The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has sources including BBC, Jersey Evening Post and ESPNcricinfo and links to several other pages on Wikipedia. The subject is a player for the Jersey women's national cricket team with 19 caps including in a T20 world cup qualifying tournament. I was trying to create a complete set of pages for the Jersey women's cricket team excluding those players who have done nothing of note of course. Coverage of places such as Jersey is sparse so sources are often hard to come by. This does not make the subject matter irrelevant. Shrug02 (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage about this individual found. What's now used in the article is trivial coverage, name drops and twitter posts. I don't find anything we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those look potentially notable (worthy of an article) – I wouldn't have them all deleted just out of being upset over this one being potentially deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words (it is truly appreciated and nice to read) but I'm just getting ahead of the curve. While other reviewers have seen no issue with any of them it seems I have fallen foul of one that sees no value in small places or sports not popular in certain parts of the world. I'm just saving them the time of hunting down my articles so they can have them removed. Shrug02 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you to focus on the content and not the contributor. If I "see no value in small places or sports not popular in certain parts of the world," why would most of my article creations be focused on exactly that? JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what articles you have created. I am only replying to someone who commented that my work had value. I'm more interested in adding to knowledge rather than removing it. I would rather not engage further with you as I found last night's interaction distressing enough. Thank you. Shrug02 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No GNG coverage found. Routine match reports and other trivial coverage do not count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Without any support for deletion, redirect cannot be chosen as an ATD. Discussion about merger or redirect can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen×☎13:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and replace the section within Preeti to a see also. Alternatively. split Preeti between the article about the name and the disambiguation links. Or replace Preethi (name) with a redirect. The article should not be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs)00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert the recent addition of adding "Preethi" to the "Preeti" name page. Unless sources show these are the same name they should be treated as separate. --Tavix(talk)17:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most sources on the internet seem to indicate that Preeti and Preethi are related, though I'm not sure how many are reliable. In the instance that they are, I'd probably agree with Eastmain's proposal to redirect Preethi to Preeti. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Outright deletion does not seem necessary, since this could at least be a redirect to one of several articles (like Charlotte Hornets, where the network is already discussed in the media coverage section). The basic facts of the network's existence are easily verifiable by a quick look in Google Books. I suspect that this article does have potential beyond a redirect, since the network served a major media market and carried an NBA team, albeit briefly. Zagalejo (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There appears to be enough coverage to support a standalone article on the subject, such as [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], and [[5]] just for starters. I'd say this meets the WP:GNG, but at the very least this should be redirected. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has sources including BBC, Jersey Evening Post and ESPNcricinfo and links to several other pages on Wikipedia. The subject is a player for the Jersey women's national cricket team with 11 caps including in a T20 world cup qualifying tournament. What is the problem with it? Shrug02 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more information and sources as discussed with you. I was trying to create a complete set of pages for the Jersey women's cricket team excluding those players who have done nothing of note of course. Coverage of places such as Jersey is sparse so sources are often hard to come by. This does not make the subject matter irrelevant. I see you have now nominated a second of my pages for deleting and no doubt the rest will follow. I don't understand all these terms and abbreviations being used and I can't imagine I'll save them from deleting. I have worked for many hours to create these pages and in good faith. I will now stop. Thank you. Shrug02 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those look potentially notable (worthy of an article) – I wouldn't have them all deleted just out of being upset over this one being potentially deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words (it is truly appreciated and nice to read) but I'm just getting ahead of the curve. Also, as you will have now seen as you've commented on both, it is not just one article that is being deleted. While other reviewers have seen no issue with any of them it seems I have fallen foul of one that sees no value in small places or sports not popular in certain parts of the world. I'm just saving them the time of hunting down my articles so they can have them removed. Shrug02 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no GNG coverage found.Coverage of places such as Jersey is sparse so sources are often hard to come by. is precisely what makes a topic non-notable: if IRS sources are not interested enough to give the subject significant coverage, then why should Wikipedia? JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what an IRS source is but if it means a local source than on Jersey there is basically one - the Jersey Evening Post - and that has been cited in this article more than once. My point over sources being sparse was that there is not the volume of sources in places like Jersey compared to the USA where there are hundreds of local newspapers, TV stations and websites along with national ones too. In Jersey there is basically the JEP plus the odd bit of coverage from the BBC. In reality it takes more to get one bit of coverage locally in Jersey than it does to get four or five or more in the USA. Hence you can have high school athletes in the USA with dozens of pieces of coverage for winning a small event but if you represent Jersey internationally you'll still only get one piece of coverage from the JEP. I hope that clarifies my remark. Shrug02 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. A merge can be an alternative to deletion, but an AfD cannot pick it as an alternative to keeping the article. Without a single !vote to delete, including the nom, no action can be taken here. Proposed mergers should take place on the article's Talk page. Owen×☎12:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch☎✎17:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some press references [6][7][8] and books [9] etc. There's too much content here, with the prospect of adding more, to merit the proposed merge elsewhere where this museum would then overly dominate the other article, in my opinion. Plus it's inclusion in Template:British Aviation Museums seems reasonable and would be less well achieved following a merge. └ UkPaolo/talk┐18:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a museum run by volunteers, with scope over a self-governing territory, therefore we can assume WP:NONPROFIT applies. With the secondary sourcing both in the article and identified by @UkPaolo, I agree meets notability guidelines. Keep. ResonantDistortion10:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No new comments since last relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable. What's missing here is a lead paragraph to inform us how this got established, and what the museum's focus is. There's several categories of military museums around the world. Improve, don't delete. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Arguments divided between Merge and Keep, no support for deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A museum is an institution dedicated to preserving culturally significant objects, and I think almost all should be considered notable, even with few and little sources. Mr Vilitalk06:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyerT·C17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I see a number of books listed as references, Feminism and the New Right and such. These are all primary sources? I wouldn't think that the political policies of one activist would merit an article separate from the article about that person, but if people have seen fit to write this much about them... It looks like the issue is notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She herself is clearly notable and significant, but this page does not meet Wiki requirements for the additional focus on policies. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge This is an appropriate subarticle of Phyllis_Schlafly#Viewpoints. While primary sources are not prohibited from this type of page, there are also independent sources for appropriate coverage. If a standalone article is not appropriate, the main article should be expanded with some of this. Reywas92Talk15:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As a new wikipedia member, I am not very familiar with criteria and processes. However, since there is a seperate page for it in the Greek wikipedia (it has not been merged with the New Democracy party greek page), I think that there should also be a seperate equivalent page in the English wikipedia. In my opinion, expanding the article is the way to go, not merging it.
(So I would vote for KEEP, while expanding it at the same time.)
Comment @ArchidamusIII I would have moved it to Draft, but see WP:DRAFTIFY which says I cannot. I do not feel that drafification is appropriate, or would have suggested it. The Greek language Wikipedia has different standards. The English language version has the most stringent. Existence of an article in one is no guarantee that is suitable for the other or another, not is any precedent set between language versions. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Thanks for the information!
I just added 15 cases-events that attracted media attention (in table form). By media I mean media that are reputable in Greece. In all honesty, I think that Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement should definitely meet the notability criteria. A quick google search with δαπ νδφκ as keywords (its Greek abbreviation) yields numerous results.
I will try to expand the article more over the following days. There is a lot of material available, so it is hard for me to cover everything. My original goal was to establish a short article and then let others slowly add details.
Keep - national student wing of one of main parties in Greece, had major role in national student body elections (which is a very important event in Greek politics). Whilst the article might need some editing, its not a candidate for Draftify. --Soman (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not enough significant coverage - I could only find this article; everything else is trivial mentions when discussing Menai Bridge. While its location is sourced, that doesn't make it notable, and the rest of the information in the article is unsourced and I can't find it anywhere else, so is probably original research. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a number of local sources exist and are quoted. The island marked one of the important ferry crossimg location of the Menai Strait before the suspension bridge was constructed. Meets the standard of WP:GEONATURAL. VelellaVelella Talk 18:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Menai Bridge. This little outcrop of rock clearly has more significance to the town than to the body of water, but that significance doesn't become notability because of WP:INHERITED. Claims of being an important crossing point would meet the mark if there was any verifiable sigcov of this fact, but I don't believe there has been. Doesn't meet GEOLAND, is a tiny tidal island in the middle of nowhere, insufficient content to be its own article. BrigadierG (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete It's not clear that the claims of the article are true. The cite for the ferry fails verification, and really I have to doubt the utility of a tiny, bare island in such a service. If we have to have something I would to go with the strait, but don't see a merger of a likely inaccurate article. Mangoe (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus yet and two different Merge target articles suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still think deleting would be best considering most claims from keep votes and from the article are unverified, but if merging ends up being the outcome, I think Menai Bridge is the best target - like BrigadierG said, it has more significance to the town than the body of water. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a second source for Carreg yr Halen as the site of a ferry across the Menai Strait has been added confirming the importance of this location as a crossing of the strait before the susepnsion bridge was completed in 1826. The original source marked as "failed verification" has also been updated to a version that explicitly identifies Carreg yr Halen as the terminus of one of the Menai Bruidge (Porthaethwy) ferries. VelellaVelella Talk 11:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comment, this should have been a case of CSD A7. The article does not make any claims of significance about the school. I could not find any (passing or in-depth) coverage in reliable sources to fulfill WP:GNG. Broc (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Discarding canvassed votes and views not based on P&G, there is rough consensus to delete. Owen×☎13:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [10] and [11] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved and more reliable sources are added, such as The Daily Star or Prothom Alo. Popular national reliable newspapers claim that Salman Muqtadir is a popular YouTuber and actor and there are a bunch of sources about him from reliable sites. Although some news are about his marriage or other things but they are published independently about him and declared him as YouTuber, influencer or actor. Therefore GNG has been able to establish. Ontor22 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News from The Daily Star are not paid or sponsored articles at all. Other news channels including Daily Star use disclaimers on sponsored articles but these are not. His marriage news appeared in multiple news channels.
Salman Muktadir is not only YouTuber but also worked in various entertainment fields including television, stage performance which established his notability based on WP:ENT. Ontor22 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD. There's close to a consensus to delete here, but not something I'm comfortable closing as myself given the promises I made to stay out of using my admin tools for tricky content issues. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery *it has begun...20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP After four consecutive AFDs, the article mostly survives on Wikipedia. Still, there is a stir among editors. Mainly his being a YouTuber, but he has also worked in drama and music which makes him notable under WP:ENT. Mafmes (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Strong arguments on both sides. But after more than five weeks, consensus failed to materialize. Owen×☎13:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I created this article as a redirect to Toronto Blue Jays minor league players, but I don't think Large is notable enough for a standalone article. The Baseball America reference is a general stat page that all minor league prospects have. In my opinion we only have 2 refs contributing towards notability in terms of SIGCOV (The Province & Sportsnet). If more SIGCOV is found I do think that the article should probably be kept. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The three sources given by Dclemens1971 are reliable, independent of the article subject, and provide significant coverage. My understanding is that Sportsnet's news staff have editorial independence from the Blue Jays themselves, despite common ownership, so I believe that source is sufficiently independent to contribute towards notability. Even if that source weren't included, we'd have two sources that meet WP:SIGCOV, which is enough to meet WP:GNG's requirement that there be multiple such RS. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. No significant coverage on his projects as a producer nor director, I can't find any reliable sources about them. Talk:Fred Roy Krug#Proposed additions to article (moved from deletion discussion) are WP:OR and possibly WP:COI. — YoungForever(talk)05:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Please identify them then. Anyone is welcome to restore from a redirect and add sources. It's a utter joke to have dozens of these junk one-liners and to think mass-produced pages need individualized discussion. I would not redirect any pages with sources, only those like this one or Sokulaid with no content or sourcing at all. Reywas92Talk13:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or, conversely, you can identify which ones you wish to redirect then; and anyone is welcome to enlarge an article and add sources to articles that are already created and are notable instead of a mass redirect to all island articles which you deem are "non-notable". While I agree that many of these articles can be redirected, I disagree that a blanket mass redirect is in order. As I stated, many of these articles that were created (most, seemingly, by User:NielsenGW), are actually notable per WP:GEONATURAL. Even Sokulaid is possibly notable per WP:GEONATURAL, as it has a listing at EELIS Infoleht. So, yes, discussions do need to take place. I'm not opposed to redirects when appropriate. I am opposed to mass redirects without proper discussions. ExRat (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with mass redirect. The linked to policy says that "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river." Many of these islands clearly (according to this) should not have their own articles. The listing is not "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article". Obviously, a few of these articles actually are notable, I think that anything where at least 2 non-WMF sources can be found through google could be redirected without a discussion each and every time. @ExRatMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This particular discussion should be focused on Nosurahu. A mass redirect should be an entirely separate discussion, not decided on this article's deletion discussion page. ExRat (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Those arguing to keep the article have pointed out a number of reliable sources, while those arguing to delete have pointed out that many of these sources are passing mentions. It does not seem that we are coming to a clear consensus. Malinaccier (talk)13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I somehow didn't catch when I first sorted this that {{subst:afd2}} does not appear to have been implemented here, leaving the AfD header incomplete. I have fixed this. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch☎✎16:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a promotional page create by an SPA, Flambergesword. There is no nearly enough RS about the subject to establish notability. Most of the page is filled with irrelevant and poorly sourced political propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The BLP clearly falls short of meeting the GNG as well NJOURNALIST - It was previously nominated for deletion back in 2017, but it survived due to insufficient participation. The only participant who voted to keep it was a sock account who provided no strong sourcing based on GNG. The sockpuppet also claimed that the subject had received one award. However, per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Saqib (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP - I guess I pointed out that per WP:NBIO, receiving a single award does not automatically guarantee that a subject should get a WP BLP. Similarly, positions such as "Editor-in-chief of a number of licensed newspapers, founder of a PEMRA-licensed TV station" do not inherently establish WP:N or automatically justify a WP BLP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searched for sources with significant coverage of the subject to meet notability, but couldn’t find any. Being an editor-in-chief of newspapers does not make someone notable. Similarly, the award is not exclusive; many who have received this award are not notable. GrabUp - Talk11:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Agreed thank you. I wrote articles, about various organizations in NER region, to fill the gap between the region and Wikipedia. I agree that more sources would be needed Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Organization fails notability with no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete or Draftify The sources here don't really talk about ""Wesea"". For example, the page uses a lot of content broadly about Zomia, which passes WP:GNG. I can assume good faith on some of the paper sources, but I know a few of them don't mention "Wesea" at all. There needs to be a lot more work to make a page about the idea of Wesea using reliable sources and this article just isn't ready for wikipedia mainspace yet. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that any of the sources use this term. It is not made up by the article creator, but all the sources I can find are referring to rebel militant groups (Times of India discussing a group). Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find Wesea and any significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources. Sources are poor to unreliable on the page. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previous draftified by Wikishovel and I — returned to mainspace without any improvements that show notability. Essentially a WP:MILL business person. No SNGs apply here and there is no independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google search only returns his Linkedin and a Google News search returns nothing at all. I've manged to find one 2008 NYT article (referenced in the article) which trivially mentions his name once in a quote/interview and that's it. CFA💬17:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This was virtually certainly heading for deletion anyway, but there's no point wasting further editor time on it, because in addition to the other reasons for deletion, it qualifies for speedy deletion criterion G5, as the article was created by Abdiaziizho while evading multiple blocks. JBW (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG, In the article the only secondary source is Somali Inside News, both articles from that source look like paid placement, and neither has WP:SIGCOV of the subject anyway. No GNG compliant sources apparent from searches either. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:44A3:EFF3:245F:594D (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I unfortunately don't believe that this is likely to result in deletion at this point. This withdrawal doesn't foreclose future nominations, nor does this mean that I agree with any rationale presented here. (non-admin closure)HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was dePRODed in 2010 for being a "possibly valid combination article" -- however, this article consists of original research (in particular, it features a user's feature testing), and cleaning that up would amount to blanking the page. I'm not sure if this topic is notable, but even if it is, we'd need to WP: STARTOVER here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "it features a user's feature testing" which user do you mean, and how did you determine the content was original research and not simply awaiting a supporting citation? Relevant diffs would be helpful.
The latest substantive addition ([16]) appears to be sourced. Is it not? How so?
The only editor you notified hasn't edited in over a decade. More productive I'd think to notify active editors who you say introduced WP:OR into the article, since that's your basis for your claim that the only alternative to deletion is blanking the page. If they disagree I'd like to know why.
WP:STARTOVER would waste tens of hours of work that have been put into this article.
You're not going to find much in terms of WP:RS citing whether a JavaScript editor supports feature X or Y.
This Wikipedia page is the most impartial, reliable, visible, and easy to find place to collaborate on this work. Please let those willing to put effort into it, do so. You're welcome to join and improve the article. -- Dandv05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All of the reasons listed are not valid reasons for deletion — everything can be fixed through editing. We don't delete articles just because they are unsourced. WP:TNT is irrelevant here (and should not be used for cleanup reasons like this anyways) because everything here can easily be fixed: References can be added, unverifiable statements can be removed. This is not a BLP so not everything has to have an inline citation. And if we were to TNT this, who's going to recreate the better version, especially when this version is already written and detailed? This is completely pointless and I suggest the nominator withdraw. CFA💬15:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to Ilya Sutskever; while there are other co-founders the press coverage is clear that he is the primary instigator (CNBC, AP). And there is nothing other than that press release to be the topic of an article. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As of now, even a redirect is premature. Announcements made a couple of days ago regarding future plans for a company that has done nothing yet belong in press releases, not encyclopaedias. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's obviously clear that it's notable because the company's incorporation has been extensively covered by at least a dozen highly reputable news organizations, such as Bloomberg, The Verge, Axios, CNN, AP News, CNBC, New York Times and others. The article is worthy and notable to exist merely as a stub. Redirect does not make sense, as other notable people are involved in the organisation, including former Apple AI lead, Daniel Gross (entrepreneur), and former OpenAI researcher Daniel Levy. Additionally, Ilya having co-founded OpenAI carries significant credibility Mr Vilitalk04:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's been mentioned in many of the most reputable sources and the founders are very notable. If you don't keep it at least as a stub, then the Wikipedia pages about the founders have nothing to reference. It's just a gap in Wikipedia's coverage. Obviously if it's WP:TOOSOON, it can be deleted and added back later, but it seems wiser to leave it as a stub at this point. Kfein (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question as to whether it can be deleted is what is being discussed now. Saying it is discussed in sources does not help at AfD. We need to discuss the actual sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument appears to be we should keep it because maybe we will have more time to think about it in a month? What is the policy reason to keep it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that more reliable sources may write substantive pieces about the company within the next month, expanding the scope of the article and putting to rest some of the concerns about notability. Even if this question were revisited in a year, no harm would be done. The article as it is now is perfectly appropriate and likely of value to users of Wikipedia. Kfein (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this, for some reason, becomes notable in a year, then any editor may apply for a WP:REFUND to get this page restored, and to develop said article. How valuable that would be is a matter of opinion. There is not really much in this article that could make it into the article of a notable version of the company. The sources here would not make the cut, and what makes it notable will be quite different from what we have now. It would be the CORPDEPTH sources that drive the creation, not these 5 sentences. But in any case, that offer is there for all deleted articles. Nothing is really deleted, it is merely tucked away safely and can always be refunded should a non notable topic one day gain notability. That being the case, there is no reason to keep this published in mainspace in the hope that one day this just may possibly be notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation of the restoration process. But there is plenty of reason to keep this article intact. People researching the founders of the company may want more details on the company itself, and people researching the company or competitors would find the article of value. This is a topic of great interest lately and Wikipedia offering in-depth coverage is of great benefit to Wikipedia users. The fact that so many major news outlets covered the founding of this company is proof of the widespread interest. The fact that there is a complete and detailed article Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI is further proof. That article could be improved by linking to this article, for instance, in the Aftermath section. Kfein (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ilya Sutskever. I don't see any evidence this meets GNG or NCORP; the coverage so far is enough to support inclusion on Sutskever's page but I found no in-depth coverage of the company beyond the announcement of its founding. I'd be open to reassessing if the editors arguing to keep would present some of the "extensive coverage" they are arguing exists; all I see is outlets picking up the press release on its founding, and every article I looked at was essentially the same as the two linked by Walsh90210. Since there is coverage with respect to Sutskever and the company is mentioned on his page already, I don't see any issue with a redirect. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)17:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this organisation's founding has independent notability due to the events related to the temporary firing of sam altman leading up to the resignation of key people at OpenAI, such as Jan Leike and Ilya Sutskever
Which are discussed in various sources including examples below:
This isn't a routine company incorporation. There's a lot of history behind it that should be noted, as well as the other cofounders all having strong crediblity and notability themselves. I vote that the article remains a stub for the time being, or at worst case, drafted. A redirect here does not make sense. Mr vilitalk18:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't going to pass muster for an NCORP AfD. You are saying that the startup inherits notability from notable founders. It doesn't. Under NCORP we need WP:SIRS - significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. For significance you need to consider WP:CORPDEPTH which saysDeep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pretty much every news source is significantly covering the incorporation beyond WP:MILL, they are all talking about the history of events leading up to the incorporation which is not a usual scenario. Mr vilitalk18:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYNEWS aside (and that's important, actually, because we need secondary sources), no such sources have been shown to exist yet. The above two certainly are not at CORPDEPTH. Not even close. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The founding of Safe Superintelligence Inc. is recognized on a world wide level. One major reason is the history of Open AI, which is deeply connected to the founding of this company, see temporary firing of sam altman and the intense discussion about AI safety. Some additional sources are:
1. See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. But in any case, suffers as for 2-8 below
2-8. WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Someone announces they are doing something. That is a primary source. The notability of the founder is not inherited by the company. Note that all of these are the same. Just an announcement that someone notable intends to do something. These do not meet CORPDEPTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ilya Sutskever per above until something happens such that this has established notability, without prejudice against recreating if this ends up being a thing. jp×g🗯️07:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Charitable foundation that doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. Created 10 years ago by an account that did nothing else on Wikipedia, no content edits or inbound links have been made since. The references are two old, deleted newspaper articles simply repeating the foundation's press release. It really doesn't seem like the sort of coverage we'd need to write a decent article on this subject. Searching for other sources I just get social media hits suggesting this foundation might not have been active past 2015. Here2rewrite (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be one book reference, but I just deleted it because it didn't actually say what the article said that it did (it was just the authors of a study thanking the foundation for a grant in 1 sentence, and non-significant) Mrfoogles (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit14:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Sports biographies are subject to a heightened sourcing standard. See WP:SPORTBASIC prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." This one-sentence stub does not meet the standard. Cbl62 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympia article is a dead link, it doesn't lead anywhere. I believe this article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV either. Sourcing of BLPs have to be precise. The ones that Broc added seem to have more coverage of it, but is it significant enough to have the article stay on Wikipeida? Normanhunter2 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate on how the La Stampa article does not show WP:SIGCOV? This is an article on national press, entirely dedicated to the subject who just won the national tournament of his sport, detailing his previous career achievements and his personal life. Broc (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the personal life section, it says he studied at a university, this is too broad, and it won't stand even with a reference without a specific pinpoint of what university the person studied at.
Can you explain what you mean by "it's too broad, it won't stand"? And how is the content of the page related to the notability of the subject? The article content does not determine notability, see WP:CONTN. Broc (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There's not much significant coverage of Fleur Revell published in multiple secondary and reliable sources. None of the conditions outlined in the notability guideline for creative professionals apply in her case. There are many articles that mention her in the context of her affair but it isn't significant coverage. She has supposedly won 3 Qantas awards yet there is no evidence of that online and the claim is unreferenced. There might be proof in print and not online since she probably received them in the 90's. If that cannot be proved, there is not much to base her notability on. Certainly not the affair. Ynsfial (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent reliable sources with significant coverage exist but they are largely off-line publications from 1990s. I have added several such off-line citations.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is some relatively negative reporting around her relationship with Paul Holmes in a couple of national newspapers and her departure from New Idea is also covered. I think more work needs to be done researching her and agree with Swede's view that her attaining three Qantas Media awards, in itsself, is sufficient to meet notability. I accept that a reference to properly establish this is necessary but that will take some time and research as the papers of the time are not online. NealeWellington (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Does not meet WP:NGYMNAST criteria and fails WP:NSPORTS without independent coverage. Sources in article are limited to competition results and a profile in her alma mater's publication (thus non-independent). Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit12:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Why has this page been submitted for deletion? It features an international touring artist, Sean Taylor and all of the references and resources are correct. I received an email from someone working from Wiki Crafter saying the page was scheduled for deletion ...
"Not the best" is remarkably charitable. The former reference is an interview with the subject; the latter is mostly written by the subject. Rather than "not the best", perhaps "feeble". -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources (incl. the ones found by Oaktree b) don't meet WP:GNG, and there's nothing in the article to suggest WP:MUSICBIO notability either. Haven't done a BEFORE, I assume OP did that, but happy to reconsider if someone presents some evidence of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found name checks (lists of artists who performed at a festival) and sales sites, and his own site (which has an identical paragraph to the opening one here). I do not know how significant the UK Blues Award is - I do find references to it in a search - but being nominated but not winning is surely not enough for notability. Lamona (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to mention that Oaktree b has found the best sources I've seen so far (which is not unexpected for this editor, whose contributions here on afd are among those I find most useful). Those sources are rather chatty and read more like interviews or conversations than true independent sources. They don't bring this bio up to GNG but I could be convinced that we're seeing TOO SOON. I still don't think we can keep this one as currently notable. Lamona (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Someone with good Russian might want to have a look into this document (I am assuming the language is Russian). Just to make sure we are not deleting an article about a battle that already happened just because the page creator did not bother to include references. Also have a look to the references at Military History Fandom. Bizarrely the page indicate that the "articles incorporating text from Wikipedia"! anyway the licence is good for Wikipedia but attribution is missing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: Fandom copied the article from us prior to deletion, and it was copied back across from there when the article was recreated. Took me a while to work that one out! Mdann52 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FuzzyMagma That is a 476 page book in Azerbaijani, not Russian. It mentions this battle in passing on page 105, and the glowing phrasing combined with the provenance (published by an Azerbaijani publishing house, by a professor at an Azerbaijani state university) makes me doubtful of its reliability (here is a paper by Ceylan Tokluoğlu explaining the significant unreliability of Azerbaijani academia on these topics, a subject also touched on by Svante Cornell in his various writings on the NK conflict). signed, Rosguilltalk17:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedy close I've checked the logs of the article and I have found it was initially created by a blocked account who is also a sockpuppet [23]. I have opened a SPI case [24]. Regardless of all of this, the article should be deleted because it was recreated by a non-WP:XC account so it does not comply with the restriction for this topic, WP:GS/AA. Vanezi (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was created [25] as a copy of a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Who Wrote That? tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911. What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe. The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was "sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race" was "principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences" (it also said that it "might also be reasonably urged" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes). The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [26] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained. So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion. I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion. I'm disconcerted by phrases like "we hear that" and "a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact. The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard, which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here. Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: ? I guess... This exists [27], [28] or [29]. Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no. Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective). Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The prose is not encyclopedic and should be entirely rewritten if not outright scrapped. I also share the same concerns as the individual who nominated the article for deletion and agree that little if any information included here is worth retaining. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Still not seeing notability, sourcing is PR items or non-RS. I don't find any other sources we can use, SALT so this doesn't come back in a month. Oaktree b (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find articles that he has written, and he has been on Fox News. The main source about him regards a lawsuit he filed against a former employer. That would not be sufficient for notability. I tried shortening his name to "James Fishback" which is what I mostly found in the sources in the article but that brought up mainly false hits. The article is ref-bombed and if the excess were removed it would be a very thin article indeed. Lamona (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete It will help to have a much more detailed rationale. This TV has evidently ceased to exist as of about May 31, 2024, in a very low-key discontinuation. The only way people realized something was up was when it started disappearing and being replaced with other diginets by affiliates across the country. Their affiliate list was already out of date, and they had abandoned all social media in late 2023. The closest parallel is that we delete categories for defunct TV networks by affiliate, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 23#Category:Twist (TV network) affiliates). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though the closing has yet to be sourced outside the few that follow such closings on YouTube and Twitter (there's not even any proper news or even a note from an affiliate noting the channel's owners are no longer programming it and what they air now), for all intents and purposes this list isn't really needed any longer and was long better handled by the category system. Nate•(chatter)18:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly, I can see why, I would wait for confirmation of closing from somewhere before nominating a category; the last thing we ever want to do is remove something that is still a going concern before we confirm it isn't. Nate•(chatter)20:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Not notable, per searches. This newly create page claims it is a publication of Reflector media, which is not itself a notable company, but does exist and has a website. Even Reflector media's website does not list this title - see the "our brands" section here [31] which lists a couple of titles but not this one. If even the publisher doesn't see this as worth a mention, it is clearly not notable for a page of its own. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid not, no. It would not be an independent source. I merely drew attention to that lack to point out that even the publisher does not provide information from which a page could be created. But to be notable for an article, it needs to have significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. At this stage, none appear to exist. If you are in a position where you could change Reflector media's coverage of this on their web page then it is likely that you would have an undisclosed conflict of interest. See WP:COI. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment:Except it's not an EP, it's the same length and a longer track listing than the bands debut album. If it's redirected it should be to live albums, but if it's charted it shouldn't be redirected, just retitled.Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Commentary in relation to WP:NALBUM number two and the new information that this EP charted in Japan? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk)01:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the target mentioned above. Prolonged discussion and scrutinty has produced relatively little. The reason it needs to be merged is that the discography page currently claims that Foot in Mouth did not chart in Japan. Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Draftify: I agree that this article should be draftified. More coverage needs to be sourced from independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG requirements. AstridMitch (talk) 4:40, 19 June 2024
Delete – All coverage to my eye is either not independent of the subject, or is a WP:TRIVIAL mention. Fails GNG on this basis. My search was unable to turn up sources to prove notability, however they may exist in non-English languages. I am not opposed to incubating should there exist interest in improving the article in that namespace and demonstrating notability either via GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Bgv. (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no hits on ProQuest and only trivial coverage elsewhere, and it's unlikely there will be SIGCOV in the near future if nothing has come up in the two weeks since her medaling, so I don't see a reason to draftify. JoelleJay (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Organization fails notability with no significant coverage. Only 2 sources on the page and that are poor and unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was marked in 2013 as requiring better citation, and has not progressed with citations nor with clear information about activity in the field. Nothing exists in native language wiki for the person and would appear to have been deleted on multiple occasions. One should seriously question the notability in a case like this. — billinghurstsDrewth01:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS showing significant coverage. Plenty of promotional articles in dubious sources repeating always the same information. Broc (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A search of sources including historical newspapers has not uncovered anything that might assist this subject to meet WP:GNG. Assertions of historical significance that might contribute to WP:NBUILDING are sourced to a student newspaper, which per WP:RSSM cannot contribute to notability. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
