term/concept. DMacks (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I don't think the article should be deleted based on that merit alone; there are plenty of instances of having a surname page as well as a more detailed page regarding particular families. For example: Kennedy (surname) and O'Kennedy. The other problems with the article I tried to fix: namely rewriting in prose, clarifying the unclear nature regarding the various septs, and removing the pointlessly vague 'Associated counties' section. I also removed the etymology detailed in the beginning of the article, and I've instead added a link to the Kelly surname page (where it both seems more prevalent and is better explained) in the See Also section. I've also added some other information such as a small amount of history and the arms and motto of the O'Kelly of Hy Many. Kivisto (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is a bad nomination that fails to say what the fork is duplicating. If it is Kelly (surname), it would object that the two are not covering the same ground. Some introductory material from that article might be merged into this one, which is about an Irish clan (if that is the right term). The surname article is otherwise a typical list article, whose primary function is as an index for people with the surname, since we do not allow SHAREDNAME categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 don't think recent notability is a criteria. This game does seem to satisfy the requirements for notability due to the award it has received. Shashwat986 → talk04:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ignoring recency, what is your standard for notability for a program/video game that has only ever been available to a select group of critics with no releases to the general public? Plantdrew (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was clear notability when the game was announced (eg in-depth coverage from at least 4 reliable sources that I see) as well as the IGF nod, and while it may now be vaporware (we don't know), that notability doesn't vanish due to lack of release. --Masem (t) 14:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being vaporware or cancelled does not make a game ineligible for inclusion. See Metroid Dread which was vaporware for decades before being surprise announced as a real game. This game proved that it was notable and whether or not it will be released does not change that.ZXCVBNM (TALK)17:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having a development blog can still mean it's vaporware if its development process is incredibly protracted, but yes it does have plenty of sources. ZXCVBNM (TALK)11:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Pretty much none of the "Keep" comments address the problems with this article, and indeed some of them don't advance any argument whatsoever (quite apart from the suspect nature of some of them). Black Kite (talk)22:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep- wow, surprised to see this come up for deletion -- who on the list are you working for?? I haven't yet learned the Wiki jargon, but as a scientist I can say that a list based on other sources is not WP:OR -- quite the opposite. And it has been updated regularly (e.g., Angela Merkel is no longer listed). Please, this is an interesting, useful page that links to many other pages. It deserves to be updated/fixed of whatever minor problems, rather than torn down entirely. (Indeed, had I known there were problems amounting to deletion, I would have volunteered to fix them long ago.) Tiredmeliorist (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is one that fundamentally cannot be fixed: the page is an original compilation (not found or discussed in secondary sources elsewhere, thus by definition WP:OR in the sense of that term on Wikipedia) which in addition depicts a topic which is not encyclopedic (a mere statistical intersection). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it may be interesting and even useful, it's a non-encyclopedic list because it's fundamentally unstable. An encyclopedia is a compilation of accumulated knowledge, and knowledge about current leaders is necessarily ephemeral. pburka (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Andrew - that's wrong. Both of those articles include royal leaders (Abdullah II, Mohammed VI) the one thing this list excludes. Sources need to discuss the cross-category of "current longest-ruling non-royal national leaders" otherwise this vote doesn't make sense. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is a violation of WP:NOTDIR#6 as it is a non notable cross categorisation and quite a number of the entries in the list are included across multiple positions (e.g. both president and prime minister) which are not the same type of leadership. Ajf773 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant WP:OR that combines inconsecutive terms and many different positions held to obtain random lengths of tenure to form a list. Fails WP:NOSTATS, WP:V, and WP:LISTN, as no reliable source ranks global politicians this way. Just a non-notable cross-categorization that can quite reasonably be seen as a WP:HOAX. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not WP:OR. The criteria could be better but this page has generated a lot of discussion and attention (in my school project too). It tells a lot about endless leaders and democracy too. Please make it better but don't flush it. --Difettos (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC) — Difettos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete for the reasons given already. The one I found most convincing was that a list that is inevitably unstable and needing frequent revision is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Something I wondered on looking at the article is whether the President of Switzerland does any ruling. Does anyone outside Switzerland have any idea of the name of the President of Switzerland? Athel cb (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
both of these reasons are ridiculous. We are not a print encyclopedia -- a huge swath of Wiki articles cover developing stories that are constantly being updated (like, should we abandon all the Covid-19 pages then?). Also your criteria for inclusion ("does anyone outside of Switzerland have any idea...?") is completely ethnocentric. Again, you misunderstand what an encyclopedia is for (e.g., if people already know, why would they look it up?). Tiredmeliorist (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a criterion for inclusion; it was just a comment. If it bothers you you can ignore it. However, there is a serious point in that a list of "rulers" should list people who rule, but as far as I can discover the President of Switzerland doesn't qualify. Athel cb (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. double vote-- Putting together a list of world rulers and calculating their time in power is something I would expect to find on Wikipedia. We should have more lists like this! Sure, there should be a better way of maintaining them, but gosh, this is a way more effective way of presenting the information than text alone (and way, way easier to see "non-royal" leaders than the general longest-serving one you all say is redundant).
Man, all you deletionists are so ready to tear down other people's work simply because it's different from what you think Wikipedia should be. Inclusionism is the only way Wiki can survive, though. Chill with the delete button please. Tiredmeliorist (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT and begging for mercy are not good arguments. The only one that seems to misunderstand what an encyclopedia is, is you: an encyclopedia is a summary of knowledge, not a database or case study; and certainly not a place where original conclusions can be published, even less so when it employs a dubious methodology not found anywhere else; and when it is redundant with a far better article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following your logic RandomCanadian, the List of most-viewed YouTube videos page would not exist. What dubious methodology? Every leader has the ruling time exposed on his/her page and those are gained from valid sources, right? This is just a useful article to have a "general look", to sum it up. Also, WP:PASSIVE no need to add that "The only one that seems to misunderstand what an encyclopedia is, is you". Difettos (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
“Methodology” maybe not, but as for definition, it’s completely arbitrary— there is no widely agreed-upon definition of “non-royal leader”, which as Jwkozak91 basically admitted is just being used as a euphemism for “dictator” which is a highly contentious label even if most of us know it when we see it. Dronebogus (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this is generally a list of the world's dictators (except for the Caribbean and Western Europe), which I think is useful. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s getting really, really tedious having to constantly link to WP:USEFUL etc., and “most of the world’s dictators except for xyz” is the definition of arbitrary. Also, what dictators in Western Europe? Every single country in that area (as the UN defines it) is a liberal democracy (except for maybe Monaco which is a semi-democratic monarchy). Dronebogus (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been here for years, it's been constantly updated and referenced. If I decided you shouldn't be allowed to watch your favorite TV show, it wouldn't be your responsibility to justify keeping it; it would be the censor's place to justify taking it away, and they'd better have a darn compelling argument. The onus on those who wish to destroy, rather than those who wish to create. Bkatcher (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You sound less like a neutral Wikipedia editor and more like Andrew Ryan railing against his enemies. When you cut out the passionate opinions, your argument is literally just “it’s old, it’s frequently edited, and there’s references which may or may not be WP:SYNTHESIS”. Dronebogus (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m saying your arguments are largely based on emotion and not very professional, and your only actual points are pretty weak. I’m not simply trying to insult you. Dronebogus (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I call you a j*rk on another user's page and your report me to admin. You compare me to a deranged, megalomaniac video game character, and it's perfectly acceptable. Bkatcher (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was mostly offensive because you were saying it behind my back, but I thought we agreed to drop this. I was also saying your arguments just sounded like something he would say, not that you’re anything like him. Anyway this has nothing to do with the actual discussion so I’m not going to respond unless you want to discuss the issue at hand. Dronebogus (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just going to point out that if “you sound like a villain from Bioshock” is a bad enough insult to get RPA’d then the “you must be working for an actual real dictator” thing from Tiredmeliorist should also theoretically get redacted, but I’ve been told to avoid doing that since it’s highly contentious. I mainly redacted Bkatcher’s gripe because it had a passive-aggressive hyperlink to my page in it, and also wouldn’t do it today since I was informed it’s more of a last resort that usually makes you look worse. Dronebogus (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has a clever and clear criteria (time passed ruling + not being a royal, it's that simple lol). It's up to everyone to classify a leader as a dictator or a good politician: very interesting and stimulating. Many pages link here and even more results and content can be easily found on google. Also to be considered,: the proposer has a suspicious obstinacy on deleting interesting pages. I will never get why some wikipedians are like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.238.127.10 (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep double vote-- this is a useful page (seriously, as someone living the Caribbean, I can attest that i've referred several people do this page over the years -- it can be quite enlightening). It's simply way easier to see non-royal leaders and their general time in office here than the general List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. So despite the difficulty keeping it updated, that doesn't mean it should be erased. (And geez, why is it so easy for any page to be guillotine on here?)
And again, i wonder which people on the list are driving this campaign, because the edit history shows it's often targetted for political reasons.... Tiredmeliorist (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s “targeted” because editors think it’s original research and synthesis of information. Stop accusing people of being agents for some dictator, it’s a very offensive accusation. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The top of the page explains that the AfD doesn't go by majority vote. And I'm sorry if you think tearing down pages purely bc WP:IDONTLIKE improves Wikipedia somehow. We all could be doing something much more productive right now, but instead we're sucked into this meta argument over a perfect valid article. Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a list of leaders and their time in office -- it does not reach any conclusions, so it cannot be WP:SYN or WP:OR.
Most of these deletionist arguments are simply WP:IDONTLIKE and would apply to general leaders as well. If you agree that things can be listed, so as to make accessing basic info and comparisons easier (that is, that not everything has to be text -- indeed, we should encourage other ways of presenting data), then there's nothing wrong with this article. It is WP:NOTE because it is dealing with living leaders that have been elected (contra royal leaders, although this does not mean free or fair elections). Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you just unintentionally pointed out, this article is just a content fork of the above article; additionally, it’s odd that you accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you of relying on personal taste as an argument, when you just cited that it’s WP:USEFUL to you as an argument. Dronebogus (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the arguments presented for deletion and why they are flawed:
The list does not lack context -- it's a list of "elected" (used loosely) world leaders. And just because there is not an outside source where the entire list can be found does not mean it is WP:OR. If such an outside article existed, this list would violate WP:PLAGFORM. So you're presenting a catch-22 by saying the information cannot be found in a single source elsewhere. Not only is the information verifiable through each link, there are several outside sources that are indeed referenced.
As said, the list is notable because it is categorization of world leaders, each of whom have their own wikipedia page, thereby qualifying WP:CAT. Saying it is not WP:LISTN is equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKE. As a summary of a notable topic, it is very much in line with WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC.
Further, as a cross-categorization of encyclopedic entries (again, elected world leaders) it is applicable as a directory or index item.
In such a discussion, these tags cannot be taken seriously. The page is a list of world leaders and their time in office, so obviously WP:NOTE and WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. I personally think that anyone who tags this as a "bad joke", "hoax", or "silly" has potentially questionable (i.e., political) motives.
This one is really up to the admin. The general list that was perhaps forked is overloaded with hereditary leaders who were not elected in some manner. It is difficult to see the same information presented here. (And is it really that controversial that a non-hereditary leader's time in office is more interesting than those who are royal?)
The onus for AfD should be on those proposing deletion. This article satisfies WP:5P and does not pass WP:DP and should be kept because of the above reasons, including WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOTE, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:CAT, among others.
It’s original research and synthesis of information because “non-royal leader” isn’t a widely-agreed-upon category via reliable sources that discuss it as such— it’s a “category” simply formed by editors subtracting the recognized category of “royalty” from the above-mentioned list. Plus there’s the issue of the fact that it’s a content fork— as already stated, it’s basically the same as an existing article but slightly more specific. Dronebogus (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this is something that could be easily rectified, no? (e.g., just add a definition for "non-royal" or replace with "elected"). No need to erase the whole thing simply for that reason. Tiredmeliorist (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of this one vote thing and stopped after it was brought to my attention. The points I've made, however, are completely valid, which is why it's a "discussion" and not a "poll". -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability is not inherited. A semi-anonymous horse from the early 1800s, the only content is relations to other horses. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Same as with the government ministers: Holland is a small country. Longevity lists should focus on heads of state and prime ministers. gidonb (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep all. These are good sortable tables with a lot of useful information. Heads of state and heads of government are important enough for such lists. Deletion makes WP worse, not better. gidonb (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "importance" is that of the heads of state and heads of government and seems not to be disputed above. It's true that their importance is not automatically inherited to longevity tables, good as they may be, however, by WP:NEXIST research, sources to support WP:LISTN and WP:V are actually common. Specifically when another head of state or government dies there is a detailed discussion in media nationally and at times worldwide about who still is alive and if they can attend the funeral. Also at the death of other dignitaries as the former heads of state/government remain important figures of the nations. In addition, the heads' opinions and support are in demand on a range of issues, including in books that combine these national figures. Other longevity data also gets discussed in sources. As Andrew correctly points out, this is an unnecessary destruction of data, (ab)using the fact that not all of these articles are sourced for all countries, instead of improving the referencing per WP:JUSTFIXIT and WP:PRESERVE. gidonb (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gidon hasn't given any good reason, nor is there anything here that should be kept on Wikipedia, and you know well your opinion on the matter has consistently been against the consensus of the very similar discussions listed. This is a fundamentally unencyclopedic topic, and no amount of thinly veiled WP:ILIKEIT can change that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gidonb reason's are excellent as the lists in this case are highly respectable and encyclopedic. Consider Japan, for example. If you look at our main page currently, you'll see that we announce the latest Japanese PM and show his picture too. Such news is naturally empheral and will scroll off but we publish it regardless because it is the normal consensus to do this -- see the discussion. The corresponding list has existed since 2005 with over a hundred editors and hundreds of thousands of readers. The handful of deletionists who have suddenly embarked on this spree are comparatively insignificant and do not represent anything other than the decline of Wikipedia. "To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day." — Winston S. Churchill. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An inaccurate comparison between national elections and this statistical trivia (notability is not inherited) does indeed make your "vote" stand (with no pretense that its truly a !vote), but this is WP:NOTAVOTE, and nostalgic calls for days when this was a much less thorough work or WP:OLDARTICLE in no way change the fact this is fundamentally unencyclopedic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. Fails WP:V and WP:LISTN as all six articles are completely unsourced, with obvious serious WP:OR issues as well. It further fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY since the article is an unencyclopedic trivial cross-categorization of age and holding political office, and WP:NOSTATS by being just fluff like stating how many xx,xxx thousands of days each person was alive. The various related articles, such as List of heads of state of Mexico are all we need and of a far higher quality, not these redundant WP:TRIVIA regurgitations. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that because just because other articles have been deleted, more articles must be deleted, sounds like circular reasoning to me. It also fails the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFF. gidonb (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These articles meet both WP:LISTN and WP:V. WP:NOT is not relevant and has not been raised in this discussion. Also, you are WP:BLUDGEONING under literally every opinion where someone writes something that does not meet your opinion that was already stated upfront in the intro. Why not provide others some space to explain their opinion?! Please note that you are unique here in bludgeoning under every opinion that disagrees with you and that ONLY a delete opinion did not receive a response! gidonb (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very valid argument when only three people have commented. And if you are down making unsupported assertions and to attacking the person and not the substance of my in-depth rebuttals, I don't have anything else to add. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not attacking anyone. I'm pointing out that a certain argument sounds circular and unconvincing just as I received some comments under my opinion and was fine with that. Respondent can then explain their opinion better, just like I did. I'm happy to hear all opnions and many opinions. The fact that you are WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion here is, as I pointed out, not a good idea. The best response to this comment is not more bludgeoning. You are the nominator, NOT the moderator of the discussion here who can leave any comment under any opinion that does not agree with yours, then tell others not to express their opinion. gidonb (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before you made your comment accusing me, I had only made three or four comments (and relatively short ones at that). And yet here you are taking all the speaking space in an attempt to shut me up. If you don't want me to point out obvious instances of WP:AADD and obvious instances of failing to address the WP:NOT nature of these lists, then don't make the same fallacious arguments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not accusations but friendly suggestions to allow everyone some space to express their opinion without immediate "rebuttals" by the nominator to all who dare to express a opinion different from his. It's a pattern also at your other nominations. I concentrate on the merits and have supported several of your nominations. Not this one as WP:LISTN is met. Instead of arguing with everyone, try to develop a good argument in the intro that convinces that you have thought this through and have done a solid WP:BEFORE following WP:NEXIST, i.e. haven't only looked for sources in the articles. gidonb (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keep votes are variations of ILIKEIT (or, "I find it useful"). Sorry, gidonb, but what you call a circular argument really sounds more like jurisprudence to me. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, responding since you refered to me and tagged me. Just as you couldn't relate to my train of thought I couldn't relate to yours. It happens even between two people who so often think alike ;-) gidonb (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What matters is what the person did when they were in office, not what they did and how long they lived after retirement. Perhaps a secondary remedy would be renaming the pages "list of presidents by the number of offshore accounts" using the Pandora papers. I wonder who would win. Joking, of course. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and the outcomes of the other discussions. These are unencyclopedic cross-categorisations, "List of X sorted by unrelated property Y". ReykYO!08:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Original research (the whole of the overview section is an obvious example of somebody combining trivial statistics together - and whether it is routine arithmetics or not, it is clearly OR and SYNTH if Wikipedia is the only place that lists this); which, like similar examples (another), is a Trivial cross-categorisation ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which fails to cite a single source, thus mot meeting either of WP:V or WP:LISTN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:V, WP:LISTN, and with serious WP:OR issues. The related article List of prime ministers of Canada is all we need and of a far higher quality, not this redundant WP:TRIVIA regurgitation. That this article has only 2 minor citations while the other one has over 50, demonstrates just how trivial this cross-categorization of age and being a former political office holder is. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Age" and "longevity" are not quite the same thing (although they're both statistical trivia, notwithstanding the fact that newspapers occasionally report on it)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. The article has problem tags in place for 5 years with no upgrade or references added. Google search pulls up weak references. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. The article has multiple Russian language sources. Without a compelling source analysis from the nominator and a more detailed assertion as to why the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO (such as why an award win doesn't count), I'm not seeing a strong case for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 and 2. Can't be used to establish notability. They are red in the NPP script as unreliable.
Ref 3. Is undefined but a web search finds О’скар which is a nano profile and is non-RS. An image and instagram links. It is junk.
Ref 4. Translation of the artile title: An interview in the entertainment section.
Ref 5. Non-RS is a listing of radio programs.
Ref 6. He got beat up, report.
Ref 7. Annoucement.
Ref 8 is a dead link.
Ref 9 is a Gazetta, the only real secondary source.
There some minor coverage but not sufficient for an article. 5 of the 9 references are junk, one is an interview, one is a court report of being beat up and one is a real secondary source. The article subject posits themselves as a singer. They're is no evidence been provided that the subject is a singer. The article is non-notable at this time. scope_creepTalk12:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This artist was very famous in the 90's. That's why he got the Golden Gramophone award. Due to some issues with his producer he had to stop using the artistic name Oscar and migrated to the US. Right now she's less famous under a new artistic name and gender than he used to be 20 years ago. At least the sources #17 and #22 are good enough. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 has never had any trusted, primary sources, and none of the Wikipedia trusted searches have yielded results. I tried my best to add legitimately sourced information to the article, but the only source I could find was an unverified Yahoo interview. This page became a seemingly self-promoted list of credits without citations, and some of the songs credits were found to be incorrect, leaving the rest of the un-cited song credits questionable. But again, there have been no trustworthy, primary sources cited for this singer for several years. toucan_stubs (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be so harsh, this wasn't my original intention, but this article generally fails WP:GNG, primarily fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLPSPS, and has previously failed WP:PROMO, WP:BLPSTYLE, and WP:BLPBALANCE. Toucan Stubs (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her name is so generic, that thousands of hits are coming up in searches. I did find a review of her single "Woman to Woman". I suspect that she will likely meet criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO with a little more digging. See below.4meter4 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Flick (December 17, 1994). "Single Reviews: Jewell; Woman to Woman". Billboard. 106 (51): 55.
Lean keep per WP:MUSICBIO #2. Being hard to Google is not a reason for deletion in itself. Her songs' chart history can be tracked in music magazines (e.g. Jet Top 20, Cashbox top 100 and Billboard), and while Google brings up some relatively recent coverage (below), it is likely that additional/more in-depth coverage exists in newspapers and magazine from the 1990s and early 2000s. Note there is a different R&B artist also named Jewell who released a debut single in 2020.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability isn't inherited. No Significant coverage about this person that addresses the topic directly and in details. All of sources are either passing mentions or press release or primary (e.g. interview). Fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST. Also this is a paid article (see author userpage). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
.png)