Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 29
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bhoomika Mirchandani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Indian actress fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Analysis of sources indicates they are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (1, 12) WP:INTERVIEWS (2, 4, 8, 10, 11) tabloid coverage (which is not SIGCOV) (2, 9, 12), or just plain unreliable (5, 7, 13). Plus, per WP:NEWSORGINDIA, sources 1-4, 8, 10-11 should raise caution since they are unbylined and promotional in tone. Source 5 fails verification. BEFORE search turns up nothing else reliable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I found no indication of notability. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT - there's too much lost in the translation from one dialect of English to another. There are allegations of notability, so I would not salt it. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I see a consensus that the newly located sources satisfy notability standards for schools. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hong Kong Chinese Christian Union Logos Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
SourcesAll universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
- Lin, Zhong 林钟; Deng, Shaobing 邓少冰 (2014). "走进香港真道书院小学" [Visit Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy]. 七彩语文(习作) [Colourful Language (Exercises)] (in Chinese). No. 10. East China Normal University. ISSN 1673-4998. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via CQVIP .
Colourful Language (Exercises) is a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. According to this description from Google Translate, "Colourful Language (Exercises) was officially launched in January 2015, with academic guidance provided by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. The magazine is closely linked to the reform of basic education curriculum and strives to provide suitable resources and platforms for middle school Chinese teachers to meet the needs of teachers for daily teaching and improvement of professional qualities."
The abstract notes: "本期的"大眼睛看世界",小编将和大家一起走进香港一所名校——香港华人基督教联会真道书院。真道书院位于香港调景岭湾畔,学校分小学和中学部,与其他学校不同,真道书院学生没有统一的校服。小学部学生在中文课上使用的是内地出版的小学语文课本,他们觉得教材文字优美,内容包含了古今中外的文化特色,和浓厚的道德教育元素,很符合小学语文教育的需要。"
From Google Translate: "In this issue of "Seeing the World with Big Eyes", the editor will go with you to a famous school in Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Union Logos Academy is located on the shores of Tiu Keng Ling Bay in Hong Kong. The school is divided into primary and secondary schools. Unlike other schools, students at Union Logos Academy do not have uniforms. Students in the primary school use primary school Chinese textbooks published in the Mainland in their Chinese classes. They feel that the textbooks are beautifully written, contain cultural characteristics of ancient and modern times, Chinese and foreign cultures, and have strong moral education elements, which are in line with the needs of primary school Chinese education. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing a school-based curriculum and uses some Chinese and art textbooks from the Mainland."
- Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group . Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group . Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.The article notes: "2002年創校的真道年資較其他直資學校淺,被定為新派直資學校,卻是全港唯一採用「十一年一貫」課程模式的學校,分兩年基礎階段、五年拓展階段及四年通達階段,以十一年完成小學及中學課程。 ... 在小學首兩年基礎階段,真道期望學生打穩知識基礎,學好自理、自學及自省能力。學校着力建構校本課程,採用部分內地中文及美術科教材"
From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy has a younger school years than other DSS schools and is designated as a new DSS school. However, it is the only school in Hong Kong that adopts the "11-year consistent" curriculum model, which is divided into two years of basic stage and five years of expansion stage. and the four-year mastery stage, which takes eleven years to complete the primary and secondary school courses. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing school-based curriculum and adopts some mainland Chinese and art textbooks."
- A, Yin 阿言 (2024-02-01). "專訪|香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 多元體驗式學習培育未來領袖" [Exclusive Interview|Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy's diversified experiential learning cultivates future leaders] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "學校著重學生全方位發展,學生從小學便培育體、美特質,提供多項興趣班予學生選擇,如跳繩、跆拳道、琵琶及烏克麗麗等。另外,為培養學生閱讀習慣,自小學階段設有閱讀時間,同學在操場集合一同閱讀,從小學階段養成自己探索知識的習慣。中學則設有 DEAR Time(Drop Everything And Read),讓學生暫時放下功課及其他事務,專心閱讀。學校更會舉辦不同活動,如閱讀馬拉松、圖書日、書展等讓同學接觸不同類型的書籍,鼓勵學生閱讀。"
From Google Translate: "The school focuses on the all-round development of students. Students develop physical and aesthetic qualities from elementary school, and provides students with a variety of interest classes to choose from, such as rope skipping, taekwondo, pipa and ukulele. In addition, in order to cultivate students' reading habits, reading time is set up from the primary school level. Students gather in the playground to read together, and develop the habit of exploring knowledge by themselves from the primary school level. Middle schools have DEAR Time (Drop Everything And Read), which allows students to temporarily put aside their homework and other matters and concentrate on reading. The school also organizes different activities, such as reading marathons, book days, book fairs, etc., to expose students to different types of books and encourage students to read."
- Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2021-06-02). "【直資中學】一條龍11年完成小學中學課程 真道書院雙軌制曾出產IB狀元" [[Direct Subsidy Scheme Secondary School] One-stop primary school and middle school courses completed in 11 years. Union Logos Academy’s dual-track system has produced IB top scorers]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院屬中小學直資一條龍學校,也是全港唯一以11年完成小學及中學課程的學校。真道書院既提供中學文憑試課程(DSE),同時開辦國際文憑課程(IB),學生在公開試成績優異,過去亦曾誕生IB狀元。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a one-stop school under direct subsidy for primary and secondary schools. It is also the only school in Hong Kong that completes primary and secondary school courses in 11 years. Union Logos Academy not only provides the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (DSE) course, but also offers the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB) course. Students have achieved excellent results in public examinations, and IB top scorers have also been born in the past."
- Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目 老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目 老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.The article notes: "位於將軍澳區直資學校的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,即提供本地文憑試(DSE)課程,同時開辦國際文憑(IB)課程,多年來深受家長歡迎。真道書院小一面試有兩輪,第一輪是小朋友自行面試,若成功通過會進入第二輪面試,家長也會獲邀出席,TOPick邀請了為女兒報考7間直私小學的港媽梁太,拆解真道書院小一面試第一階段考核的内容。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, located in the direct subsidy school in Tseung Kwan O District, provides local Diploma Examination (DSE) courses and also offers International Baccalaureate (IB) courses. It has been popular among parents for many years. There are two rounds of primary one interviews at Union Logos Academy. The first round is for children to interview on their own. If they successfully pass, they will enter the second round of interviews. Parents will also be invited to attend. TOPick invited Mrs. Leung, a mother from Hong Kong who applied for her daughter to seven direct private primary schools to dismante the contents of the first stage of the primary school interview at Union Logos Academy."
- Lin, Zhong 林钟; Deng, Shaobing 邓少冰 (2014). "走进香港真道书院小学" [Visit Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy]. 七彩语文(习作) [Colourful Language (Exercises)] (in Chinese). No. 10. East China Normal University. ISSN 1673-4998. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via CQVIP .
- The article should be renamed to Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy (add the word "Churches" after "Christian" and before "Union") to match the name on the website. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reply, promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did not find any evidence of the sources being "based on the same info/source" since they discuss different aspects of the school. WP:SIRS is part of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, a non-profit educational institution like Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy needs to meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which this school does. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment These sources aren't doing what they're purported to be. Source 1 appears to be the equivalent of a WP:TRADES publication. Sources 2, 4 and 5 are brief listings of multiple school options, no significant coverage. (Moreover, 4 and 5 are on the Hong Kong Economic Times' "TOPick" subsite, which appears to be a advertorial Daily Mail-style infotainment site, not a reliable source.) Source 3 is described as an "interview," which is a primary source and thus not eligible to validate notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- The first source, a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University, is not equivalent to a WP:TRADES publication. It is an academic magazine, not a trade magazine. For the second source, I linked to the wrong article because when scrolling to the bottom of the article, the website changes the URL to the next article. I've fixed the link. The incorrect link did not mention the school. The updated link is a full article about the school.
The third source contains sufficient non-interview content to amount to significant coverage. The fourth source discusses other schools but provides significant coverage of this school. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
For the fifth source, I linked to the wrong article for the same reason discussed above. I've fixed the link. The fifth article is about the school's interview process and is significant coverage.
I consider TOPick to be a reliable source. According to this information from a Telum panel discussion with the Hong Kong Economic Times Group about TOPick:
The publication has journalists, editors, and an independent editorial team. It is not an "advertorial" site. It aims to inform its readers about parenting and education topics. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Editorial team
Around 30 journalists and editors, each contributing five stories daily.
An independent editorial and video team oversees each sector.
Editorial focus
80 per cent on parenting and health, 20 per cent on entertainment, celebrity and lifestyle.
Parenting: general parenting news and education information through a section called 「Band 1 學堂」, which features information on kindergarten, primary and secondary school, elite education and overseas study.
- The first source, a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University, is not equivalent to a WP:TRADES publication. It is an academic magazine, not a trade magazine. For the second source, I linked to the wrong article because when scrolling to the bottom of the article, the website changes the URL to the next article. I've fixed the link. The incorrect link did not mention the school. The updated link is a full article about the school.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. See my comments on the sources above; I do not believe they are sufficiently reliable nor offer enough significant coverage to meet GNG or NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- All five sources provide significant coverage. For two of the sources, I linked to the wrong pages owing to how the website changes the URL to the next article when scrolling to the bottom of the current article. I've fixed the links. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I reviewed the new links and stand by my assessment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- All five sources provide significant coverage. For two of the sources, I linked to the wrong pages owing to how the website changes the URL to the next article when scrolling to the bottom of the current article. I've fixed the links. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per Dclemens1971 assessment. I don't believe the additional sources found help with notability. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I am surprised that reliable sources from a Chinese academic journal and Hong Kong newspapers are considered insufficient to establish notability. Sources likely these previously have been sufficient to establish notability for schools, which must meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and not Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which "establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article".
An alternative to deletion is to merge to Tiu Keng Leng#Education, where this school is located. School articles should be merged, not deleted, when there is a suitable alternative to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- So are you now !voting for merge not keep? LibStar (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- My first choice is a keep. My second choice is a merge if consensus is against a standalone article. The five sources I've listed were found through a Google search. Since editors consider them insufficient to establish notability, I will do a more exhaustive search for print sources. These are sources that cannot be found in a Google search. It takes a lot more time to do this exhaustive search, so I usually do the Google search approach first.
The first source I found casts an unflattering light on the school as it says that 20% of the teachers resigned owing to being overworked. Here is the source:
- "真道書院9教師呈辭" [9 teachers from Union Logos Academy resign]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2005-08-04. p. A12.
The article notes: "在電視節目《殘酷一叮》三連霸的「莫生」莫凱謙現正就讀的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,今年將有五分一教師共九人離職,有教師指離職原因是因為工作辛苦。"
From Google Translate: "One-fifth of the teachers from Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, where Mok Kai-him, who won three consecutive championships in the TV program "Cruel One", is currently studying, will resign this year. Some teachers said that the reason for resigning was because of the hard work."
The article notes: "○二年創校的真道書院是一間直資一條龍學校,中小學共用約五十名教師,當中有近兩成共九名教師,在今學年完結後離任。"
From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy is a direct subsidy one-stop school with a total of about 50 teachers in primary and secondary schools. Among them, nearly 20%, a total of nine teachers, resigned after the end of this school year."
- "真道書院9教師呈辭" [9 teachers from Union Logos Academy resign]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2005-08-04. p. A12.
- My first choice is a keep. My second choice is a merge if consensus is against a standalone article. The five sources I've listed were found through a Google search. Since editors consider them insufficient to establish notability, I will do a more exhaustive search for print sources. These are sources that cannot be found in a Google search. It takes a lot more time to do this exhaustive search, so I usually do the Google search approach first.
- So are you now !voting for merge not keep? LibStar (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I explained above why I didn't search for these sources earlier. I have found numerous additional sources about the school. I omitted the numerous positive articles and have focused on the negative articles since there were concerns earlier about the sources being "marketing" or "promotion". I think these sources should be sufficient to establish notability. If they are not, I could continue my search for sources since these are only some of the hundreds of results about the school that I found. Here are the additional sources.
- The Sun article about 20% of the school's teachers resigning for being overworked 2005
- Articles about the school's primary school students being disallowed in 2008 from participating in a competition because of how its academic system is different from other schools':
Sources
- Chen, Qiuxia 陳秋霞 (2008-02-25). "真道小六生列學生參賽 學體會評級方式惹非議" [Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy Primary 6 students participate in the competition, and the learning experience grading method has attracted criticism]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). p. A9.
The article notes: "西貢區的香港華人基督教聯會真道學院第六年辦學,一直採用「兩年基礎階段+五年拓展階段+四年通達階段」的十一年中小學一條龍教學制度,不同於現行「六年小學+五年中學”十一年中小學教育。若依年齡劃分,現時真道二百二十一位就讀「拓階四」的學生是傳統的「小六生」,不過該階段學生接受政府中學資助,○七/○八年中學概覽內也劃分他們為「中一生」。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Council Zhendao College in Sai Kung District is in its sixth year of operation. It has been using an eleven-year one-stop teaching system for primary and secondary schools of "two years of basic stage + five years of expansion stage + four years of mastery stage", which is different from the current "six-year" "Primary school + five years of secondary school" eleven years of primary and secondary education. If divided by age, the current 221 students of Zhendao who are studying in "Top Level 4" are traditional "Primary 6 students". However, students at this stage receive government secondary school subsidies and are also classified in the 2007/08 Secondary School Profile. They are "middle life"."
- "真道「小學生」被禁參賽風波" [Controversy over Logos Academy's "primary school students" being banned from participating in the competition]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-26. p. F1.
The article notes: "以十一年中小學學制為賣點的將軍澳香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,想不到其與別不同的學制,引起一場小學生停賽風波。第六年在該校就讀的拓展階段四年級(DS4)學生,尷尬地處於中小學的中間點,學界體育聯會西貢區小學分會認為,DS4學生既接受中學資助,應被界定為中學生,故此禁止參加本學年剩餘的小學際與區際比賽。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O, which sells its eleven-year primary and secondary education system, unexpectedly caused a controversy among primary school students due to its different academic system. The expansion stage fourth grade (DS4) students who study in the school for the sixth year are awkwardly in the middle point between primary and secondary schools. The Sai Kung District Primary School Branch of the School Sports Federation believes that DS4 students should be defined as secondary school students since they receive secondary school subsidies. They are prohibited from participating in inter-elementary and inter-district competitions for the remainder of the school year."
- "直資校參加學界賽腰斬" [DSS schools lose half of their participation in school competition]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-25. p. A20.
The article notes: "本港學制日益多元化,不再局限於傳統中小學之分,惟學界體育比賽制度僵化,繼續以中小學劃分,令到一間直資名校的近百名十一歲學生,因其所讀的課程等同於中學課程,被拒與傳統學制同樣十一歲的小六學生比賽,學生參賽資格即時被腰斬,學子無辜,慘成官僚制度下,政治鬥爭的犧牲品。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong’s academic system is increasingly diversified and is no longer limited to traditional primary and secondary schools. However, the school sports competition system is rigid and continues to be divided into primary and secondary schools. This has caused nearly a hundred 11-year-old students from a prestigious direct subsidy school to be divided. The courses he studied were equivalent to middle school courses, and he was refused to compete with the 11-year-old Primary 6 students in the traditional school system. The student's qualifications were immediately cut in half. The innocent student became a victim of political struggles under the bureaucracy."
- Chen, Qiuxia 陳秋霞 (2008-02-25). "真道小六生列學生參賽 學體會評級方式惹非議" [Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy Primary 6 students participate in the competition, and the learning experience grading method has attracted criticism]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). p. A9.
- The school was harshly criticised in 2010 by Hong Kong's Audit Commission for administrative misconduct regarding property purchases and tuition fees. This led to hearings by the Legislative Council Accounts Committee. It led to at least one hundred articles covering the fallout which spanned at least several months. Here are a few of those sources:
Sources
- "德信售校章利潤1.5倍 教局六方面跟進監察直資校" [Dexin's profit from selling school seals is 1.5 times. Education Bureau follows up on six aspects to monitor DSS schools]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-21. p. A7.
The article notes: "立法會帳目委員會昨天就直資學校的監管舉行最後一場聆訊,重點討論三所直資學校的違規行徑,包括運用七千萬元投資的德望學校、用一千萬元購買三個該物業的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,"
From Google Translate: "The Legislative Council Accounts Committee held the last hearing on the supervision of DSS schools yesterday, focusing on the irregularities of three DSS schools, including the Good Hope School, which used HK$70 million of investment, the Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which used HK$10 million to purchase three properties ..."
The article notes: "議員何秀蘭質疑,真道書院有否將盈餘儲備作投資或購買物業,減少學校現金流,以用作申請加學費理由。教育局首席助理秘書長李煜輝表示,該校○八╱○九及○九╱一○兩學年均有加費,但局方發現於○九年八月三十一日的現金流有七千多萬元,連同物業和基金股票等,已超過局方規定的儲備上限,由於盈餘過高,局方已拒絕其一○╱一一學年加學費的申請。局方稱,核准學校加費不單是考慮學校現金流,亦有其他因素。局長孫明揚補充,校方加費須得到家長同意,校方亦要遞交發展計劃,由局方釐定學校是否可以存有大量盈餘。"
From Google Translate: "Councillor Cyd Ho questioned whether Logos Academy had used its surplus reserves for investment or property purchases to reduce the school’s cash flow, which could be used as a reason to apply for a tuition increase. Li Yuhui, Chief Assistant Secretary of the Education Bureau, said that the school had increased fees in both the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 academic years, but the bureau found that the cash flow on August 31, 2009 was more than 70 million yuan, together with properties and fund stocks, which exceeded the reserve limit stipulated by the bureau. Due to the excessive surplus, the bureau has rejected its application for a tuition increase in the 2010/2011 academic year. The bureau said that approving a school to increase fees is not only based on the school's cash flow, but also on other factors. Secretary Sun Mingyang added that the school must obtain the consent of parents to increase fees, and the school must also submit a development plan, and the bureau will determine whether the school can have a large surplus."
- "真道放寬學費減免收入限制" [Logos Academy relaxes income limit for tuition exemption]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A12.
The article notes: "上月審計報告重點審查的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,被揭發擁有1900 萬盈餘但學費減免條件嚴苛,又以個人名義購置單位作教師宿舍。真道學院近日已作多方改善,昨日3 名校董連同校長,與400 名家長會面,提出5項措施回應,包括放寬申請家庭的學費減免收入限制,鼓勵清貧學生報讀。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of last month’s audit report, was revealed to have a surplus of HK$19 million but had strict conditions for tuition exemptions and purchased units in individual names as teachers’ dormitories. Logos Academy has made many improvements in recent days. Yesterday, three school directors and the principal met with 400 parents and proposed five measures in response, including relaxing the income limit for tuition exemptions for applying families and encouraging poor students to apply."
- "真道書院開家長會 跟進審計報告指控" [Logos Academy held a parent meeting to follow up on the accusations in the audit report]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A26.
The article notes: "遭審計報告羅列多宗「罪行」的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,昨天下午舉行家長會。該校多名校董出席,與約400名家長會面。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was hit with numerous “crimes” in the audit report, held a parents’ meeting yesterday afternoon. Many school directors attended and met with about 400 parents."
- "真道書院聘會計師核賬" [Logos Academy hires accountants to audit accounts]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A14.
The article notes: "於直資審計風暴中屢被批評多項行政失當的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,昨日再召開家長會,安排校董會向家長講解事件最新進展。校監陸幸泉提出多項措施「補鑊」,包括聘請羅兵咸會計師重新檢視學校帳目、釐定學校採購政策競價投標準則等,以個人名義購買的一間村屋及居屋亦將作物業轉名事宜。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which has been repeatedly criticised for multiple administrative misconducts during the direct subsidy audit storm, held another parent meeting yesterday and arranged for the school board to explain the latest developments of the incident to parents. School Superintendent Luk Xingquan proposed a number of measures to "make up for the wok", including hiring accountants Luo Bingham to re-examine the school's accounts, determining the school's procurement policy and bidding criteria, etc."
- "真道近2000萬助學金未批出 教局反對用作添設備 必要時接管學校" [Logos Academy's nearly 20 million scholarships have not been approved. The Education Bureau objects to using them to add equipment and take over the school if necessary.]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-01. p. A4.
The article notes: "於直資學校「審計風暴」中被重點查帳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,已被教育局書面警告須及時糾正違規買物業及助學金儲備使用率低等問題。... 接近政府的消息稱,教育局認為學費減免是為有經濟需要的學生而設,不認同用作添置設備;局方會留意校方最終如何落實改善違規工作,若成效不彰,便會由教育局常任秘書長派員進駐學校管理委員會接手校政。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of audits in the "audit storm" of direct subsidy school schools, has been given a written warning by the Education Bureau to promptly correct problems such as illegal property purchases and low utilisation of bursary reserves. ... Sources close to the government said that the Education Bureau believes that the tuition fee reduction is for students with financial needs and does not agree that it will be used to purchase equipment. The Bureau will pay attention to how the school ultimately implements the improvement of violations. If the results are not effective, the Education Bureau's permanent secretary-general will dispatch personnel to the school management committee to take over school administration."
- Ni, Qingjiang 倪清江; Xia, Zhili 夏志禮 (2010-11-27). "最後通牒即將到期校監校長拒轉業權 教局擬進駐真道校董會" [The ultimatum is about to expire. The school supervisor and principal refuse to transfer ownership. The Education Bureau plans to join the Logos Academy Board of Directors.]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. A5.
The article notes: "被審計署揭23宗罪的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,挪用1,000萬元非政府資金購置3項物業,業權卻是校監和校長。教育局原來早已知悉,多番促請他們將業權轉回校方,但不獲理會,早前發出最後通牒,日內到期。若真道繼續當教育局無到,局方將派人進駐該校校董會,情形有如去年撤銷辦學權的臻美黃幹亨小學暨國中學校的翻版。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was exposed by the Audit Office for 23 crimes, misappropriated HK$10 million of non-governmental funds to purchase three properties, but the ownership was owned by the school supervisor and principal. It turned out that the Education Bureau had known about it for a long time and had repeatedly urged them to transfer the ownership back to the school, but was ignored. It had earlier issued an ultimatum that would expire within a few days. If Logos Academy continues to be in charge of the Education Bureau and there is no one, the Bureau will send people to the school board of directors, and the situation will be a replica of the Zhenmei Huangqianheng Primary School and Junior High School that revoked its schooling rights last year."
- "德信售校章利潤1.5倍 教局六方面跟進監察直資校" [Dexin's profit from selling school seals is 1.5 times. Education Bureau follows up on six aspects to monitor DSS schools]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-21. p. A7.
- "自辦刊物" [Self-organised publications]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2010-07-06. p. E6.
The column says at the bottom that it was written by the Sing Tao Daily editor-in-chief.
The column notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院,是近年區內成立的直資中學,該校就辦了一本名為《真道人》(見圖)的刊物,介紹學校的理念和發展,至今已經出版了兩期。 真道書院出版這本《真道人》,以一本機構刊物來說,可以說不簡單,新一期的內容除了由校長講解學校取得的國際認證AdvancED外,還有其他親子專題、閱讀版等,從內容、版面設計到紙質,都顯示投入了相當的資源。從刊物的製作班底看,除了校內老師班底,還有資深教育新聞從業員郭玉蘭參與,難怪專題報道形式和深度相當接近傳媒。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a direct subsidy secondary school established in the district in recent years. The school has published a publication called "Logos People" (see picture) to introduce the school's philosophy and development. So far, it has two issues were published. Logos Academy publishes "Logos People", which is not simple for an institutional publication. In addition to the principal explaining the international certification AdvanceED obtained by the school, the new issue also includes other parent-child topics, reading editions, etc. From the content, layout design to paper quality, it shows that considerable resources have been invested. Judging from the publication's production team, in addition to the school's teacher team, Guo Yulan, a senior education news practitioner, is also involved. No wonder the format and depth of the special report are quite similar to those of the media."
- Keep The additional sources provided by Cunard are sufficient to meet NSCHOOL, in addition there is more coverage where the school involved in a scandal where a member of leadership made a controversial statement regarding the 2019 protests, example article: [1]. Jumpytoo Talk 09:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, seems to meet GNG per the many sources above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus to delete; consensus to rename to Next Tasmanian state election. Malinaccier (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- 2028 Tasmanian state election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems way TOO SOON for this article to exist, considering that there are still four years left for the election to occur. CycloneYoris talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. CycloneYoris talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources? None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article. TarnishedPathtalk 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable? Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable. And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- An agreement for minority government for this term of government is your evidence for the 2028 state election? I'm sorry can you point out in that ABC source where it talks about the 2028 election and not merely the outcome of the 2024 election?
- Where is your sourcing from multiple secondary reliable sources which demonstrates demonstrates WP:SIGCOV? Demonstrate it is notable with sources. TarnishedPathtalk 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable? Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable. And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources? None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article. TarnishedPathtalk 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Every other state/territory had their "next election" page created shortly after the last, however agree with @AveryTheComrade it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice should cease. TarnishedPathtalk 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Although WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one. Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections. All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- If those articles are about events that are almost 4 years away and the sourcing is as lacking as this articles then you only make an argument for nominating those articles for deletion. TarnishedPathtalk 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Although WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one. Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections. All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice should cease. TarnishedPathtalk 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Tasmaina only had an election 2 months ago. Significant coverage of the next election is years away. Similar AfDs of premature election coverage has appeared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) and the 1st nomination. Teraplane (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This is ridiculously WP:TOOSOON. The last election has only just happened and this is almost four years off. TarnishedPathtalk 08:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The next election is not set in stone at 4 years away as the Tas Parliament states Term: the length of time House of Assembly elections - since 1976 this has been a maximum of four years. and that's why I do agree with previous comments that it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election instead. It should be noted that both previous elections went early at about 3 years each 2018 Tasmanian state election and 2021 Tasmanian state election. And with a hung parliament as described in the article that potential is high again. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Next Tasmanian state election. The next election in a democratic state is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I also agree with the rational of the other comments supporting a keep position. --Enos733 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and rename per Enos733. Next elections are almost always notable and this doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL:
only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place
. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC) - Comment, I'm still failing to see a single reliable secondary source in the article which talks about the 2028 election. How can anyone possibly argue that this passes WP:GNG without appropriate sourcing? TarnishedPathtalk 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- You seem really dead-set on insisting that an article about the 2028 election isn't notable, while failing to address that everyone arguing for keeping the article is in support of renaming it to be more generally the next state election. AveryTheComrade (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's absolutely zero coverage in secondary sources. How much more WP:TOOSOON can you get than that? Even if it were to be renamed to Next Tasmanian state election the same statement holds. At best this should be draftify but I don't really see that as much of an alternative to deletion given how far out the election is. TarnishedPathtalk 11:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- You seem really dead-set on insisting that an article about the 2028 election isn't notable, while failing to address that everyone arguing for keeping the article is in support of renaming it to be more generally the next state election. AveryTheComrade (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as not too soon, but consider moving to the less definite title. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing to say about the election than "it will happen sometime". If kept, support moving to next Tasmanian state election instead. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- WJYL-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete There seems to be another WJYL in Tennessee? Does not meet notability standards right now. However, I believe it is possible that an expert on the subject could theoretically bring the article up to standards. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Washington International Diplomatic Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources provided are primary and/or non-independent. A search does not uncover any further SIGCOV in independent sources. Organisation seems unlikely to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Schools, and Washington, D.C.. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources all go back to the organization itself (eg a New York Times op-ed authored by the org's executive director). No sources support WP:ORGCRIT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Stc Bahrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails NORG; article lists standard business activities, nothing noteworthy. BEFORE shows no substantial RS. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- India's Most Attractive Brands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article does in fact seem to be made for pay, and the sources just do not line up here either. I only found this page after looking to add an image book cover in the infobox, but then I looked into it further and discovered that the page itself really qualifies for a deletion AfD. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Products. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: An article on a non-notable research company's survey, published between 2013 and 2018. These picked up the expected passing mentions of the named top brands but I am not seeing evidence that the published survey was in itself notable. AllyD (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The article appears to simply promote a paid survey by a market research company. Further, no significant third-party media organizations are referencing the study, indicating that it has minimal to no value in and of itself. Volcom95 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom lacks sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Page is WP:SYNTH and is made for WP:PROMO. Research is not notable and not backed by any secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- 88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article contains no references to prove notability and is about a company-sized unit PercyPigUK (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge and Redirect to 4th Regiment Royal Artillery. Given its long history I'd be very surprised if there wasn't information out there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails general notability. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 08:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd be interested in hearing more viewpoints as those editors advocating Deletion are relatively new or inexperienced. Is there more support for a Merge or Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Gecko Gear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:CORP. One of plenty of tech accessory companies around the world; what makes this stand out as a more notable one than the rest? B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep:Nothing has changed since last AfD. The current sources are enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)- Of course things have changed since then. ORGCRIT has been tightend a lot since 2011 (I understand most people place the change around 2018) and while "puff piece" probably shouldn't (and wouldn't) have been a ringing endorsement even back then, the article in The Australian fails current standards for ORGIND by such a distance I struggle to imagine anyone who has actually read the article would think it complies with the current guidelines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how it fails ORGIND. Sure, it's a business column, but what else? Are you claiming that the writer invests in Gecko Gear?We already have three sources that pass NCORP. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how it fails ORGIND
... do you mean besides the fact it's almost entirely composed of quotes and paraphrases taken directly from what the company has to say? ORGIND has two parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how it fails ORGIND. Sure, it's a business column, but what else? Are you claiming that the writer invests in Gecko Gear?We already have three sources that pass NCORP. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Of course things have changed since then. ORGCRIT has been tightend a lot since 2011 (I understand most people place the change around 2018) and while "puff piece" probably shouldn't (and wouldn't) have been a ringing endorsement even back then, the article in The Australian fails current standards for ORGIND by such a distance I struggle to imagine anyone who has actually read the article would think it complies with the current guidelines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Probably spent way too much time on this, but whatever. Not sure what the third source that passed NCORP was. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Secondary? | Overall value toward ORGCRIT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
"Macworld Australia Staff" (20 October 2010). "Australian iPod, iPad and iPhone accessory maker Gecko Gear announces attendance at CES 2011". Macworld Australia. Archived from the original on 2018-04-17.
|
This is a press release. Two ways to tell. Well, three if we count the fact that it's obviously a press release from the content. | – Not really applicable | – | ||
Barker, Garry (8 June 2011). "What's the best case scenario?". Brisbane Times.
Also found in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (PQ 870699777 TWL link, can't find a FUTON copy) |
– | Look, it literally has 5 sentence-sized paragraphs related to the subject, none of which are not a quote, none of which are actually about the subject, plus one about a bag they make. | |||
Foo, Fran (14 August 2010). "Gecko Gear makes the case for quality iPhone accessories". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2010-11-24.
|
Pretty much entirely quotes. Probably should be analysed under TRADES tbh. | – | – At least it's actually vaguely about the subject? | ||
Barker, Gary (29 January 2007). "Lifestyle accessories turn the world into iPod's oyster". The Age.
|
– | – | Besides being a WP:CORPROUTINE announcement, what can we verify besides 1) they have one distribution deal, and 2) they are discussing other distribution deals? That they're celebrating? | – | |
– | – | There's just nothing about the company here except a few quotes from Raymond (the director of the company) | – |
- I think that's about it, unless someone wants to start digging through the dead tree copies of the Australian MacWorld and stuff. I don't see the point frankly, I find it extremely unlikely there exists anything meeting ORGCRIT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors wanting to Keep this article should try to rebut the source analysis presented here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to change my !vote to neutral. I'm not entirely convinced that Barker and Foo don't demonstrate original opinion, but it is indeed too little. Both only count partially, so that isn't a good case for notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Let me put two additional arguments to you. First, the topic of this article is the *company* but the Barker article is about the Ipad2 cover and based entirely on an interview with the founder. Second, references don't count "partially" - we don't aggregate 10 (or whatever number you choose) sources that fail NCORP and determine that there's "enough" therefore to meet the criteria for establishing notability - see WP:SIRS which governs how to evaluate each source and says each individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- My thinking was that the SIGCOV part is extremely shaky, so it counts partially. If it fails IND, then it's just a fail. Barker has a paragraph of individual analysis, but that is indeed just a single, tiny paragraph that happens to not be a trivial mention. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- OK, but just FYI, that's not how to apply the criteria. It is a binary yes/no pass/fail decision. There's no such thing as counting "partially". A "single tiny paragraph" from one reference fails and does not count towards establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
If technically meets SIGCOV but is nowhere near supporting notability. That's what I mean by barely partially. If we had a source that had two, longer paragraphs about the company itself that can't count as one as its own, I think we can combine it with a similar (but different, ofc) source to count as 1 source unit for notability, while my minimum is 2 source units. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's more to the criteria for establishing notability than SIGCOV but to answer your thought on whether you can combine sources to count a 1 source unit, at least for companies/organizations, no we cannot. I've pointed you to WP:SIRS above which clarifies that each individual source must meet all the criteria. Hope that helps, sorry if I'm only confusing matters further for you. HighKing++ 11:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, but just FYI, that's not how to apply the criteria. It is a binary yes/no pass/fail decision. There's no such thing as counting "partially". A "single tiny paragraph" from one reference fails and does not count towards establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Let me put two additional arguments to you. First, the topic of this article is the *company* but the Barker article is about the Ipad2 cover and based entirely on an interview with the founder. Second, references don't count "partially" - we don't aggregate 10 (or whatever number you choose) sources that fail NCORP and determine that there's "enough" therefore to meet the criteria for establishing notability - see WP:SIRS which governs how to evaluate each source and says each individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: As the chart shows, none of the sources are useful for notability in 2024... Beyond mentions of hte company, I still don't see extensive sourcing we can use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 merge to Jewish summer camp. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Foundation for Jewish Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete or merge into Jewish summer camp. The page was originally created 15 years ago by a COI account, and since then per WP:BEFORE, no WP:SIGCOV found on this organization (beyond fleeting media mentions) that would establish WP:NORG and justify a standalone article. Longhornsg (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Judaism. Longhornsg (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Jewish summer camp. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Merge per above --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Jewish summer camp. I see no way of including information from this article into the target page. Why should this specific organization be mentioned and none of the others? A redirect is the best way to preserve the edit history without creating problems on the new page. Broc (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge as suggested above. It's a good organization, but essentially it's a foundation, not a real charity. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Stacey Daniella Gabriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AFD as I placed the wrong PROD and it should not be PROD again. She is not notable enough for inclusion, she is the runner-up of Miss Universe Philippines 2024. She is not the winner of the competition. Google search turn up results about her in the competition, but it is not notable enough. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Philippines. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete non notable pageant titleholder { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I believe she is notable enough through her career as an actress as well as her previous stints in other beauty pageants such as Binibining Pilipinas, not to mention she has a large fan base and can easily be notable as an influencer. NathalieMendoza (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While this article had a BLPPROD, not a PROD, I'm stating that this article is not eligible for Soft Deletion due to the unbolded Keep statement in this discussion. Also, "notability" can't just be claimed, it has to be demonstrated through significant coverage in independent, secondary, reliable sources. Do those exist?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- weak delete: Some critical notice of her advocacy [2], but that's about all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Take My Muffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of notability. Search throws up nothing obvious; cites are less than convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Sourcing I find is strictly to crypto or animation blog sites, none of which are useful for notability. What's also used in the article is not in RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Cryptocurrency. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The articles on AnimationMagazine and CoinIdol seem significant. The claim that it was the 1st series created with the support of a cryptocurrency community is backed for ex by. https://medium.com/@kat123/what-is-take-my-muffin-c734f48266c6 and https://medium.com/@chinedukalu66/take-my-muffin-a-blockchain-based-nft-animation-project-with-the-potential-to-revolutionize-the-e73b125a8484 ; also see https://www.awn.com/news/new-episode-take-my-muffin-hits-youtube, https://thevrsoldier.com/bluelight-aims-to-gamify-the-take-my-muffin-animation-series-betting-on-the-strong-degames-trend/ and the claim itself might add some kind of notability to the production. A redirect to the only creator who has a page, if really that is considered insufficient, maybe? (I think it meets GNG, though) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Medium is not a reliable source and the VR soldier is a press release. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, which leaves us with Animation Film Magazine and some sources on the page, and a claim at notability backed by some sources. Also a redirect to Pavel_Muntyan#Filmography should be considered, so that I take advantage of this comment to indicate I am opposed to deletion.:D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Medium is not a reliable source and the VR soldier is a press release. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)- Delete per above Traumnovelle (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - plain lack of WP:SIGCOV. One good source makes this WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- List of ESPN Latin America announcers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST due to a lack of reliable secondary sources discussing this grouping. Let'srun (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Lists, and Latin America. Let'srun (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per failing WP:LISTN. Via ESPN Desportés, there were a few good in-depth pieces about their announcers. Thing is... it's WP:PRIMARY. I've found nothing otherwise pertaining to the secondary sourcing of this WP:NAVIGATION. The category article, works just as well. Conyo14 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Conyo14. Unsourced and WP:OR excuse of a WP:LISTCRUFT list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no references which is required on Wikipedia. Catfurball (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- David Pérez (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources are predominantly interviews of the player or routine transfer news, and aren't suggestive of notability for this footballer. As far as I can ascertain, he has never played professionally – neither in Sweden nor in Italy (including Atalanta's under-23 team). I'm not opposed to draftification if there's potential for the subject to be notable in the near future. (I should also note that the previous AfD was about a different person, so is impertinent to this discussion.) Complex/Rational 20:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – WP:TOOSOON. I see no significance for this player at this time. Delete or Draftify.BabbaQ (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 18:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify—Clearly WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Alinur Velidedeoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 19:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, and Turkey. Kadı Message 19:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to share my analysis about the sources provided by Fram in the 1st nomination.
- Haberler.com and Gecce.com are unreliable websites, we do not use it as Turkish users in trwiki. Second link is from Hürriyet Kelebek, the article is about his divorce with his wife, magazine news, do not contribute to notability. Capital.com.tr website gives information about his explanations, do not meet independence criteria. In conclusion, most of the links are magazine news which do not contribute to notability. Kind regards, Kadı Message 19:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Nothing here to establish notability. Doesn't meet WP:BASIC. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - there is an extraordinary claim of notability of a living person, and yet zero citations. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Embassy of Egypt, Baku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Depending on how one considers the embassy, fails WP:NBUILDING / WP:NORG / WP:GNG. There's just no coverage. There are some mentions of the embassy in Azerbaijani state media (like Azertag, Azernews), which are not independent from the subject, given that they are publicly-owned and tightly controlled by the regime (RSF and Freedom House give some of the lowest marks for media freedom to Azerbaijan). Pilaz (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Egypt, and Azerbaijan. Pilaz (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG. The last paragraph isn't even about the embassy. LibStar (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- List of United States vice presidential firsts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:LISTN, seems to fall afoul of WP:NOTTRIVIA as well. I'm not seeing any corresponding content at Vice President of the United States that would make retarget or merge appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, and United States of America. signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I do not see an excuse of this WP:OR WP:LISTCRUFT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. You can always find weird, arbitrary firsts for just about anything, but there's no reason to dump them here. For example, Daniel D. Tompkins is the only vice president to have served two terms in the 1800s and first to die within a year of leaving office. First bald VP? First left-handed VP? First VP over 5' 10" tall? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Category:Lists of firsts shows a lot of these types articles exist. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts was kept, an argument made that the media covers that. So I searched for "First vice president to" [3] and found news coverage of various things. The media covers the first vice president to do anything. Individual things listed can be searched for as well. Any history book about a vice president, will mention what they were the first to do. Dream Focus 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Selecting what goes onto this list is always going to be an exercise in original research. Also contravenes WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just list things that a reliable source in the news media or a history book or a government website mentioned was a notable achievement. I added some references earlier, quote easy to find. Dream Focus 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Although this list has issues, I don't think it can't be edited with reasonable effort. It's well sourced or easily sourced. Have we considered alternatives to deletion? Bearian (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "United States vice presidential firsts" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
Sources- Kane, Joseph Nathan; Podell, Janet (2009). Facts About the Presidents: A Compilation of Biographical and Historical Information (8 ed.). New York: H. W. Wilson Company. ISBN 978-0-8242-1087-8. Retrieved 2024-06-05 – via Internet Archive.
The book notes on page 789:
- "The first Vice President to be appointed rather than elected to office was Gerald Rudolph Ford"
- "Alben William Barkley, Vice President to Harry S. Truman, was the first Vice President to marry in office."
- Alben William Barkley was the first Vice President to be called (and to call himself) "The Veep.""
- "Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn in as Vice President of the United States on January 20, 1961, at 12:41 P.M., by Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn. This was the first time that a Vice President was sworn in by a Speaker of the House."
- "For some 40 minutes on January 10, 2000, Vice President Al Gore presided over a Security Council session on the AIDS epidemic. ... This was the first time that an American Vice President had been invited to chair a meeting of the U.N. Security Council."
- The book notes on page 31: "John Adams, the first Vice President to be elevated to the presidency ..."
- The book notes on page 48: "Thomas Jefferson was the first and last Vice President to defeat a President."
- The book notes on page 61: "Apr. 20, 1812, death of George Clinton, first Vice President to die in office"
- The book notes on page 91: "John Caldwell Calhoun, Vice President under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, was the first Vice President not born a British subject."
- The book notes on page 103 about Richard Mentor Johnson: "First vice president elected by the senate."
- The book notes on page 124: "John Tyler was the first Vice President to succeed to the presidency through the death of a President."
- The book notes on page 164 about William Rufus Devane King: "Of all the Presidents and Vice Presidents, King was the first and only one to take the oath in a foreign country."
- The book notes on page 220: "Schuyler Colfax was the first officer to preside over both houses of Congress. He was Speaker of the House of Representatives ... As Vice President under President Grant, he presided over the Senate ..."
- The book notes on page 439: "The first Speaker of the House of Representatives to administer the oath of office to a Vice President of the United States was Sam Rayburn, who on January 20, 1961, administered the oath of office to Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson."
- The book notes on page 455: Lyndon Baines Johnson "was the first Vice President to witness the assassination of the President whom he succeeded in office."
- The book notes on page 487: Gerald Rudolph Ford "was the first Vice President to succeed to the presidency upon the resignation of a President" and "was the first Vice President chosen under the Twenty-fifth Amendment".
- The book notes on page 488: "The first President and Vice President to serve together without being elected to their respective offices were President Gerald Rudolph Ford and Vice President Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. Both reached office under the provisions of the Twenty-fifth Amendment."
- The book notes on page 588 of Richard "Dick" Cheney: "As the President’s chief liaison with Congress, the Vice President was the first Vice President to have an office on the House side of Congress as well as the Senate side."
- The book notes on page 709: "The first Catholic to be elected Vice President was Joseph Robinette Biden, nominated by the Democratic Pary in 2008."
- The book notes on page 780: "Richard Milhous Nixon was the first Vice President to be elected President several years after his vice presidential term."
- Romansky, Jerry (2020-08-23). "Ask Jerry: The firsts among U.S. vice presidents". Foster's Daily Democrat. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.
The article notes: "As for firsts among our vice presidents (VPs), here is a partial list that might interest you. These are just the random firsts that float chronologically into my mind. 1. The first VP to become president was John Adams. He served with the first president George Washington. 2. The first VP to serve under two different U.S. presidents was George Clinton. He served with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. 3. The first VP to resign from office was John Calhoun. His resignation was based on political differences with Andrew Jackson."
- Bunis, Dena (2004-06-24). "Strategy of VP picks - Vice presidential firsts - Vice presidents who became president". The Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.
The article notes: "Vice presidential firsts. First female VP candidate for a major party -- Geraldine Ferraro (also first Italian-American). First VP appointed under the rules of the 25th amendment -- Gerald Ford. First VP to become president after the death of a sitting president -- John Tyler. First VP to die in office, first to serve under two presidents (Jefferson and Madison) -- George Clinton. First VP to serve as "acting president" (during surgery of sitting president) -- George H.W. Bush."
- Tullai, Martin (1997-01-18). "Vice presidency is no party". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.
The article notes: "The first vice president to become president on the death of a chief executive was John Tyler. ... The first vice president to be nominated specifically for that office was George Clinton, who ran with Thomas Jefferson in 1804. ... Richard Mentor Johnson was the only vice president selected by the Senate. ... [Alben] Barkley was also the first vice president to marry in office. ... Coolidge was the first vice president to sit in regularly on Cabinet meetings. (Nixon was the first in 1953 to preside at a National Security Council meeting. The first vice president to be appointed - not elected - was Gerald R. Ford. George Bush was the first vice president to serve officially as acting president ... The only vice president of American Indian extraction was Charles Curtis ... Henry Wallace was the first veep assigned administrative duties by the president. ... William Rufus King was the only vice president to take the oath while in another country"
- Southwick, Albert B. (2008-09-18). "Insignificant vice presidency's pendulum is swinging back". Telegram & Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.
The article notes: "John Adams, the first vice president, called it “the most insignificant position ever devised by man.” ... Only one other man — John C. Calhoun — has served as vice president under presidents of different political parties. ... Only one other vice president — George Clinton of New York — ever served under two presidents. ... So he continued on as vice president until he died in 1811, the first vice president to die in office. ... The first vice president to inherit the office from a dead president was John Tyler in 1841, when old William Henry Harrison expired after only a few weeks in office. ... Henry Wilson of Massachusetts was the only vice president to die in his office at the Capitol. ... Franklin D. Roosevelt is perhaps the only man in history to make a political comeback after losing a vice presidential race."
WP:NOTTRIVIA says "Wikipedia articles should not be" and lists "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". A list of United States vice presidential firsts is none of these.
The list can be written so that there is no violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria notes:
Wikipedia:No original research
As long as each entry in the list is cited to one or more reliable sources confirming that the vice presidential first, the list would comply with the Wikipedia:No original research policy.Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.
Perfection is not requiredThe policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says,
If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says,Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
- Kane, Joseph Nathan; Podell, Janet (2009). Facts About the Presidents: A Compilation of Biographical and Historical Information (8 ed.). New York: H. W. Wilson Company. ISBN 978-0-8242-1087-8. Retrieved 2024-06-05 – via Internet Archive.
- Delete I appreciate that there are sources for some of the information and some sourcing about the firsts in aggregate, but this page still fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Any information in this list could be added to the pages of the vice presidents if it is not already there. --Enos733 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete the list is too arbitrary. Some of the information is in other articles (home state, religion). Other parts are useless trivia. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: some sourcing about the firsts in aggregate, but this page still fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA – the existence of "sourcing about the firsts in aggregate" means the topic meets WP:NLIST. WP:NOTTRIVIA is not violated because a list of United States vice presidential firsts is not "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates".
the list is too arbitrary – the list is not arbitrary because it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (WP:NLIST).
Some of the information is in other articles (home state, religion). – this list is complementary to the other lists but not duplicative. That some of the information is covered in other lists is not a policy-based reason to delete this list. Cunard (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- NOTTRIVIA very much does apply here, which you're taking a too-narrow view of. This is a list of random little factoids, i.e., statistics without context. None of these firsts have any context about why such a first was in any way meaningful. In other words, it's just a list of trivia, of little to no encyclopedic value. In your disruptively formatted, disruptively verbose !vote above, you stated
"The book notes on page 164 about William Rufus Devane King: 'Of all the Presidents and Vice Presidents, King was the first and only one to take the oath in a foreign country.'"
So what? Why does this matter? WP:TRIVIA advises against sections of trivia in articles because they become cruft magnets, among other reasons. But that's all this list is. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)- WP:NOTTRIVIA says "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics". The statistics article says "any quantity computed from values in a sample which is considered for a statistical purpose". None of the information in the article is "computed from values in a sample". None of the information in the article is being "considered for a statistical purpose". This article does not violate that section of the policy. Cunard (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're Wikilawyering, arguing the semantics of "statistics"; I could counter that "firsts" are inherently numerical and so qualify. But that's really all beside the point. This is contextless trivia, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT for. If everyone is appealing to the spirit of NOTTRIVIA, then that's good enough. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTTRIVIA is a shortcut that in 2021 was retargeted from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections to WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No community consensus was established for the shortcut. "Firsts" are not "computed from values in a sample". There is nothing in the text or spirit of the policy to support deleting an article that meets Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. No one has refuted the reliable sources showing that the topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". To expand the policy to include articles like this one would require an RfC to change the policy. Cunard (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're Wikilawyering, arguing the semantics of "statistics"; I could counter that "firsts" are inherently numerical and so qualify. But that's really all beside the point. This is contextless trivia, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT for. If everyone is appealing to the spirit of NOTTRIVIA, then that's good enough. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTTRIVIA says "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics". The statistics article says "any quantity computed from values in a sample which is considered for a statistical purpose". None of the information in the article is "computed from values in a sample". None of the information in the article is being "considered for a statistical purpose". This article does not violate that section of the policy. Cunard (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- NOTTRIVIA very much does apply here, which you're taking a too-narrow view of. This is a list of random little factoids, i.e., statistics without context. None of these firsts have any context about why such a first was in any way meaningful. In other words, it's just a list of trivia, of little to no encyclopedic value. In your disruptively formatted, disruptively verbose !vote above, you stated
- Delete per my response immediately above. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:LC items 2, 5, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Organisation of the Polish Nation - Polish League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, coverage in independent secondary sources is fleeting. Cited sources include an opinion piece that does not appear to make mention of the topic ([4]), press releases from the organization itself ([5], [6]), press releases for a counter-protest against an action called by ONP-LP ([7]), and mere mentions in higher quality sources ([8] [9]). Searching online, on Google Scholar, and on Google Books for various permutations of the organization's name and acronym in English and Polish, I was not able to find significant coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Poland. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I do not want to directly participate in the vote since I am the person behind the article, and I want to apologize since I created this article when my experience was somewhat lacking, and I relied heavily on translating the page from Polish Wikipedia.
- I would argue that the quality of the sources for the party is less of the problem of the party being that irrelevant (it participated in elections, which makes it more important than half of the 1990s Polish parties that have articles), and has more with me not doing a good job here. I apologize for my shortcomings and I will try to improve the article in the coming days.
- I managed to find following secondary sources that give more information on the party beyond a mere mention:
- Lakomy Lilianna. (2008). Komunikacja perswazyjna w języku polityki na przykładzie polskich kampanii prezydenckich. Praca doktorska. Katowice : Uniwersytet Śląski;
- Jacek Harłukowicz. (2005). Kandydat szuka niszy. https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kandydat-szuka-niszy-6037504817279617a;
- Paweł Malendowicz. (2013). Polonia amerykańska wobec członkostwa Polski w NATO i Unii Europejskiej. Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej. Bygdoszcz;
- Jarosław Tomasiewicz. (2002). Powrót Ligi. Sprawy Polityczne;
- Marcin Kornak. (2008). Katolog wypadków – „Brunatna Księga”. NIGDY WIĘCEJ nr 16.
- Thank you. Brat Forelli🦊 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, the article was clearly improved to a good standard. Polish kurd (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - after improving article, I believe that the amount of references providing non-trivial mentions is sufficient to keep it.
- Brat Forelli🦊 14:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Has contested multiple national elections and received 60,000 votes in one of them. Clearly a notable political party IMO. Number 57 01:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Article has been expanded since nomination and cites RS. It would be good to hear from the nom if they find this satisfactory now? @Rosguill Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I tried following up on the sources identified by Brat Forelli above--the only ones I was able to access were Lakomy 2008 and Harlukowicz 2005--Lakomy 2008 does comprise significant coverage, but Harlukowicz appears to be just a mere mention. So, I still haven't actually seen enough coverage to meet ORGCRITE, but it is possible that the other sources cited that I was unable to access have such coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Article has been expanded since nomination and cites RS. It would be good to hear from the nom if they find this satisfactory now? @Rosguill Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 nom withdrawn and it doesn't seem like the only other non-keep (Timtrent) actually wants to challenge notability, merely give time for improvement, so I'm closing this per SK1 for now, with no prejudice against speedy renomination if anyone does decide that they believe the company is non-notable. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Samana Bay Company of Santo Domingo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article was created, moved to draftspace, then moved back to article space by the page creator before a review occurred. I was advised to start a debate here by @Jéské Couriano:. DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Dominican Republic. DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note for posterity that I don't actually believe that the article should be deleted; I think notability is proven by the available sources, as well as these which I found myself: [1][2][3][4] I am mainly putting this here because I understand that it is policy for controversial moves to draftspace. DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @DeemDeem52, The only need to start an AFD is if you think it should be deleted. AFC is optional and articles do not need to be reviewed by the AFC volunteers, except in certain cases of COI or a history of undesirable content creation. So if you do not think this should be deleted and is demonstrably notable you can withdraw this nomination. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see; the reason I included this in AfD was because I was advised to here. What should be the proper process for returning this to draftspace? DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @DeemDeem52, The only need to start an AFD is if you think it should be deleted. AFC is optional and articles do not need to be reviewed by the AFC volunteers, except in certain cases of COI or a history of undesirable content creation. So if you do not think this should be deleted and is demonstrably notable you can withdraw this nomination. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note for posterity that I don't actually believe that the article should be deleted; I think notability is proven by the available sources, as well as these which I found myself: [1][2][3][4] I am mainly putting this here because I understand that it is policy for controversial moves to draftspace. DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify: The history shows this to be a disputed draftification. It appears to be susceptible to improvement, though I have not determined its true notability. Draft space gives those interested the time and peace and quiet to see if the can be achieved 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or Draftify: Searching for info on this, it clearly meets GNG and there is lot of room to expand (which might be best to do in draft space instead of keeping it as a stub). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, while a little rushed, notability is demonstrated here and while AfC or draftify is preferential when an article isn't suitable for mainspace, there is nothing inherently wrong with this stub. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 20:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Withdraw: The article has now been reviewed, so I don't think there's really any more reason to keep this up for draftification. (I think the relevant policy would now require a speedy keep from someone who's not me, though.) DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Pennington, Dennis (2000-01-01). "The Golden Fields of Santo Domingo: A Historical Analysis of America's Obsession with the Dominican Republic During the Nineteenth century". Mahurin Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Projects.
- ^ academic.oup.com https://academic.oup.com/jah/article/97/4/974/717342. Retrieved 2024-05-29.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ "The Transition to Plantation Agriculture in the - ProQuest". www.proquest.com. Retrieved 2024-05-29.
- ^ "THE UNITED STATES AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, 1871-1940: A CYCLE IN CARIBBEAN DIPLOMACY - ProQuest". www.proquest.com. Retrieved 2024-05-29.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to ZZz. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Björn Ottenheim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I wasn't able to find significant coverage establishing independent notability. It seems that most coverage of the subject is in the context of zZz, a redirect to which would make sense as an alternative to deletion. toweli (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. toweli (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to zZz per nominator, no context, unjustified SPINOFF, ATD, and CHEAP. It's really a no-brainer. gidonb (talk)
- Redirect or Delete - not notable to me, just an article of three lines with little or no detailed information about the subject. Also, there are no references to establish notability. Mevoelo (talk)
Hi @toweli - this is lostscot - the creator of the original article.
Sorry I am new to this.
I think you are probably right that this page on Bjorn Ottenheim should be deleted and/or merged with the page on zZz.
I believe the page on zZz is relevant and should not be deleted.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Tahani Al-Yanbaawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:TOOSOON for this footballer article probably. All I found was this transactional announcement and a few sentences here. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Saudi Arabia. JTtheOG (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like WP:GNG as the editor above suggested. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete—per above and per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Christopher Norton. Not much material to merge. Malinaccier (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Microjazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced for 5 years and cannot locate any reliable sources to get it to meet WP:GNG. Random line of sheet music, not inherently notable. ZimZalaBim talk 15:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Education, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, this [10] helps, I'll see what else comes up... Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Christopher Norton: Most hits are in relation to Christopher Norton [11], [12] are brief reviews... Unless someone can find better sourcing to !keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Christopher Norton: if independent sourcing for the term can be found, otherwise redirect. Owen× ☎ 19:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 move to Glenwood South. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Glenwood Avenue (North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is for a moderately utilized surface arterial in Raleigh, North Carolina. No sources indicating significance, article barely long enough to be a stub, plus discrepancy between the article's title and its content. Suggesting either deletion or redirecting to U.S. Route 70 in North Carolina. MikeM2011 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MikeM2011 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Geography, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The title should be moved to Glenwood South, the name of the neighborhood, rather than the street name. If The New York Times writes about a neighbourhood, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/travel/old-neighborhood-new-sounds.html , the neighborhood is probably notable. I added some other references as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and move to Glenwood South per Eastmain, I also found this source that discusses the district.
- Keep and move per above. Agreed the avenue itself would be a delete-able article, this is a valid article on a wrong topic. SportingFlyer T·C 03:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ghulam Rasool Saeedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
So earlier today, I moved this bio to the draft NS because I didn't find the subject WP:N enough. However, the creator Youknowwhoistheman moved it back to the main NS without any discussion. So, I think it's reasonable to nom. it for deletion. From what I can tell, the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or even AUTHOR. Plus, this piece is just a Letter to the editor, so one should simply ignore it when establishing GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Thanks for noticing, I think that before putting any new article in draft, it should be given time. So that it can be properly prepared. You put it in draft in a very short time without thinking. Secondly, always try to improve an article before putting it on deletion, rather than nominating it for deletion.
Now coming to the point, is this article really not passing the general notability of Wikipedia, WP:GNG? So, I think you should have done a little more in-depth study. If you search his name in Urdu and English, you will find mention of him in hundreds of books. And there are hundreds of books in which he is mentioned, but he has not come in the world of internet. Which is absolutely right according to Wikipedia policy, for more information you can read WP:Offline.
Yes, it definitely seems to me that the way you put the article in draft in a hurry, it seems as if you have some personal enmity with him.
Thanks, take care! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Youknowwhoistheman, It's strange that everyone thinks I have some sort of agenda or personal enmity with them. Rest assured, I don't have any personal issues with the subject. He's deceased—may he RIP. Tbh, I didn't want to nominate this for deletion. I wanted to give this bio a chance, which is why I draftified it instead of AfD'g it. However, you moved it back to the main NS - leaving me no other option but to bring it here. So you need to avoid WP:ATA and prove that he either meets GNG or AUTHOR. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah sure, it is left to other editors to decide. again, thanks you! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
* Keep. Meets Wikipedia's notability standards. There is an entry about this person in The Pakistan National Bibliography book from 1975 -- having a subject listed in a national book of biographies is always a good indicator of notability. Second, a Google Scholar search turns up his name referenced in a number of works. Finally, the citations provided in the article appear to be solid overall and support notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per SouthernNights. WP:BEFORE was not done properly. A simple search in Urdu newspapers brings a lot of coverage: [13], [14]. Meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Bad nomination which should be withdrawn asap. 2A00:23C6:139B:A101:78CA:7B5:3148:9172 (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- List of career achievements by Hakeem Olajuwon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTSTATS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE - there is already significant consensus that these big lists of stats are not encyclopedic - several other discussions of this type are listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Shaquille O'Neal BrigadierG (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and United States of America. BrigadierG (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate, trivial stats minutiae. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. The basic stats are already at Hakeem Olajuwon § Career statistics. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS:
Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing
As most of this page is unsourced, there's no opportunity to merge either.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC) - Delete Agree with Bagumba. The important accomplishments should already be in the main Hakeem Olajuwon article. This article has too many overly-specific statistics that won't realistically be maintained over time. I quickly found one stat that is out of date (Olajuwon currently ranks 7th in career defensive rebounds, not third: [15]). I'm sure there are more problems like that, but I don't think it's worth anyone's time to try to fix that stuff. Other websites can handle this stuff more effectively. Zagalejo (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was draftify. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hereditary Villa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The film doesn't meet WP:NFILM. No any WP:RS also. Claggy (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Claggy (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: @Claggy: I'm a bit confused, as the article has already cited seven sources from Mehr News Agency, Hamshahri, Borna News Agency , Iranian Labour News Agency, Pupils Association News Agency, and Namnamak News. None of these seem like inherently unreliable sources. So I was wondering perhaps your concern is more along the lines of WP:TOOSOON, given that the film has not yet been released? However, the sources from Borna, ILNA, and PANA do seem to back up the fact that the film has already entered production and finished filming. This would suggest the article has passed WP:NFF as well. Could you please provide some additional elaboration on the rationales behind the nomination? —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul) 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Vote keep for the time being, as I don't find any critical problems with this article that would lead to a deletion. —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul) 14:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Prince of Erebor Hi, The Persian-language news agencies inside Iran that you mentioned are generally not valid even in Persian Wikipedia. This article doesn't meet any of the WP:NFILM and WP:GNG criteria. I don't see any WP:RS here. Claggy (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Claggy: Hi Claggy, thanks for explaining! I can't read Persian and didn't see the above sources listed at the Persian Wikipedia's List of Perennial sources, so I will trust Claggy in good faith. If the Persian sources from news agencies currently in the article are considered unreliable, no RS are presented to back this unreleased film, so I guess it fails NFILM and it is WP:TOOSOON. A redirect to a major creator at this point seems more appropiate. I second Mushy Yank's proposal and change my vote to
Redirect to Nima Hashemi.—Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul) 02:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)- @Prince of Erebor Actually the director also doesn't pass WP:GNG. Him article has been deleted 3 times in Persian Wikipedia. Claggy (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Took a look at the director's article, which was also heavily based on Iranian news agency sources (eg, Mehr, Borna, Young Journalists Club), and was accordingly deemed unreliable on the fawiki. Since the proposed redirect destination is most likely to face deletion (if not, ATD), while this film does actually receive a certain degree of media coverage and has an imminent release date, I agree that it would be more reasonable to Draftify the article for now. —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul) 09:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Claggy: Hi Claggy, thanks for explaining! I can't read Persian and didn't see the above sources listed at the Persian Wikipedia's List of Perennial sources, so I will trust Claggy in good faith. If the Persian sources from news agencies currently in the article are considered unreliable, no RS are presented to back this unreleased film, so I guess it fails NFILM and it is WP:TOOSOON. A redirect to a major creator at this point seems more appropiate. I second Mushy Yank's proposal and change my vote to
Redirect to Nima Hashemi:until further development is clear maybe. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)- the page for the director has also been taken to Afd (same nom) since my !vote. So DRAFTIFY for now -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Saeed Reza Khoshshans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not qualify under WP:GNG, as the sources (both in article and in BEFORE search) appear to be affiliated with the author, press releases, or trivial mentions. (One source might qualify, but we need multiple.) The subject also does not meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't find coverage in Jstor, Gbooks or Gscholar, so I'm not sure what else can be found... Delete for a lack of sourcing; happy to revisit if other sources can be found. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Saweria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not sufficient sources to meet NCORP; not notable as a standalone page. Sources are about IDN Media BoraVoro (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Internet, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Can't find significant sources. Most are about IDN. Doesn't pass WP:GNG.Hkkingg (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- 2023 Rajasthan MiG-21 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The accident has a lack of sustained continued coverage. The majority of news publications do not have a sufficient (if any) amount of in depth coverage to justify a stand-alone article for this event. The event didn't demonstrate much unusualness that would make the accident notable on itself Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and India. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. This event did not have a significant lasting effect. It was a routine kind of news event on an accident that is not notable. I did not find a suitable target for merging. RangersRus (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. While tragic, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. Longhornsg (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Winston Utomo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not sufficient sources to meet ANYBIO; sources are more about IDN Media. BoraVoro (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Indonesia, Singapore, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of independent notability from significant coverage; I would not oppose a redirect to IDN Media. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Boss Creator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not sufficient sources to meet NCORP; lack general notability BoraVoro (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - music festivals are not inherently notable; there are few sources. I would not oppose a redirect to its parent corp, of IDN Media. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- MORF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not sufficient sources to meet NCORP; lack general notability BoraVoro (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Management, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- The Korte Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WP NCORP. There are some routine announcements like this https://wgel.com/news/2023/03/carlisle-expansion-project-set-to-begin/ but it won't help BoraVoro (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Liberty Playing Card Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot find sufficient independent sources BoraVoro (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, Illinois, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Robert Marcus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not meeting WP ANYBIO BoraVoro (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Hardly any coverage of this individual, some mentions while at Time Warner. Even what's now used for sourcing in the article isn't much. Oaktree b (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Law, New York, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete - there's some evidence that he's notable as an attorney, but that would not be the consensus of Wikipedians. What about a redirect? Bearian (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perajärve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no such village exists in Estonia. No working references given. See KNAB results for Perajärve: [16] Estopedist1 (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - While I don't speak Estonian, it seems like this is some sort of forest retreat, not a settlement ([17]). KNAB results are convincing, and I don't see any sources indicating current or past status as a settlement. AviationFreak💬 13:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't in the results list linked above, but it is when the search is changed from "Perajärve" to "Peräjärve". Peter James (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete There was a Peräjärve village (also spelled Perajärve), near Simula, now in Rõuge vald. Also a small lake there with that name (Vällämäe Peräjärv). Also, a nature trail (Peräjärve metsarada) in neighboring Antlsa vald. Think the original creator of the article has this confused. Either way, the village of Peräjärve no longer exists. So, delete. ExRat (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The source is GEOnet Names Server; despite what is stated in the nomination the place is in KNAB (ID is 96093416) but it is described as "mitteametlik asula"; put that into Google Translate and it's "informal settlement". I think that means it probably fails WP:GEOLAND (as many places in the GNIS or PRNG or with Ordnance Survey TOID do) but it also returns the EHAK ID of Ähijärve so that would be a valid redirect target (although the diacritics differ from the current title and both are the names of other places so a disambiguation page would probably be more useful than a redirect to a specific article). Peter James (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The place near Simula is also in KNAB (ID 96031133). Peter James (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Big the Cat. ✗plicit 13:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Big the Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability. I redirected this article on (to quote article) a minor character in Sonic to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters; edit was reverted. Seeking a broader consensus. I note from the edit histort that there has already been some discussion of the topic, concluding that a redirect is appropriate.TheLongTone (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This AfD does not have a policy-based reason for merging; being a minor character in Sonic is not relevant to whether he is notable. It also misquotes the article; it does not say that this is a minor character, it says that Big plays a minor role in a single Sonic anime series. In his debut role, he's one of six main characters of the game, and he later appears as one of the four trios of characters in Sonic Heroes. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per the consensus in this past discussion. And a second time here. I asked the article creator what's changed, and it's been days and they haven't responded. It's unclear to me what sources represent significant coverage of the character itself. Even if notability is met, it should be sent back to the draft and copy edited. These prose is extremely rough. No idea why a draft like this was rushed out. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect There is a bit of significant coverage from Escapist, but overall there doesn't seem to be enough for a standalone page on the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect again. Target should be List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Big the Cat. The character is too minor for a full article even given that he has some fans. There are a lot of references but all they do is verify that this is a minor character that some people like. This article is also poorly written. I see some people trying to fix that but I think that the notability problem would doom it even if they fixed everything that is fixable and so I recommend that they don't waste too much time on it. Instead, if there is anything worth saving, maybe merge a few sentences (not more) into the redirect target. Also, Froggy (Sonic the Hedgehog character) should be redirected to the same target to avoid a double redirect. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. It is quite unfortunate that I thought the 2 Eurogamer sources would help, but it really doesn't; just like the Kotaku source. The Escapist alone wouldn't help, but the worst part is this [18]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Update to that last bit of your comment. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect I was the one that challenged this being redirected boldly since I had a feeling this character could be notable and I felt as if this users past creations constantly being redirected for not being notable was a little harsh. But now that I see the comment that was linked above, and looking at the article for myself, not only is it not notable, but the writing is horrendous. Not to come off as harsh, but comment above and the user rushing the draft instead of waiting for feedback despite their past failures strikes me as the editor not being competent. λ NegativeMP1 14:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the claims of @Cukie Gherkin: or merge with List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Big the Cat - The sourcing is weak, with most of it being trivial or just gameplay feature announcements (i.e. "Big the Cat will be in this game"). Merging is not needed, since their section in the character list already includes the information here, just in a much more succinct, better written format, including his role in the games, appearances, and even the negative reception he received from fans. Rorshacma (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- 2024 Russia Air Force Tupolev Tu-22M crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:EVENTS: no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, Russia, and Ukraine. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War. The accident does not have sustained continued coverage with a lack of reliable (secondary) sources and no clear notability established other than the type of aircraft itself. A merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War would be the preferable solution as the event does not warrant a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to extant entry at List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Wikipedia is not a news host, and there is nothing particularly notable or enduring about the coverage of this loss in comparison to the hundreds of others without articles. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Viktor Bolkhovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
should be considered for deletion due to insufficient notability or significance of the subject, as evidenced by a lack of substantial verifiable information and reliable sources to support their notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: The sources in the article include extensive profiles on the Moskovskij Komsomolets, Argumenty i Fakty, and REN TV. Way more than sufficient to show WP:NBIO. Broc (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Russia. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The sources on this are good. For a Russian crime topic, probably above average. As far as I can see, everything is cited. What? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The subject meets WP:GNG with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Brad Heckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources that pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC/WP:PROF/WP:ARTIST, and I was unable to find any additional sources that meet notability criteria after a search of my own. The majority of sources are not independent of the subject, and some do not contain significant coverage. Several parts of the article read in a promotional tone. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Artists, Businesspeople, and Social science. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I find this nomination for the deletion of the Brad Heckman article to be both perplexing and unsubstantiated. It appears the nominator made their decision after requesting access to the Wall Street Journal article, which was behind a paywall. If this singular paywalled source was the tipping point for an AfD discussion, we need to reassess what constitutes a careless deletion nomination because this one certainly fits the bill. The Wall Street Journal article in question is entirely about the nonprofit organization that Heckman founded and led. It begs the question: What specifically about that article, which thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work, convinced the nominator that this article deserved deletion? Let's entertain the notion for a moment that the sources might not be independent of the subject, which seems to be suggested by the nomination. This presumably refers to the TEDx talk given by Heckman. Notability guidelines clearly state that the source must be independent of the subject. TEDx talks, much like interviews in Rolling Stone or other reputable publications, should not be considered non-independent simply because they involve the subject speaking about their work. This rule is better suited for sources like blogs and social media posts, not established platforms like TEDx. Additionally, articles published by universities about their alumni typically reflect the institution's pride and are usually well-researched, as evidenced by the in-depth article from Dickinson College on Heckman's life and achievements. Heckman is a published illustrator and painter, recognized by reputable organizations such as the Combat Antisemitism Movement for his artistic contributions. The mention of his nonprofit offering free mediation services is a factual statement about the organization's purpose, not an advertisement. According to WP:PROMO, a promotional tone is characterized by self-promotion and blatant advocacy, neither of which are present in this article. Wikipedia’s own guidelines suggest tagging articles with {{Promotional tone}} if necessary, rather than nominating them for deletion. I urge my fellow editors to consider these points carefully. The Brad Heckman article is well-supported by independent and reliable sources, and the nomination for deletion appears to be based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Wikipedia's notability and promotional content guidelines. Let's keep this informative and well-documented article. Thank you. 9t5 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 9t5 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
- For reference, 9t5 asked me to review this page at User talk:FormalDude § Page review. I checked to see if I had access to all the sources (since I wouldn't want to review it if I didn't) and the only one I couldn't access was the WSJ article. I didn't start reviewing until 9t5 provided me with a link to a free copy of the WSJ source on my talk page (that link now says deleted by the owner, I've reuploaded here). So no, the WSJ wasn't any "tipping point". Nonetheless, it does not contain significant coverage of Heckman, you said it yourself: it's "
entirely about the nonprofit organization
". It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization. When you say it "thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work
" I feel like I'm not even reading the same article as you; I can't see how it verifies even a single piece of information about him. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)- @FormalDude “It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization”… the funny thing is that even without a Wall Street Journal subscription, you are still capable of reading the first paragraph of the article that states “But when I called the Peace Institute, CEO Brad Heckman confirmed my buddy's account”.. quite the thorough review you did. The pdf was set to auto-delete since I don’t have the right to redistribute what is behind a paywall. You could always drop $0.99 and read it on the Wall Street Journal’s website though. Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- @FormalDude But since you are making absolutely untrue statements like “It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization”.. THIS is the Wall Street Journal article. I went ahead and re-uploaded it. 9t5 (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see I missed the first two paragraphs which provide us with the one fact that Heckman is the CEO. That's still not significant coverage. Here's my assessment of the article's more promising sources:
- For reference, 9t5 asked me to review this page at User talk:FormalDude § Page review. I checked to see if I had access to all the sources (since I wouldn't want to review it if I didn't) and the only one I couldn't access was the WSJ article. I didn't start reviewing until 9t5 provided me with a link to a free copy of the WSJ source on my talk page (that link now says deleted by the owner, I've reuploaded here). So no, the WSJ wasn't any "tipping point". Nonetheless, it does not contain significant coverage of Heckman, you said it yourself: it's "
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
WSJ | Entirely about the company, only passing mentions of Heckman. | ✘ No | ||
TEDx Talks | This is a speech given by Heckman, clearly not independent. | ~ Per RSP, must abide by WP:ABOUTSELF. | ✘ No | |
Dickinson College | Written for and by Heckmen's alma matter, consituting a WP:COISOURCE. | ~ May have been provided entirely by Heckmen without any editorial oversight. | ✘ No | |
NYT | Only a passing mention of Heckman. | ✘ No | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
- ––FormalDude (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- @FormalDude You literally uploaded a copy of the article with that part and most of the article cut out…? I’m more concerned about that than anything else. 9t5 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- “Written by alma mater”… what?! It’s published on an official university’s .edu website. You have got to be kidding me. Your speculation about universities publishing lies in order to fake the notability of their alumni is not something you need to bring with you when you sit down to review pages. That is absolutely wild to me. @FormalDude 9t5 (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The source being independent of the subject doesn’t mean that their commentary cannot be what the material is. The SOURCE must be independent of the subject.
- Wikipedia’s words:
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
- Press releases, advertisements, autobiographies and ones own website are completely within our control. If we want, we don’t need to fact check before we publish those sorts off things.
- What makes TEDx and other outlets reliable is the fact that the company is independent of the subject. So they won’t post something that is completely BS — they check to make sure it’s true first.
- You aren’t understanding what a reference being “independent of the subject” means. 9t5 (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Our standards for assessing sources, especially when it comes to notability, are much stricter than "not posting completely BS" and "not publishing lies". Presenting an argument about notability as an argument about TEDx posting completely BS or a university publishing lies is an extreme exaggeration of the actual debate. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- FormalDude: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. - WP:SIGCOV the entire article is the authors experience having met Heckman and learned about his company’s mission. You’re telling me that since the company is the main topic that it doesn’t count? That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to go around doing to editors. You’re causing issues where there doesn’t need to be. Good for you. Enjoy your AfD discussion. 9t5 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are we going to ignore the sentence right before your quote?
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
tell me you can say with a straight face that WSJ has addressed Brad Heckman as a person directly and in detail. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are we going to ignore the sentence right before your quote?
- @FormalDude You literally uploaded a copy of the article with that part and most of the article cut out…? I’m more concerned about that than anything else. 9t5 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- ––FormalDude (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I found this AfD after 9t5 brought it up on Discord. I'm not going to formally say Delete or Keep, but I'd like to clarify some things.
- First, the WSJ article does not provide significant coverage of Brad Heckman at all. It would be significant coverage of New York Peace Institute, but that does not mean Brad Heckman automatically becomes notable for being the CEO of it.
- Speeches at TEDx do not confer notability. Based on the TED brand, I'd be more inclined to believe that a TED speaker is notable, but I would not conclude notability just based on giving a speech at TED alone. TEDx is a different story, see this:
Every TEDx event is independently curated by volunteers who generously invest their time to spotlight valuable ideas from and for their community. That means each speaker is selected by those volunteers without influence from sponsors, government, or any organizations.
I've seen TEDx speakers spread pseudoscience, so TEDx doesn't really help establish notability. - There is some level of independence in an article published by the person's alma mater, but even if you argue that it counts towards GNG, it is still very weak and wouldn't satisfy GNG requiring multiple sources. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- @0xDeadbeef I’m at least happy other people are participating.
- When the discussion is between the articles author and the nominator and nobody else then what is the point? 9t5 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: After cutting through all the puffery (promotional tones) in the article, I'm not seeing what makes this person notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG from my POV. Also noting that I became aware of this nomination when 9t5 was criticizing the nominator for questioning the notability of the article on the community Discord. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh Can I ask a question? What is promotional sounding about it? Could you give me a few quotes so I can better understand what is even being referenced? 9t5 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am going to step away from this AfD and come back to it next week so that a discussion can be had. I don’t want to disrupt the conversation with my frustrations as the author of the article. I still stand by my point above. Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, with possible alternative of redirect to a stub on the NY Peace Institute. I'm not seeing any serious case for WP:NPROF, and I didn't find reviews of the one book. That leaves GNG. I see a lot of passing mentions along the lines of the "Ask Real Estate" bit in the NYTimes, but nothing more. I think it is well short of WP:SIGCOV. I agree that the article feels a bit promotional, but it is not so bad as for WP:TNT, and this did not factor into my !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Russ Woodroofe I like this idea. I can write up a stub for it. I am genuinely shocked by this article being an easy delete for people. So I clearly have a lot still to learn about the notability requirements. I feel embarrassed. I don’t seem to ever do anything right on this website. 9t5 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's OK. Everyone has an article deleted at AFD. It's almost a rite of passage. The notability guidelines are just really complicated, and also sometimes out-of-date due to stonewalling, or oversimplified (GNG), or overly complex (SNGs). I've got a couple notability essays that you might find interesting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Novem LinguaeThank you. That was kind of you to say. I took it way too personal. I will leave a message on your talk page to let you know what I thought about the essays! 9t5 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's OK. Everyone has an article deleted at AFD. It's almost a rite of passage. The notability guidelines are just really complicated, and also sometimes out-of-date due to stonewalling, or oversimplified (GNG), or overly complex (SNGs). I've got a couple notability essays that you might find interesting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Russ Woodroofe I like this idea. I can write up a stub for it. I am genuinely shocked by this article being an easy delete for people. So I clearly have a lot still to learn about the notability requirements. I feel embarrassed. I don’t seem to ever do anything right on this website. 9t5 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Russ Woodroofe's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The only reliable sources I see in the article do not give significant coverage that would show this is a notable artist, educator or entrepreneur. The New York Times article cited in the lead sentence, for example, just quotes them giving advice on how to possibly handle a dispute with a neighbor about a dog. Elspea756 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was draftify. ✗plicit 13:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Tommy Sharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I moved this page to draftspace with the reason "No evidence of notability in sources in article, are there better sources (independent sources which discuss him in depth?)". It was moved back to mainspace with the addition of a primary source from his team Livingston, but there still seem to be no good reliable independent sources with significant attention for this player[19], just passing mentions in match reports. Fram (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Fram (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Draft per Svartner, per nom, if it is messed with, you can easily move lock and salt the article until he has played more. In a better state, etc. Govvy (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify—Clearly WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The notability is zero, and the sources are all passing mentions or primary, making them not-really-worthy to retain in draft space. Start the article if and when actual sigcov exists. Geschichte (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 08:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Victoria Starmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not seeing evidence that the subject is independently notable of her husband, Keir Starmer. The existing article can be adequately summarised at his article. Still, we might expect more coverage if Starmer becomes Prime Minister, so it may be a question of WP:TOOSOON. Consequently, I would be content with Draftify as an alternative to deletion, assuming more sources may become available within six months that nudge the subject past the notability threshold. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Law, Politics, and United Kingdom. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- At least, hopefully this AfD can resolve the notability tag currently on the article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @IgnatiusofLondon, hey there. As creator of the article, I have no objection to draftifying it. I found as much as I could on the subject while keeping in mind that it is highly likely we will get more information in a couple of weeks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- While understandable, the issue is that this exercise, completed too early, leads to trivia-collecting articles that violate policy. For example, the article contains the name of her sister, which likely fails WP:BLPNAME. There's no reason for her sister to be named if there is no independent notability. There is no deadline. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 09:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Keir Starmer. This is the only way I can think of given there's no way for making this article notable. Galaxybeing (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Galaxybeing, for now at least. Hence why it should be draftified. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Keir Starmer. This is the only way I can think of given there's no way for making this article notable. Galaxybeing (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- While understandable, the issue is that this exercise, completed too early, leads to trivia-collecting articles that violate policy. For example, the article contains the name of her sister, which likely fails WP:BLPNAME. There's no reason for her sister to be named if there is no independent notability. There is no deadline. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 09:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @IgnatiusofLondon, hey there. As creator of the article, I have no objection to draftifying it. I found as much as I could on the subject while keeping in mind that it is highly likely we will get more information in a couple of weeks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose if Keir Starmer becomes prime minister in a month, his wife will then meet notability guidelines? TrottieTrue (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should draftify the article. If Keir Starmer becomes PM after the gen election in July as widely expected, then Victoria Starmer will likely pass the notability criteria as the spouse of the PM and the draft can go into the mainspace. Until then, I don't think she is sufficiently notable enough for a standalone article. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- What's the harm in keeping it if the husband's going to be the PM in a month. Isn't it busywork for the sake of protocol? galenIgh 04:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises. Liz Read! Talk! 08:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Zee Sarthak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP. Was going to remove the unsourced listing of shows but that would be 99% of the page. Would recommend a redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises as an WP:ATD but a WP:BEFORE did not find references that would support notability. Only mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, churnalism, or otherwise unreliable references. CNMall41 (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Zee_Entertainment_Enterprises#India. Unreliable sources mostly and fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:Delete per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: An IP that added "Delete per WP:NCORP" to 3 AFDs in 2 minutes. I think the chance that the closing admin places weight on these posts is approximately zero. Geschichte (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Block evasion, at any rate -- struck. jp×g🗯️ 01:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises: Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Per WP:FAILCORP, redirect is better. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Voleo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Google play, press-releases, routine (WP MILL) announcements and other not sufficient and not reliable media coverage; fails to meet NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I would say it is likely that there are no sources meeting all four criteria. Nothing relevant in standard BEFORE or ProQuest. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Non-monotonic dice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of any notability for this concept. None of the three sources are reliable or (worse) even mention "non-monotonic dice", which is understandable because there are no sources for the concept "non-monotonic dice"[20]. The concept of non-transitive dice, which is mentioned by the references, is already covered in Intransitive dice, so it's not as if this article discusses an uncovered topic by the wrong name. Fram (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I found the David and Goliath dice interesting and no less remarkable than other sets of dice that are subjects of articles. Unfortunately I can find no references about them, or non-monotonic dice more generally, except for the page selling them (which is currently linked in the article) and what appears to be a Facebook page of the people who made or discovered them. If reliable sources publish something about these dice then I would like to see the information return to Wikipedia but at the moment I don't think there are sufficient sources. Mgp28 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Mgp28 and Fram, thank you for the comments. The motivation for creating this page is the following:
- Before creating this page I considered including David vs Goliath dice as a variation under the Intransitive dice page (which I believe would be relatively unproblematic), however David vs Goliath dice are not intransitive by definition despite having many similities. Do you believe it would be better to include a section under intransitive dice called "Variations to intransitive dice" where David vs Goliath dice are explained?. Trojan.chess (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, because the David vs. Goliath dice are not notable either, the claims about it are not picked up or commented upon by any reliable sources. At the moment, it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply Fram. I agree there are very little publically available sources online concerning David vs Goliath dice, however there are some. I would like to highlight Mgp28 comment that these are "no less remarkable than other sets of dice that are subjects of articles" and I would add that on the Intransitive Dice page most of the dice sets cited there and the properties atributed to them have no source at all (see: mininmal alterations set, numbered 1 to 24, corrected grime dice, intransitive 4-sided, intransitive 12-sided). I think this is fine since these are mathematical objects that require less external validation than the average topic covered on wikipedia.
- My take is that either David vs Goliath should be included as a variant under Intransitive Dice (if not a full page) or the entire Intransitive Dice page should be cropped down for lack of external sources. My opinion is for the former rather than the latter. Trojan.chess (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- "mathematical objects that require less external validation than the average topic covered on wikipedia." Er, that goes against the most basic policies. Perhaps the other page needs trimming, but that's not an argument to include (further) novelties without good sources. And no, there are no good sources about these dice, never mind anything serious verifying the claims about them. Fram (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Trojan, I do think the dice are interesting. But when I come to read a Wikipedia article I expect the information to be reliable. That means that the blurb on a website selling dice is not sufficient. And while you might be perfectly qualified to tell me that the information is true, the rest of us have no way of knowing that, which is why there are rules against original research. It is perfectly feasible that these dice could be covered in reliable sources -- the intransitive dice are covered in publications such as The American Mathematical Monthly and Mathematics Magazine. But until they are, I don't think they have a place here, either on their own page or as part of another one. And if the descriptions of other dice are also original research, I think they will also need to be removed. Mgp28 (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, because the David vs. Goliath dice are not notable either, the claims about it are not picked up or commented upon by any reliable sources. At the moment, it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Does a shop selling them even count as a valid source? Sadustu Tau (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Either delete per nom or redirect to intransitive dice. Sadustu Tau (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why would we redirect a term which is not in use elsewhere and seems to be an invention of the page creator? Fram (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, looking up the term only brings up that article...in which case just delete. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why would we redirect a term which is not in use elsewhere and seems to be an invention of the page creator? Fram (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as an apparent neologism for an invented concept. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – a nice mathematical curiosity, but I can't find any "real" references beyond the Dice Shop — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete a mildly interesting variation of intransitive dice, but not one that is discussed anywhere else under this name. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Moniepoint Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page is unlikely to meet WP:NCORP due to insufficient sourcing BoraVoro (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep:The article meets WP:Notability and should be kept. wɔːr (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The article sourcing meets WP:NCORP. Pls what's the nominators rationale again as this article is not a problem of WP:SIGCOV? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Moniepoint Inc is notable--Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- T. V. Mohandas Pai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article correctly tag bombed for over 5 years. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:N. The sources are also promotional or unreliable. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Some of those sources may have looked reliable years ago but now we know they were only publishing paid articles. Azuredivay (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Some Bare URL link sources and others are poor to unreliable and has no significant coverage to pass WP:BIO. Page is WP:PROMO on living person. Nothing notable here. RangersRus (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- KayvonTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Semi-advertorialized article about a YouTube series, not properly sourced as passing WP:NWEB. (It's also shooting for "has been featured on major television networks" in the lede, but I've been completely unable to verify that claim at all.)
As always, web content is not "inherently" notable just because it exists, and has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about it -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, such as his own self-published website and Blogspot blogs and dead TV listings and content self-published by his own past employers.
Out of 21 footnotes, just two are to nominally reliable sources at all: a deadlinked (but waybackable) Sports Illustrated piece that briefly glances off Kayvon's existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, and a deadlinked (but proquestable) Toronto Sun article that's just about him hanging out at TIFF to collect celebrity autographs rather than doing anything noteworthy, which isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself. But that Toronto Sun hit is also the only remotely useful source that turns up at ProQuest at all: otherwise, I'm only finding glancing namechecks of Kayvon Zahedi attending Toronto Argonauts Grey Cup victory parades as a spectator and a press release self-published by Aux, not anything remotely notability-building.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This explains most of the claims [21], he's a "reporter" that gets in people's faces at events and collects a sound bite or tow (they use the term guerilla reporter). He may have been "on CBC and Global" (briefly mentioned) in news events, but I can't find confirmation of those (heck, I'VE been on CTV News once, but that doesn't make me notable). This is refbombed and very PROMO for an individual that isn't otherwise notable. Limiting the search to .ca websites, only a few pop up that aren't PR items, msotly in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above. There is too little coverage available to source nearly 99% of the claims in this article. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Appearing on TV news programmes does not make one notable. I was on my local CTV/CTV2 station once, when i was a lil kid before I started my mtf transition (a segemnt about elementary school kids getting an early summer break due to a teacher strike), but that doesn't make me notable. Kinopiko talk 22:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Please add the sources you found in your participation in this discussion into the article so there is not a return trip to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Abdullah Syafi'i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article (blogspot) and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:GNG is met. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NPOSSIBLE). Clicking on the Find sources: news and books links above shows that sustained coverage of Abdullah Syafi'i exists across many independent reliable sources. I have checked some of the non-English news sources using Google translate. Collectively they add up to significant coverage. The sustained coverage is also an indicator of notability (WP:SUSTAINED).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note that on 17 May 2024 WC gudang inspirasi redrafted the article using better sources.[22]-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Subject is notable even though most sources are not in English. Some sources I could find online were Tribunnews here states about how the subject was shot and martyred with his wife. Another here and so on here. This gives a preview that subject passes GNG. -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, primary, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
SourcesAll universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
- Lam, Yim-hung 林艷虹 (2022-11-24). "優才(楊殷有娣)書院 特色課程培育多元人才" [G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College's special courses cultivate diverse talents]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "優才(楊殷有娣)書院(下稱優才)為直資一條龍學校,小學初小部(小一至小三)位於旺角校舍,高小部(小四至小六)及中學部(中一至中六)則設於將軍澳校舍。 ... 值得一提的是,優才以推動資優教育見稱,校名英文縮寫G.T.,G代表Gifted,即與生俱來的天賦;T是Talent,表示每一個小朋友都有獨特才華,因此提供多元特色課程來培育孩子。"
From Google Translate: "G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (hereinafter referred to as G.T.) is a one-stop school under the Direct Subsidy Scheme. The lower primary section (Primary 1 to Primary 3) is located in the Mong Kok campus, the upper primary section (Primary 4 to Primary 6) and the secondary section (Secondary 1 to 6 ) is located at the Tseung Kwan O campus. ... It is worth mentioning that Youcai is well-known for promoting gifted education. The English abbreviation of the school name is G.T., G stands for Gifted, which is innate talent; T stands for Talent, which means that every child has unique talents, so it provides diverse Special courses to nurture children."
- Hui, Lok-hang 許珞珩; Cheung, Wai-ting 張瑋婷 (2022-10-24). "升小備戰|直資優才(楊殷有娣)書院小學部 5層架構推動資優教育" [Preparing for primary school entrance|Directly gifted G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College 5-tier structure promotes gifted education] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "優才(楊殷有娣)書院小學部共有兩個校舍,小一至小三的初小部校舍位於旺角洗衣街,高小與中學部則共用將軍澳調景嶺嶺光街校舍。學校由天才教育協會會長李業富教授於1996年創辦,多年來均實行小班教學及分組學習形式,老師會按學生的能力及長處分成小組,每班6組、每組約4人,不同科目也採用此形式上課。"
From Google Translate: "The primary school of G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College has two school buildings. The junior school building for primary one to primary three is located on Sai Yee Street, Mong Kok. The upper primary school and the secondary school share the Ling Kwong Street school building, Tiu Keng Leng, Tseung Kwan O. The school was founded in 1996 by Professor Li Yipfu, President of the Gifted Education Association. For many years, it has implemented small class teaching and group learning. Teachers will divide students into groups according to their abilities and strengths. Each class has 6 groups with about 4 people in each group. Different subjects are also included in the school. Take this class."
- Hui, Melody (2023-05-09). "優才小學5.13開始報名 校長分享3大面試貼士 小朋友有一個特質最重要" [G.T. Primary School starts registration on May 13. The principal shares 3 interview tips. There is one trait that is most important for children.]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group . Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "直資一條龍小學優才(楊殷有娣)書院小學部每年吸引超過3,000人報讀小一,學校推行獨特的教學模式,及深受家長喜歡小班教學,以每級5班、每班不超過26人,每年提供約130個小一學位,平均27人爭1學位,競爭非常激烈。本周六(13日)為2024/25年度小一報名日期,陳偉傑校長回覆記者查詢時,分享學校的教學特式、面試貼士及模式。優才最吸引家長的其中一個原因是一條龍學校,逾九成學生直升中一,而中學部同時開辦中學文憑試(DSE)及國際預科文憑(IB)雙軌課程,小學學生在無需面對升中選校的壓力下,可充分享受校園學習生活。"
From Google Translate: "The primary section of the DSS one-stop primary school Youcai (Yang Yin Youdi) College attracts more than 3,000 students to apply for primary one every year. The school implements a unique teaching model and is well received by parents for its small class teaching. There are 5 classes per level and no more than 26 students per class. There are about 130 primary one places available every year, and an average of 27 people compete for one place. The competition is very fierce. This Saturday (13th) is the registration date for Primary One students in 2024/25. When responding to reporters’ inquiries, Principal Chen Weijie shared the school’s teaching style, interview tips and models. One of the reasons why Youcai is most attractive to parents is that it is a one-stop school, with more than 90% of students going directly to Form 1. The secondary school also offers dual-track courses of Diploma of Secondary Education (DSE) and International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB), so primary school students do not have to face Under the pressure of choosing a school for high school, you can fully enjoy campus study life."
- Chan, Yik-chiu 陳奕釗. "香港學校|優才(楊殷有娣)書院壓縮正統課程 特色教學培育優秀學生" [Hong Kong School|G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College compresses the orthodox curriculum and cultivates outstanding students with unique teaching]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "優才(楊殷有娣)書院特別注重兩文三語、語文能力及溝通技巧。學校不單實行普教中,更讓學生學習法文、韓文、日文、意大利文及西班牙文等第三語言。... 成績方面,學校前年出了3位IB狀元,在全球3,500所IB高中學校中名列第11,香港則排名第3。2023年該校學生IB成績亦不俗:有一個45分狀元、兩個44分榜眼。而本屆69位畢業生中,該校有86%同學在Jupas獲得好成績,能入讀心儀大學及課程,"
From Google Translate: "G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College pays special attention to biliteracy, trilingualism, language proficiency and communication skills. The school not only provides general education, but also allows students to learn third languages such as French, Korean, Japanese, Italian and Spanish. ... In terms of results, the school produced three IB top scorers the year before last, ranking 11th among 3,500 IB high schools in the world, and Hong Kong ranked third. The IB results of the school's students in 2023 are also good: there is one top scorer with a score of 45, two top scorers Second place with 44 points. Among the 69 graduates this year, 86% of the school’s students obtained good results in Jupas and were able to enter the university and course of their choice."
- "Direct Subsidy Scheme Schools". South China Morning Post. 2009-06-13. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
The article notes: "Founded in 1997 as a private school and turned DSS in 2002. Merged with Chi Kit School in 2004. Multiple intelligence approach emphasising creativity, self-esteem and social responsibility. Class size: Primary 24; Secondary 24-26. School-based and activity-based curriculum. Over 50 talent classes, run by part-time tutors in small groups, offered twice a week as part of the curriculum. Regular visits to museums and other places of interest. Enhancement for gifted children. Secondary curriculum will lead to HKCEE, HKALE, and other public benchmark tests, IB Diploma may be offered in 2009. Medium of instruction: Primary: Cantonese, with English taught by native speakers. Secondary: English, except Chinese and Chinese history."
- Lam, Yim-hung 林艷虹 (2022-11-24). "優才(楊殷有娣)書院 特色課程培育多元人才" [G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College's special courses cultivate diverse talents]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
- Reply, promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did not find any evidence of the sources being "based on the same info/source" since they discuss different aspects of the school. WP:SIRS is part of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, a non-profit educational institution like G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College needs to meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which this school does. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)- Keep per Cunard's sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: A very decent search of sources by Cunard. I personally have some doubts on the reliability of Sundaykiss (as well as all outlets of New Media Group ), but the other sources from Hong Kong Economic Journal, HK01, am730, and South China Morning Post are fine and all demonstrated notability of the school. I disagree with Timothy's claims that the sources are based on the same information and are simply for promotional purposes. For instance, the SCMP source was published in 2009, the HKEJ source was published in 2022, while the am730 source was published in 2024, so these sources are very unlikely to be based on the same source of information or sharing the same source materials. Besides, the sources are also obviously covering different topics. For instance, the SCMP source was discussing the schools of the Direct Subsidy Scheme, an educational policy in Hong Kong. The HKEJ source is about gifted education in the school. The am730 source is about the curriculum and academic results of the school in recent years. I think these few sources are quite neutral, at least hardly be considered as advertising the school or whatsoever, and obviously covering different aspects of the school. Moreover, the sources provided by Cunard are also only the tip of an iceberg, as there are in fact a lot more older sources. (For instance, a Sing Tao Daily article in 2015 about the school's public examination results[23], a TOPick article in 2018 about the school's reform policies on examinations[24], a Sky Post article in 2018 about the school's extra-curricular activities[25], a HK01 article in 2019 about the school's application and interview details[26], a Tai Kung Pao article in 2019 about the school being the first three schools to introduce the Citizenship and Social Development subject[27], etc.) Therefore, I agree that this article has well passed GNG and fulfilled the requirement of WP:NSCHOOL. —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Angna (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Yes it fails to meet GNG because I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. Some ROTM coverage like this isn't sufficient. The article is based on several unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on other industry sources which otherwise may not be good sources but are fair enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- And until we have coverage in multiple sources, we can't create an article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: while this could be redirected to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Long_format/Soaps, there seems to be coverage showing it's notable: https://www.hipinpakistan.com/news/1159511 ; https://www.bolnews.com/entertainment/2022/06/angna-handles-trauma-delicately-but-leaves-loose-ends/ and so on. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Mushy Yank, HIP is content farm website. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: As explained above, this series doesn't have coverage outside of the originating media organization, pretty much limiting any hope of GNG or other notability. I can't find sources about this we'd use either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Amsvartnir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject has only trivial mentions in secondary sources. The article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the threshold of significant coverage for a separate article. Jontesta (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. As with just about every other place or thing in Norse myth, the article could easily be greatly expanded with this or that mention or line of inquiry. It also contains discussion unique to the location. There's no need to merge it into anything else and it shouldn't be deleted. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This may be a rather short topic, but I think there's enough coverage in secondary sources to establish stand-alone notability. The Encyclopedia of Imaginary and Mythical Places, p. 19, has an entry and so I think we should, too. This has about half a page of etymological analysis, and this has some more. Both being very old, I expect that there is more up-to-date scholarly analysis out there. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful for the nominator to evaluate the sources brought up in the discussion to see if they are acceptable to them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)- Keep. I find the other encyclopedia's coverage of it more convincing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. It would be great if these sources could find their way into the article itself. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Gaean Reach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable article composed of unreliable or primary sources. A search showed only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources. My assessment is that it does not pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Science fiction BEFORE searches should include scholar and books. PhD thesis from South Africa here has detailed commentary on pp 91-100, and is contrasted to clearly notable science fiction universes like Asimov's Foundation. Also appears to be covered in Handbook of Vance Space by Andre-Driussi, ISBN 978-0964279568, but I am unable to see previews for that. Also appears in Xeno Fiction: More Best of Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature by Broderick and Ikin, ISBN 978-1479400799, but again--I don't have access beyond snippet view, which appears promising. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the nominator have a response to sources mentioned in the discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep To me the provided sources are not trivial mentions and enough to establish notability, and are supplemented by shorter treatments like here or here. Daranios (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, per Jclemens above. /Julle (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sachiko Furuhata-Kersting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is not notable, there are few (if any) reliable sources, and article appears to possibly be created by the subject herself (or someone close enough for a possible conflict of interest) LoganP25 (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LoganP25 (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: PROMO. I tired .jp and .de websites, the only items that come up are places to buy/stream the music, or concert listings. Nothing outside of these items we can use to build an article. What's currently used for sourcing is primary. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 lack of civility in some of the comments did not make it easier to evaluate this one. In several ways, the delete !voters and nominator make the case that this does not demonstrate notability as supported by reliable sources. For the record: It is not accurate to say that "every scientific paper charges some fee to publish." Respected journals usually do not charge publication fees. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Andrey Shishkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-proclaimed painter. No notability, no significant achievements, no reliable art criticism. Cross-wiki spam. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. The article seems to cite reliable sources (academic articles), but I can't be bothered to go through the steps needed to machine translate PDFS (hence, comment, not a vote). However, source analysis is necessary to prove that notability is not given here - the nom makes such a claim but does not provide analysis of sources. It may also be worthwhile to check concurrent discussion at ru:Википедия:К_удалению/14_мая_2024#Шишкин,_Андрей_Алексеевич. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- These sources are not academic in the full sense of the word. They are published in the collections of articles everybody can submit for a a small amount of money, their only author is a local schoolteacher, not an expert in art (this was the main reason for deletion in Russian wikipedia). Not a single art institution knows this painter, no exhibitions, no art criticism. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. What is a non-self-proclaimed painter? Is it when someone is actually not a painter, but is called such by someone's else? Isn't that called hoax then? Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Non-self-proclaimed painter is the painter whose works are in museums and acclaimed galleries, reviewed with art critics and art historians, published in esteemed editions. Wikipedia is for collecting information about this kind of authors. This is what the criteria of notability are about. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a recognized painter. It has nothing to do with self-proclaiming. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Non-self-proclaimed painter is the painter whose works are in museums and acclaimed galleries, reviewed with art critics and art historians, published in esteemed editions. Wikipedia is for collecting information about this kind of authors. This is what the criteria of notability are about. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- AGAINST Ты что, коммунист? что с тобой не так ??? << самопровозглашенный художник >> не можешь терпеть приличное искусство, настоящее, душевное искусство? ахуенный ... 98.240.113.219 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again due to lack of civil participation. This article seems to be about a painter but the discussion is more charged than one would expect for a borderline notable painter so I'm guessing there is more involved with his reputation than their artistic skills. A reminder, this is the English Wikipedia, please offer your opinions in English.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)- very sorry sir just his name is russian i wanted to reply like this i found it to be more pertinent
- romanenko's remarks are laced with vitriol below the surface and betray a certain negative attitude, which he also expressed on ruwiki, where he was unfortunately successful in having the corresponding article deleted
- @Андрей Романенко tell me that over four hundred paintings like this and reference to your work in scholarly papers is not a 'significant achievement'
- how can you call him a 'self-proclaimed painter' looking at the exemplars of his work ???
- i have seen on the english-speaking internet several memes using his painting Благословение ратника
- this one for example https://ifunny.co/picture/how-it-feels-to-inherit-the-family-suicide-revolver-aUDIhr0PA
- they're hard to find by searching, because of course the name and author of the painting are not provided
- more professional websites where his work is posted
- https://www.rbth.com/arts/335686-ancient-east-slavs-art
- https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/41202
- https://christian.art/daily-gospel-reading/luke-2-22-40-2020/
- the followers of the rabbi yeshua really like his admittedly charming depiction by the avowed pagan shishkin
- some private blogs
- https://www.livemaster.com/topic/2998743-legends-and-stories-of-the-artist-andrey-shishkin
- https://art-in-eastern-europe.blogspot.com/2016/09/andrey-shishkin.html
- not enough criticism for you ? tell me again how he is a 'self-proclaimed painter'
- have you painted a wall ? 98.240.113.219 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that someone's pictures are available in the Web at different obscure websites does not make their authors notable, neither does being mentioned in nobody knows whose blogs. No exhibtions in any known galleries, no works in museums, no art criticism in any known editions, no catalogues, no prizes, no place in professional art community, zero level of notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- We have already in the article sources from academic journals.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
- This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
- The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
- The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
- Shishkin is one of the leading figures in pagan / Slavic fantasy art in Russia, a collective body of work, and he is prominently featured in these papers, which are cited in the article. So does he not meet the third criterion ? 98.240.113.219 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Writings of a local schoolteacher published in insignificant editions where authors themselves are paying for publication (see here for instance) are not qualified to determine whether the painter played a major role in anyhting or not. However, the author (A. Gizbrecht) does not claim anything about Shishkin at all, he just briefly mentions several of his paintings. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Were the authors "local schoolteachers" or not?
- And you must know that every scientific paper charges some fee to publish
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge
- 98.240.113.219 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Many good journals do not have apc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Writings of a local schoolteacher published in insignificant editions where authors themselves are paying for publication (see here for instance) are not qualified to determine whether the painter played a major role in anyhting or not. However, the author (A. Gizbrecht) does not claim anything about Shishkin at all, he just briefly mentions several of his paintings. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that someone's pictures are available in the Web at different obscure websites does not make their authors notable, neither does being mentioned in nobody knows whose blogs. No exhibtions in any known galleries, no works in museums, no art criticism in any known editions, no catalogues, no prizes, no place in professional art community, zero level of notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I am not finding significant, reliable coverage for the subject. Fails WP:ARTIST. I am not finding indications he is in any collections, or been part of any significant exhibitions. Reading what I can of the articles, it appears the references are more about the subject of paganism in art than in discussions of Shishkin's work, with the exception of Art-Vernissage, which is selling his art. An alternative might be to redirect to Russian Rodnover fine arts, but I don't see what information could be added to that article. The artist exists and paints. The biographical info was extracted from a Non-RS sale site. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- AGAINST The editor above (WomenArtistUpdates) is clearly biased against this article. She's part of the "Women in Red" wikiproject, which aims to change the percentage of biographical articles about men and women to "reduce systemic bias". It's obviously in her interest to reduce the number of biographical articles about men to make her "job" easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.64.55.216 (talk • contribs)
- What a ridiculous claim. Aside from the personal attack, there are far too many biographies for this to make a dent in any way. Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- That wasn't a personal attack, just an observation.
- Delete Nothing in the article or the referenced sources suggests this meets WP:ARTIST at this time. Elspea756 (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- kindly read my above comment with reference to the pertinent notability guideline 98.240.113.219 (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bland skurkar, helgon och vanligt folk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Failed PROD, dePRODded because Google isn't through enough for a BEFORE check. Unfortunately, I don't have access to other sources, and this article isn't easily redirected. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Finland. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Can somebody check Swedish media for notability? Given that the Swedish page for the article lacks sources, I'm doubtful, but it could breathe life into this article. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. /Julle (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a tad difficult to get a good overview of sources from things released in 1999, since the archives tend to be less reliable. Nevertheless, this tour seems to have been one of the most signficant of the year. It got an award from one of the biggest Swedish newspapers, it was talked about as "the best tour" and so on. I've tried to expand the article: The singular focus on the album doesn't make sense to me, when the album was a product of an acclaimed tour. My access to sources of the time is not good enough to split them into two separate articles; they belong together. The article also lacked information about the band, which, yet again, might not work as well in a separate article, but should be briefly explained together with the tour and the album. I've expanded the article somewhat and added sources. /Julle (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Removed Finland from the deletion sorting. Seems to have been added my mistake instead of Sweden? Don't see the Finnish connection, but please undo my edit if I'm mistaken. /Julle (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- Keep, there's quite some significant coverage of the tour, the article should probably be expanded to talk more about the tour/band as the main topic like Julle said, the album seems like it would work better as a section to that article. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we have an assessment of available sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - From the research I have done, the sourcing mostly is within WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Julle’s assessments above are correct as well.BabbaQ (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. and Redirect to 2024 West Virginia gubernatorial election Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Chris Miller (West Virginia politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable former political candidate. No in-depth coverage outside of his gubernatorial campaign, no real claim to notability. All campaign-related coverage of him is fairly WP:ROTM stuff that you would expect of someone running for governor. Now that his campaign is over, I can't imagine very many people will be searching for him. I'd support a redirect to 2024 West Virginia gubernatorial election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Lean delete. His unsuccessful candidacy for the Republican nomination for governor is not all that notable, although his ownership of several automobile dealerships (not just Kia) has made his television ads rather ubiquitous (and somewhat amusing, IMO) throughout the region for a number of years. I doubt that there is enough coverage in the news besides his political candidacy to demonstrate notability, however. I'm not certain of this, and would be perfectly satisfied if anyone can produce additional evidence of notability. But just owning the dealerships and having thrown his hat into the ring for the Republican nomination (in a particularly nasty campaign season in West Virginia) does not seem like enough. P Aculeius (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect: as a West Virginia resident myself, I can attest to the fact that Chris Miller has not gained hardly any notability even in his own state; let alone on a scale sufficient for a Wikipedia article. I would support deleting and adding a redirect to 2024 West Virginia gubernatorial election. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Follow up: the only thing about Chris Miller that MIGHT be in any way notable (on a local/regional scale mind you) is those Dutch Miller commercials that are constantly on the airwaves all over the state. But even then; it’s the company (Dutch Miller Automotive) that might be notable in that case; not necessarily the person running it (Chris Miller). I still reiterate my support for deletion here. Although I wouldn’t be opposed to someone creating an article about the Dutch Miller car dealerships though. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 withdrawn; speedy keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Czech Republic men's national water polo team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find evidence that a "Czech Republic men's national water polo team" actually exists. A few clues:
- According to European Water Polo Championship, a men's team from Czechia hasn't been fielded since ~1993 when competition was in the name of Czechoslovakia.
- The sole source on the page links to the women's team. The men's team link is blank going back to 1993.
- The name of the team on the page, "Český svaz vodního póla," is actually the name of the Czech Water Polo Federation, which organizes domestic competition. The only international competition it references is junior/U16 men, not a senior men's national team.
- No other reliable sources that I can find, in Czech or English, refer to any variant of a men's national water polo team that actually competes internationally.
Open to other sources that editors may find, but until they appear I cannot even confirm that this subject exists. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, if the only question is whether the team exists. Per this article on the Czech Water Polo Federation website, the Czech Republic competed in December 2023 against Moldova, Lithunia and Moravia (second Czech team). This article from 2017 writes about the former Czech national team member Martin Faměra and about the low chance of the Czech team to participate in the Olympics. It's true that the Czech national team maybe stopped working for a short time, but it's working at the moment, and with the U19 team that made it to the European Championship, the future looks promising. FromCzech (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is unclear to me whether the first article is discussing the U19 team or the national team. However, searching on some different terms I found this source from 2011, in which Czech polo player Marek Fugner says (via machine translation): "The Czech national team is a long way from the Olympic Games. We are trying to somehow keep the men's national team at all. Three years ago, we managed to put together six teams that are roughly at the same level as us. The Six Nations tournament was organized. It takes place every year at one of these six. The year before last we were in Denmark, last year in Sweden, this year we will go to Portugal, next year we will prepare the tournament. The national team will play at international level, it's a huge plus." There are also Youtube videos from the CSVP showing Czech participation in the EU Nations competition they hosted. I do think editors need to add third-party sources, and I am not sure there are enough out there to clear GNG. However, since I opened this AfD on the question of whether the team exists, and seeing evidence for the existence of this team, I'll withdraw my nomination and call for procedural keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- KUGB-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: yet another station where the pre-HC2/Innovate history, though lengthier than other stations in the group, was still mostly full-time national services or relaying other stations (and sometimes both!), without any true significant coverage to speak for it. Like many other HC2/Innovate station articles, another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from 2023. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Goat (2015 film). Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Peter Baláž (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
With only primary sources listed, this article clearly fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. My Google searches came up with Peter Baláž (Esperantist) and a motorcycle driver, both of which are Slovak, but nothing about a boxer with the same birth name. I can't see this article lasting longer-term on Wikipedia. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Slovakia. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no medal means no notability under WP:NSPORT. Can't find any secondary coverage via a search. BrigadierG (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, subject was the starring role in a movie about himself (Goat (2015 film)), and his involvement was covered by such outlets as The Hollywood Reporter[28]. I'm thankful for the nomination because it gives us a chance to improve the article, although I think the nominator did not do WP:BEFORE by looking up the actor's name with the movie's name (Koza) and addressing those sources. --Habst (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I AM the nominator. Sure, not everyone has the same Google search results. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, per the excellent find by Habst. A movie about the subject! BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Just to be clear, the movie is fiction, about a fictional Olympic champion. This article is about a fighter who badly lost his only Olympic fight in the round of 32. Boxrec shows he won 3 of his 57 pro fights.[29] He's not notable as a boxer, but feel free to debate his notability as an actor. Papaursa (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBOX, WP:NOLY as a non-medaling Olympian, or WP:NACTOR, having only starred in one film. As Papaursa noted, the film is not about him. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to the film. The film is certainly not about "him". Hollywood Reporter asserts that the main character is a "character very close to" Baláž (my emphasis). That's not a completely reliable claim, as the character is a "Olympic boxing champion", which in reality is quite far from Baláž, as described by Papaursa. Still, he is mentioned in the film article, and the film article really needs to be fleshed out, so Baláž' background, again as summarized by Papaursa, can be mentioned there. Geschichte (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Also, can not redirect to [[Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia[[ as that page is a redirect itself. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Executive Committee of Gagauzia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG, Single source is primary, nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject 'directly and indepth. Nothing sourced in article for a merge, but no objection if there is a consensus for a redirect to Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia // Timothy :: talk 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify: This appears to be an incomplete new creation and should have been draftified instead of AfD'd. Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: A cursory search shows multiple independent RS covering the subject in English, Romanian and Russian.Anonimu (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - there appears to be coverage in English-language scholarly sources ([30] [31], both paywalled but which had substantial text matches in Google Scholar results snippets), and likely more in Romanian, Gagauz, Turkish or other languages. signed, Rosguill talk 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep. Withdrawn, sources found (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- A Wanderer in the Spirit Lands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One review. Fails both WP:NBOOK and GNG. I have failed to find a second review despite searching on Newspapers.com, Google News, etc. It is an old book so stuff might be out there that I can't find. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Forgot to mention I did find this one thing. But I'm honestly not sure what it is. It is in Icelandic (?) And might be referring to this book. It is in the newspaper "Heimskringla" from 7 April 1926, page 2. I can't tell how in depth it addresses it either way. If it is a review/analysis/discussion of this and is more than a few sentences I can withdraw this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: Well putting it through Google Translate does seem to show it's somewhat about the book, but Google Translate isn't exactly the best. Interestingly, it gives an alternate name, simply "The Spirit Lands", though searching this also gives little results.
- This book, however, is for some reason mentioned in one of Arthur Conan Doyle's works (The Edge of the Unknown), though it doesn't exactly go in-depth:
ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)In a remarkable book, A Wanderer in the Spirit Lands, published in 1896, the author, Mr. Farnese, under inspiration, gives an account of many mysteries including that of fairies. What he says fits in very clearly with the facts that have been put forward, and goes beyond them. He says, speaking of elementals, "Some are in appearance like the gnomes and elves who are said to inhabit mountain caverns. Such, too, are the fairies whom men have seen in lonely and secluded places. Some of these beings are of a very low order of life, almost like the higher order of plants, save that they possess independent motion. Others are very lively and full of grotesque unmeaning tricks... As nations advance these lower forms of life die out from the astral plane of that earth's sphere and succeeding generations begin at first to doubt and then to deny that they ever had any existence."
- There's also some fairly decent length coverage in Borderland (magazine) (p.241-242, not sure abt reliability) and some short coverage (p. 385) in The Bookseller. A case could also be made for WP:OLDBOOK since it's been mentioned a few times in the 20th/21st century. Based on this and the above, it's probably best to keep. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with that, I'll withdraw this. I just couldn't find anything minus the one review, and we've found more than that through this AfD so all is well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- There's also some fairly decent length coverage in Borderland (magazine) (p.241-242, not sure abt reliability) and some short coverage (p. 385) in The Bookseller. A case could also be made for WP:OLDBOOK since it's been mentioned a few times in the 20th/21st century. Based on this and the above, it's probably best to keep. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Master of Science in Global Finance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be one program for one university that does not seem to be notable in itself. Sargdub (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Not only is it unsourced, a quick google search reveals it isn't exclusive to one or two university. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Education, China, Hong Kong, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: To be honest, I think this can be considered a G11 case, as it seems like a pure advertisement of HKUST and NYU on their dual degree program. Just like what the IP user above said, a simple Google search can tell this program title is not exclusive to these two universities. Regardless, I found no sources which covered this program, not even some passing mentions in articles merely by the program's name. Undoubtedly fails GNG. —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul) 13:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Monirul Molla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find anything beyond match and roster reports—some three years old—that briefly mention him. This may be a WP:TOOSOON situation, but realistically, I think it just fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Poor and unreliable sources failing WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The player also does not meet the basic criteria of notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG and I can't find any good sources online. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 16:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yaroslav Kysil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only reference I can find on him is, unfortunately, related to the death of his father in the Russo-Ukrainian War. On his own, nothing but match reports and routine coverage—far short of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment He got a transfer to FC Mynai and has made 11 more appearances in the Ukrainian Premier League, which makes his career somewhat less pathetic, but my limited ability with searching his name in Ukrainian brings up nothing but this transfer in February, so I soft lean Delete. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. I see a consensus among editors to Delete this article. Best to start over in Draft space once more reliable source are found that provide secondary, independent, significant coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Alex O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:ENT. He hosts a podcast that has interviewed many notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The best independent, secondary coverage I can find of O'Connor himself in a WP:BEFORE search is the Oxford Mail story about Hitchens walking out on him during a podcast, but this amounts to WP:BLP1E. The rest of what I can find is all WP:PRIMARY, including YouTube clips of him appearing on GB News, Uncensored, this clip on Daily Caller of Hitchens walking out, etc. Wikishovel (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Religion, Internet, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No coverage used in the article now in RS and I can only find coverage in Catholic Answers, which I'm not sure is a RS and likely somewhat biased. Agree that the rest of the sources are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't seem to have a claim to notability, either in anything he's done in the coverage he's received. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The sources are often primary, but they are better than no sources at all. There will probably be more non-primary sources that will come along in the future as well.--Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Sources are not sufficient, and nothing sufficiently independent and reliable is available. Certainly the subject works with many notable people, but he himself has not generated sufficient secondary sources. As for the above comment, better sources may or may not appear in the future. It is of course possible that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, but we cannot include this as a factor in our current discussion. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The subject is poised to achieve notability according to Wikipedia's standards in the near future. Hitro talk 15:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I have found another reputable, secondary source convering his controversy with Hitchens. In addition, I would dispute the idea that notability is not inherited in this context. Alex O'Connor is an interviewer. An interviewer's notability should be, at least in part, determined by the notability of the people he has interviewed. Also, there are a number of primary sources that take the form of interviews on other news outlets and podcasts. These, despite being primary sources, still indicate that the subject is notable enough to be chosen for an interview by the likes of Piers Morgan, Jordan Peterson, and more. There are also several secondary sources from religious magazines and news websites that can contribute to his notability, although they may have a reputability issue. FaunuX (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — FaunuX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Please see WP:BASIC, which explains that on Wikipedia, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." What's the new secondary source please? Wikishovel (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- [32]https://dailycaller.com/2023/10/12/enjoy-society-commentator-interview-death-drug-decriminalization-peter-hitchens/ FaunuX (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you'd like the religious sources as well, there's [33]https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/05/23/prominent-atheist-youtuber-refuses-to-apologise-for-somali-women-in-bags-slur/ https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/dawkins-dodges-a-debateagain/17078.article [34]https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/821-the-lesson-to-learn-from-matt-dillahuntys-rage-quit , all of which reference Alex O'Connor in some way.
- Additionally, to quote wikipedia guidelines on interviews with regards to notability, "if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline". In the case of many of Alex O'Connor's interviews, the subject of the interview is something along the lines "Alex's views on TOPIC". If a reputable journalist does an interview with the subject of Alex O'Connor's views, then this would contribute to the notability of Alex O'Connor's views, and by extension the notability of Alex O'Connor. FaunuX (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for hunting for secondary sources. I actually mentioned that same Daily Caller source in the nomination above, in the sense of "this is all we've got", because Daily Caller is a deprecated source on Wikipedia: please see WP:DAILYCALLER.
- Regarding the religious news sites, 5pillarsuk.com is a news blog, and I could find nothing on their site about editorial oversight etc. Premier Christianity and Catholic Answers appear to be WP:Reliable sources, but the Premier article is about Richard Dawkins, with O'Connor only mentioned a few times as the interviewer. The Catholic Answers article is a panel discussion about Matt Dillahunty, and O'Connor is again only mentioned a few times during the course of the discussion. What's needed is what I failed to find: solid coverage of O'Connor himself, in reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, my apologies. Did you see my second paragraph about how, as per wikipedia guidelines, interviews can contribute to notability? FaunuX (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes thanks, but I'll defer to other editors on that. Wikishovel (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, my apologies. Did you see my second paragraph about how, as per wikipedia guidelines, interviews can contribute to notability? FaunuX (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please see WP:BASIC, which explains that on Wikipedia, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." What's the new secondary source please? Wikishovel (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - a review of the sources shows the sources fail WP:GNG, not secondary or sigcov. SportingFlyer T·C 18:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: A celebrity can be famous but not significantly covered in newspapers if not blog. The State of the article doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.