The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. The use of pi as a writing constraint is discussed in several recreational mathematics books, e.g. Alex Bellos' Alex's Adventures in Numberland, Ian Stewart's Casebook of Mathematical Mysteries and Arndt and Haenel's Pi Unleashed (and there's even a BBC Pi Day article). I don't think we need separate articles for different ways of doing it, but the general idea is notable. Adam Sampson (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonably well covered topic in math related poetry/constrained writing. The article piphilology is so long already that having a separate article on Pilish seems worthwhile; otherwise that would be the natural WP:ATD merge target. —Kusma (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a quick Google search showed several sources that could beef up the article's verifiability. Appears notable enough for me! Cedar Tree04:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pilish is a notable article because it’s a special way of writing that matches words to pi's digits. It’s recognized in literature and math, making it culturally and educationally important. Yakov-kobi (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is notable and it's verifiability is evident from countless of sources, such as books, articles and whatnot. I'm not sure why we're even here.
I can see which way this debate is trending, but you may want to considert that at the time it was nominated, as I indicated above, the only two sources were what appear to be examples of this genre, not writing about it. There are now all of three actual references attached, which hardly seems "countless". Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today21:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This was REFUNDED after soft deletion from the previous AfD. My rationale is still very much intact. This subject fails WP:GNG or WP:NCREATOR. Sources, with a partial exception of The Nation, are all paid and promotional puff. I also suspect UPE going on here. Sources from BEFORE are also paid puff.
See source analysis below;
paid promotional puff ("Oga Amos’s commitment and talent haven’t gone unnoticed, earning him well-deserved awards that acknowledge his substantial contributions to the dynamic world of online entertainment.", really? Only one non-notable award?)
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}}.
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}}.
Delete: Same as last time, stuff in non-RS or puff pieces, nothing we can use for notability. The before is the most telling, there just isn't enough about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Draftify to separate the content into the 1986 and 2023 films and move to DAB, redirect and or re-mainspace as applicable. StarMississippi03:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. In fact there not even enough sourcing ( or content) to figure out what this is about. Appears to be a mashup of two different films with similar names. Aangan Ke Laxmi and Aangan Ki Laxmi Info box says 1986 film but the only two sources that actually discuss it are short "future film" type pieces from a couple years ago. Found nothing in a search for Aangan Ke Laxmi North8000 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears there have been a few mixups here. It looks like Aangan Ke Laxmi (the article title) is a 1986 film (entirely non-notable); see this mention in a book bibliography. Sources 3 and 4 in the article are referring to a film called Aangan Ki Laxmi (sometimes Aangan Ki Lakshimi), which has more coverage and was released last year. Aangan Ki Laxmi probably meets NFILM/GNG (see [1][2][3]and on Google). It would be helpful here if the creator (NIA3000) clarifies what exactly this article is about or if the two films are related. If it is about the 1986 film, then I vote delete. Otherwise, I am not familiar enough with the topic to decide what to do here. CFA💬19:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the second film is notable, would Draftifying this help? Get it sorted out and publish back in mainspace with proper sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me. But there's a lot to sort out, starting with the title. And there's not much to save. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I think we need to hear from more editors as we have opinions to Draftify and Delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesn't meet WP rules for notability and verification. im sorry but There aren't enough reliable sources to prove its importance, and the content is minimal and incomplete. Yakov-kobi (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As a friendly tournament, the matches were of no consequence. Thus, 10 years later, we can clearly see that the tournament was not noteworthy, wasn't important in the world of football and got a corresponding lack of coverage (apart from reports of the matches). The level of detailed coverage on display (goalscorers, match kick-off times, table) is therefore not needed, with the entry failing WP:NOTINHERITED (notability not being inherited from the participating teams), WP:MILL, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTSTATS among others. Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It is self-evident that a friendly tournament will not change the course of football history, but the record of a competition that brought together four top-tier clubs in Europe does not seem impertinent to me, and the records of the matches and other relevant information are all available for verification. As there were no more editions to stabilize the competition, as occurred with the Audi Cup, I understand the nomination, but I do not see sufficient reason to eliminate the article. Svartner (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and part merge to 2014–15 FC Schalke 04 season, there is a bizarre notion that pre-seasons have no bering on club seasons, well they can, from injuries to key players, a club debut for another player. I don't see a need for this AfD at this level. There is a scattering effect of information and then there is no information. How in-depth to you want an article to be. It could easily be kept with good coverage. But I don't see the point here. Clearly no thought to a redirect or adding certain information to the other club season articles. Govvy (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion is divided here. Looking for more participation to determine consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minimal sources, no clear notability, and it seems highly unlikely there will ever be any more if no one's looked back at the tournament in 10 years. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy was just declined (courtesy @Jeraxmoira and Let'srun:, so we're here.
It's a copy paste from the source which was present in the first version so there's nothing to revert to and no indication the text was released under an applicable license. I'm unable to find sufficient sourcing on which to build even a stub following rev del. StarMississippi19:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be a lot of reliable sources on this subject when searched for "Nox" platform SDN on google books, scholar and I believe the platform was/is used widely. If someone can ping a subject matter expert, it would be useful to evaluate the sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any more editors want to weigh in here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Software-defined networking. As the nom notes, the existing content is both confusing and a copyvio. But there does seem to be enough coverage of this software to keep a redirect. Perhaps the current one-sentence mention of it is sufficient; the Software-defined networking article has a lot of content problems of its own. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article fails WP:GNG and is entirely made up of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. None of the sources mention "Al Bu Sa'ad". Additionally, there is a "Culture and cuisine" section which seems to have no relation to the topic of the article. Skitash (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Culture section refers to the culture and cuisine of the Al Bu Sa’ad tribe. Additionally, the sources refer to the Isaaq tribe which is a parent tribe of the Al Bu Sa’ad, or mention the Somali variation spelling of Al Bu Sa’ad as Sacad (bin) Musa. Please help out the article by adding citations rather than nominate the whole article for deletion.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any more opinions on this article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I would recommend keep. As citations 1, 3, 6 & 11 all clearly mention “Sa’ad”, either referring to the actual tribe or the tribe’s progenitor.
Draftify this is possibly a person writing about a local tribe. But, as the nom notes, none of the sources discuss the topic. It cannot be kept as an article in its current form, but it could be kept as a draft. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete - the sources don't back up any of the text, and most of the text isn't about the tribe but about things vaguely connected to them (with no evidence that the things are genuinely connected, unfortunately). Maybe a local editor would be able to find suitable offline sources, but what's here just isn't enough.StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a trainwreck of an article. It has been appropriately tagged as being written like an essay, lacking notability, and possible original research. This simply is not an encyclopedia article at all, and the references are pretty threadbare. It was nominated for deletion twelve years ago, but comments about biting the newbies and allowing it time to be developed led to a "no consensus" result. Well, it's been twelve years and the article still has all of the same problems, so I don't think waiting is the correct strategy at this point. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today20:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete My first impression is that it is possible to write a good article on this notable subject. Now to read with care... Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC) But this article doesn't seem to address its own subject. It says a few things about the Mexican-American War's proponents and opponents in the United States but doesn't talk about the war's propaganda. Delete without prejudice. Though I'd also support Draftify if there is anyone who volunteers to work on it until it's presentable. Otherwise, blow it up and leave room for anyone who wants to start over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Written by a just-barely-autoconfirmed sleeper as copyright infringement from a press release. After that was stubbified, revdelled, and draftified and nobody was looking anymore, he pasted the same material back in, where it lasted until the past few hours. Should be speediable, and the only reason it isn't is because we let the good-hand socks of paid editors vote against reasonable countermeasures against advertising even as obvious as this. And, btw, EFS Facilities Group wasn't just deleted, it's currently heading very rapidly towards a blacklisting at DRV. —Cryptic19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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}}.
WP:BEFORE does not reveal any further usable sources.Delete per the source analysis and my BEFORE which did not yield any other sources that could demonstrate notability.—Alalch E.21:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont have a problem if the article is deleted if it has no merit. But why was the article blanked out just before the deletion nomination.
This a not a fair review process for deletion as the article was blanked out just before nomination.
Is this some kind of bullying thats going on? The guy is a billionaire and was voted as one of the most powerful businessman in the middle east multiple times.
Comment - Allegations of selective bullying and harassment by unregistered editors with no evidence are usually ignored, even in conduct forums, and especially in content forums. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is overtly promotional page with no merit of its own. The sources on the page are trivial. If anyone can find any reliable secondary independent sources with indepth notable coverage on the subject and subject's achievement and work, I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How on earth can this be promotional when the whole article was vandalized and blotted out by an editor and there is hardly any content left on the page. This discussion is deviod of any credibility whatsoever. It is a bogus review discussion and a sham honestly. Many others like puppets are resorting to supporting the vandalism and unwarranted aggression done on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.118.147 (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Schipperheijn, Katja (2022). Learning ecosystems: creating innovative, lean and tech-driven learning strategies. Kogan Page. pp. xv, 46–49, 102. ISBN978-1-3986-0741-5.
Lists Chauhan in the Acknowledgements section (Of course, I am also grateful for the many contributions and inspiration from everyone who has helped me write Learning Ecosystems. ... Tariq Chauhan, Group CEO and Co-founder of EFS whose leadership and knowledge of engagement is an example to many, then excessively praises him using language including: It is deserved that Tariq and EFS won many awards for their practices and authentic leadership, but it shows even more in the results.
Can't access. From the preview, it also probably lists Chauhan in the Acknowledgements section; other previewable content about Chauhan is a quote of him: ... Tariq Chauhan, Group CEO & Co-Founder of EFS: "That's why we invest in so-called 'incubation centres,' nine-month training programmes for young leadership potential, preparing them for the job they will have to perform. In recent years ...
Book not yet shipping. Only available for pre-order. Google Books allows previewing the following: Another example comes from Tariq Chauhan, the CEO and cofounder of EFS Facilities Services Group in the United Arab Emirates. EFS is a regional leader and the region's premier facilities management company. Chauhan displayed exceptional efforts in creating his business on ethical ideals of ethics, honesty, collaboration, integrity, and accountability, and he received multiple honors for his efforts in elevating his organization to an ethical standing.
Can't access. The following is some of the text can be previewed: ... Chauhan, has been the driving force and is leading the organization to new milestones repeatedly. His focus on the welfare of the blue-collar workers enabled EFS to bag the prestigious Taqdeer Award, UAE in 2021 ...
Lists an EFS Facilities Services employee in "Acknowledgements" (We would like to express heartfelt appreciation to all people who supported us in any minor or major way from the initiation till the completion of this book chapter. We wish to acknowledge the following personnel for their assistance in terms of time and information during the collection of primary data for writing out the case studies. Hence, special thanks go out to: ... Ms. Charmin Nazereth, Manager, Corporate Office, EFS Facilities Services, UAE, then excessively praises the company EFS in the embedded promotional article packaged as a "case study", within which it praises Chauhan using language such as: At the pinnacle of making an impact in the society is the “Ehsaas” Initiative by EFS. The patron behind this initiative is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mr. Tariq Chauhan, an ardent believer of CSR and its impact on employee commitment and trust. Ehsaas means feeling, which translates to feeling for the people and society.
Upon review of these sources to the extent that I was able to review them, and I significantly was, I would say that these don't exactly help us write an encyclopedia article on the given topic. We could extract some statements from them to add more words to the article, but whatever the result may be, it could not possibly be compliant with the Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. An inability to write a policy-compliant article with the available sourcing is what it means for a topic to be non-notable. What do you think Robert McClenon? —Alalch E.11:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider it useful to argue over disembodied URLs or dumped URLs or detached URLs, out of context. I think that the Heymann criterion is for someone to create a draft, Draft:Tariq Chauhan, so that the references can be seen in context. Is someone ready to create a draft? User:Alalch E. - Maybe that is similar to what you are asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried about adding these to the article for I'd be accused of WP:POINT, and indeed I could not add any statements from these sources while citing them as references in good faith. Were I to do that, I could only make a revision even worse and even more promotional than the bad revision linked above, where the source assessment table is. —Alalch E.22:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus without prejudice for refiling. The reality is this AfD was started before Joe Biden stepped down from running. This changed the character of the debate, which can be witnessed in subsequent comments posted after the withdrawal. Evaluating this without that consideration, I'd conclude no consensus. There is clearly not enough sway in favor of delete, but merge and keep both make strong arguments. Thus, I evaluate as no consensus now, but if after an appropriate delay (I'd wait a few weeks at least) someone wishes to re-file this, there shouldn't be objections to doing so. Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to Keep after finding the numerous subsequent arguments persuasive. This is clearly heading into WP:SNOW territory.A. Randomdude0000 ([[User talk:A. Randomdude
This page was last edited on 25 July 2024, at 15:08.
0000|talk]]) 00:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep as the article stands it would warrant deletion, but I think the issue is article worthy in the wake of his debate performance. This is the most embattled a (presumptive) nominee has been since the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape incident in 2016, which has its own article not to mention that Biden has been dogged with questions about his cognition since even before he ran in 2020 and up until recently was dismissed as bad faith attacks by his opponents. In the last week, that is no longer the case.
Comment - Is this article going to have any staying power? If anything else develops on the subject, perhaps more can be added. I support Draftify at this point until/if more can be cohesively developed on this subject. BarntToust (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think life (events) will quickly develop this article. Unless Biden resigns, the days and months will roll on and every health incident will be scrutinized. When he resigns, health problems will be the reason for his resignation – an important event and also a detailed analysis. There is no need to rush into deleting the article. Then we will need to restore. Wikipek (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creation was a bit hasty and puts us in news territory, which is not great, but if GnocchiFan keeps adding 1-2kB a day it will be hard to justify deletion(they're the one who created it). The Trump matter needs its own discussion, it's an old one and tit-for-tat is a bad look. Trump doesn't have the media jumping on him for this, and he didn't stand gerbil-eyed with his mouth agape at the recent debate. [6]SmolBrane (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmolBrane: The significance of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump is not with respect to the tit-for-tat issue, but with respect to the specific points of discussion raised there that are applicable to this discussion, specifically the assertion made in that discussion that we should not have any freestanding articles on the health of current public figures, and that Wikipedia should follow the Goldwater Rule prohibiting medical professionals from commenting on the health of public figures who they have not personally examined. A great many participants in that discussion supported imposing such a rule, which would obviously vitiate inclusion of comparable medical opinions about Biden absent personal examination. I opposed the imposition of that rule in the Trump discussion, and would oppose it here equally. We are in an historic moment of having two octogenarian presidential candidates, and the Trump article, at the time of its deletion, had dozens of high-level sources commenting on issues with regard to Trump's health, so it is a fair bellwether for the admissibility of the Biden article. BD2412T18:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply uncomfortable turning this AfD into a discussion about that other guy's AfD. WP:WAX applies and I'm not convinced the situation with Biden is adequately symmetrical for Health of Donald Trump !votes here. Once this discussion closes we could have a similar one regarding Trump imo. Note that Biden wasn't mentioned once on the Trump AfD. Regards SmolBrane (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmolBrane: The shared underlying questions remain open, however. 1) Should Wikipedia have articles on the "health" of living public figures at all? 2) Should Wikipedia be bound by the Goldwater Rule, which prohibits reporting opinions on the heath of individuals by persons who have not conducted an examination of those individuals? BD2412T02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The irony being--the Goldwater Rule article on this wiki allocates its largest section to a particular former American president(and no one else), observed by someone on the talk page as essentially a coat rack. The goldwater discussion should occur elsewhere if it's going to be a policy. This is headed for a speedy close. SmolBrane (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the insistence that it be improved to the point of being brought in line with the encyclopedic nature and aims of Wikipedia. I was a proponent of the creation of this article, but it really was launched too quickly and improperly. As I said on the talk page for Mr Biden's campaign, it's good if it enables us to analyze his health and its implications quickly and in real time, in a way that wasn't possible in the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the highly consequential nature of his health, but it can't be treated as a joking matter. At the very least, better must be done for a leading image than to employ a picture of Mr. Biden standing before his lit eighty-first-birthday cake. 216.255.100.62 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's representative of a strategy from the administration and campaign - treat the age issue with humor. We aren't saying it's funny or not funny, it's just emblematic of part of their strategy and consequently part of the page. Maybe not first image, though. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is part of a research project, not a marketing campaign.
I will move this image further down to the part of the article which refers to the White House response (I think the joke birthday is relevant there). Feel free to choose another image for the lead and add some further detail if you see fit. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rubbish at image procurement and insertion. Anyway, wouldn't the thing to do for an article like this normally be to use a picture of him that would normally be used otherwise, his official portrait or a picture of him stumping, or something of the like? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, it really looks like we're are playing politics in favor of other candidate. However, after making the article more neutral (adding opinions about the lack of health obstacles, of which there are many) and perhaps changing the title ("Age and health of Joe Biden"?, "Health of Joe Biden"?), the article can be kept. The topic is very widely discussed, attracts attention and causes consequences at the center of the election campaign, unlike in the case of Donald Trump. Wikipek (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the course of the conversation concerning the health of Mr. Biden is such that discussion on his age is going to be part of and in tandem with discussion about his health, since the end she has already attained has implications for his current health, and maintaining it is key to furthering his age. Since the two subjects have been introduced as a duality, the thing to do is to build both aspects up, so that each can facilitate the furtherance of the other. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those subjects don't have a whole lot to do with one another. How can they stand as a solid unit together, and how would it not eventually makes sense to split them as the topics are grow too big to fit into one article going forward? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without the media coverage and analysis that has transpired over the past 2 weeks, this topic would not be notable enough to warrant an article under WP:GNG. The reason why this article would be considered notable is because of the June presidential debate, and the flood of consistent news coverage, discussions, and analysis that transpired after the fact. This is plainly evident in the fact that 12 of the 34 citations in this article were written in the past 2 weeks alone. This article is also relied upon to provide the background for Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. Therefore, it makes sense that these articles should be merged, with this article serving the purpose of providing appropriate context. If the article becomes too unwieldy, it would likely be due to the constant stream of new calls for Biden to step aside, which could remain separate in an article reminiscent of List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Baldemoto (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article will continue to be improved with the increasing amount public interest in his high-profile gaffes both domestically and abroad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZR1748 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is more than sufficient independent sources and coverage now for this. It is impossible to miss, but the original section should still be retained, at least in large part, on the Public image of Joe Biden page. That should not be entirely removed from that page for this page's creation. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an excerpt from this article on the public image of Joe Biden page, which I think is appropriate if this article stays. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is a big deal--involving not just Biden but many Democratic leaders, and Republicans too, as well as a lo of reporters and physicians. I think it will permanently change how Americans evaluate older politicians. Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only has concerns regarding Biden's health been around for a good while now through reliable coverage but this matter has only increased now that many Democrat leaders have called for him to drop out of this year's US election following the June debate with his health being the common denominator and rationale. I propose bringing back the Health of Donald Trump article for the same reasons that I have already described. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the article about Donald Trump's health should have been deleted either. In this case the coverage is even more universal, and until the election will probably get too extensive to just merge it into the main article without bloating that one. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a distinct and separate topic, and should not be deleted or merged with the article on his calls to drop out. Both should be kept as articles, as the latter is a recent phenomenon, while his age and health has been an issue/discussion for multiple years. (Ageofultron17:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As just an occasional contributor to English-language Wikipedia (active mainly in German-language WP and on Commons), I will formally abstain here (as I'm not familiar enough with en-WP's practices), but my impression is that this article as well as Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign are rather short (when compared to the Joe Biden main article), not many language versions of Wikipedia have decided to split these topics into separate articles (in this case, only French and Finnish Wikipedia, and in the case of the other article, only Icelandic), and it would make more sense IMHO to incorporate them into the main article and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the correct place for this information as well. I think I remembered hearing that Ronald Reagan had age and health concerns at the end of his presidency, but I can't see that article being kept if it were created now. SportingFlyerT·C09:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic was already a subject of discussion in the media before the June 2024 debate, but this topic & the closely related topic Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign have been sucking all the air out of the room ever since then. At least in America's news media, concerns over Biden's age (and by extension his political future) even managed to palpably overshadow the news about the stunning election results in the UK and France. It's hard to argue this is a non notable subject. I'm surprised this is even at AfD. Vanilla Wizard 💙01:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just an essay. There's no reason why this shouldn't be included somewhere on the site, and some of it can be merged, but I think we're confusing news and political commentary with encyclopedic content, and I think this fails the 10 year test. SportingFlyerT·C09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with preexisting pages on the topic, most notably on the Joe Biden and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign pages, or any of the other pages mentioned by previous commenters. BootsED (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article wouldn’t be super noteworthy had it not been for the June debate performance. The president had experienced widespread questioning from those on both sides of the aisle as to whether or not he is fit to continue holding office. NathanBru (talk
Delete - severe violation of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NEUTRALITY to dedicate an entire page to a right-wing political talking point and treat it as fact. There's no page about age and health concerns of Ronald Reagan, who was reported to be senile in office and actually had Alzheimer's. Jaydenwithay (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge Where Necessary There's really no context to this article. It's definitely an important note in the conversation of Biden's current term and campaign, but in a vacuum it doesn't make any sense other than as an extension to those other articles. What happens to this page when he eventually dies? Doesn't pass the time test here. ⠀tomástomástomás⠀talk⠀04:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this topic meets GNG. Biden's health and age concerns is squaring up to be a major issue in the 2024 election and thus has been subjected to significant attention in reliable sources, especially post-debate. There's no article where this can be comprehensibly covered without creating undue weight. Therefore, this fork is appropriate. R. G. Checkers talk05:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Milowent: Not to belabor the point, but the last version of the Health of Donald Trump article that is proposed to be restored in tandem with this article being kept had some discussion of armchair evaluations of Trump having narcissistic personality disorder, as well as commentary on Trump's own estimations of his genius. I think this would qualify for your "similar article" proposition, but for the title. BD2412T17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any media coverage anywhere about J.D. Vance's knowledge of Trump supposedly wanting to have his previous vice president killed. On the other hand, Joe Biden's age and health has been a central part of his public image and presidency, and it has indeed resulted in the end of his re-election campaign. Maurnxiao (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist [7]. It should be a very long article, if nothing else but to warn Usha that she might be a widow. In any event, Biden's decision to not seek the nomination really make a lot of the discussion of a few days ago irrelevant, i see a huge trend to merge which i don't oppose.--Milowent • hasspoken17:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, this article has received steady coverage for quite some time now. Concerns over Biden's health have been raised since the start of his 2020 campaign, it's hardly "news-of-the-hour". Additionally, Wikipedia is built off consensus, not precedent. The deletion of a similar article on Trump is irrelevant.
Keep. There is so much independent coverage of this that it clearly passes WP:GNG as a standalone topic. I am not concerned that this falls into WP:NOTNEWS as this has been an ongoing concern since the previous election, and as BD2412 pointed out, there are articles on the health of other leaders whose time has long passed. The last concern is whether this ends up being a WP:POVFORK, but I don't see why careful editing cannot end up in a balanced take on the subject, and merging with another article does not really change this. Overall, I do not think there is a strong policy rationale to delete the article. Malinaccier (talk)15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely factual information such as Biden catching Covid and coverage of his performance at the debate can, and should, be included in his page backed up with impartial citations. These matters do not need a separate article and nor does there need to be one about Trump's health. Wikipedia is in danger of becoming so American-centric and partisan that it will lose further credibility with the wider world. There are plenty of forums on the internet to compile opinions on Biden, Trump and whoever else. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia for the world not an online battlefield for American politics. Shrug02 (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Impartial citations" - I'm sorry, but our citations are not required to be impartial, but reliable. Many reliable newspapers have their own point of view, and are perfectly acceptable to use as sources. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. As such it is meant to be facts not opinions. How anyone can disagree that impartial sources would be better than those with an agenda is beyond me but does rather make the point for me regarding this article. That said I wouldn't be adverse to the salient parts of this article being merged into the Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election article now that events have moved on since my original vote. I stand by my view that there does not need to be a stand alone article about his health. Shrug02 (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, this article offers little information but a lot of text. We all know about his gaffes and general mental decline. Yet, this article cites the same points over and offer and lists an endless amount of examples. All of this can be presented in small and condensed form and give the same amount of information. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been an integral part of Biden's public image as president and contributed almost single handedly to Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 election. This will be, I believe, a pillar of his legacy. Maurnxiao (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Merge a page was written specifically about Biden's withdrawal after I wrote this, and I think this content is better suited there. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will endorse merging per above if several reliable contributors volunteer for this - each article is already substantial at this point, and I expect a lossless merge and thereby necessary restructuring will be at least three hours' work. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:AEA8 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this article, I would support a merge into the main withdrawal article and would volunteer to do this, time permitting. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is to stay it should be more comprehensive relating to his health such as mentioning the multiple brain aneurisms that he was afflicted with back in the 80's. As of right now it's mostly just about his age and health concerns as of solely his Presidency not actually relating to the totality of Biden's health concerns. LosPajaros (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to whatever suitable articles where this matter is relevant. This topic seems to be better as vital content written for other articles rather than the topic of a separate article. It's needless and perhaps unfair to make a whole article out of what serves well as important parts of existing articles. Do we have similar age/health contents as their own articles for Mitch McConnell or Ronald Reagan or (mental) health article on Donald Trump? 2600:1012:A023:670C:1F0:BD8F:F26F:EAAB (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election §§ Background and Progression. The two articles have the same topic and scope, with this one just having a more detailed background. Otherwise, this just looks like a deletable attack page redundant to the withdrawal article. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Withdrawal page now that it has happened. The calls for him to drop out article has already been merged into it. I also think the list of Democrats who were opposed to his campaign should also be merged into the withdrawal article, but that's tangential to this discussion. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 13:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with withdrawal page per Keivan.f and others. The concerns almost entirely stemmed from his intent to run again and that culminated in him dropping out, so this would all be more useful in that article. Sock(tock talk)14:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - event was the primary reason Joe stopped running! This is notable
Keep It's deeply relevant and concerning that an obviously senile, incapacitated man is the leader of the world's sole superpower. This has been hot button topic for many years so a merge is illogical. This is a huge issue and warrants its own article. It's more than notable enough. JDiala (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala: So should there be a similar article for Trump, who is another obviously senile individual, rambling on about sharks and such? He could be the next US president after all; I'm sure there are lots of concerns about Trump's age-related troubles, and his daily inability to tell the truth or recall basic facts. Trump's problems are well covered by reliable sources, too! 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article can be merged, this is an important issue of public concern that goes beyond the President's withdrawal from the election. People were concerned with the President's as far back as 2019, and this article can provide detailed background information for future students of history or for today's followers of current events. asi1998 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once you remove random allegations from political opponents that predate the 2024 debate and are contradicted by White House physicals and not supported by medical opinions, this article has no content not equally covered in other articles and meets the criteria of an attack page.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it is only notable in terms of the election suitability controversy, which we can now refer to as the withdrawal event and easily merge it to that. Jtbobwaysf (talk)
The concerns about age aren't always explicitly linked to health though, so I think age should remain a part of the article title if consensus is to keep. GnocchiFan (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge with Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election, this is the same event at least as of the current content on both articles. I think the name of this article may run afoul of WP:BLP policies as we are somewhat being abusive an elder by referring in an article name (thus maximum weight) to someone's medical issues, however notable they might be. If we merge we reduce this weight, which is now appropriate due the withdrawal anyhow. Sort of two birds with one stone solution. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joe Biden. This is normally a section in the article about the subject. The article doesn't seem to be strictly neutral to me - and overly extensive. This would be consistent with the AFD that eliminated Health of Donald Trump. Nfitz (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in addition to being a notable topic covered in many reliable sources, it would not make sense to merge the article into the one about Biden’s withdrawal because age and health concerns were present throughout his presidency and affected issues beyond his withdrawal, such as Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report. Zylostr (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content but Merge with the withdrawal article per arguments above. There should be lots of titles like 'Age of Joe Biden' etc. which redirect to that page
Keep It's clearly an independently notable subject based on the sustained coverage throughout his presidency and even from the last election cycle. How many New York Times op-eds ran about his age last year before there was any serious discussion about him withdrawing from the race? That makes it a completely separate subject from Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. Meanwhile, Public image of Joe Biden covers 50 years of his political life and this is but a chapter in that long book.LM2000 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject matter, article is well sourced and this article does lay out a good pretext of what led to Biden's withdrawal from the election. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: well articulated, but try not to lose the neutral point of view WP:NPOV.
Keep (and restore Health of Donald Trump). Both of these seem like subjects there's plenty of reliable sourcing for, and also they are very likely to be of historical importance that is not entirely encompassed by the withdrawal movement against Biden. Loki (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This stub about an Internet personality whose channel is education based was recently accepted at AFC. I believe it to be a borderline acceptance, which is fine of itself. AFC reviewers role is to accept drafts which they believe have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. As a fellow AFC reviewer I believe that the subject is not verified to pass WP:BIO, and that the draft was below the acceptance threshold. On that basis I would not have accepted it. The referencing is independent, yes, but the content of the references is gossip column-like trivia, which simulates significant coverage, but which is not. I see the only way of resolving this is for the community to discuss it, hence AfD 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not going to vote here since my stance is clear, as I accepted the draft. At the time I saw the draft, it was not passing GNG, but I know the personality well and thought he might already have a Wikipedia article. When I found out he did not, I started to find significant coverages and added many that are currently cited. I respect Timtrent’s judgment, and we already discussed it on my talk page. We would like to get the community's views on the article. Lastly, I want to add that if the article can’t be kept, we can draftify it, as it has good sourcing, and the subject may gain more coverage to establish notability in the future. Happy editing. GrabUp - Talk13:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : I can only find coverage about "criminal" activities [8], [9], but they don't seem notable and rather tabloidey... I don't find coverage of his streaming career, so there just isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The BBC source translates fine, seems like substantial coverage. With the rest of them, should be ok for notability.Vote amended above. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 A fairly high number of articles link here, so it looks like the subject is notable enough. Alas, the article itself lacks sources and does not give much information, but I think that makes grounds for inclusion in the rescue list, rather than deletion. Gorpik (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. After discarding canvassed votes and those not based on P&G, including "Speedy keep", for which the page obviously does not qualify, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. Owen×☎10:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. My PROD rationale still stands, notability isn't automatic or inherited. There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to entities but an award's significance isn't solely determined by the prestige of the awarding entity or the notable recipients. Instead, verifiable evidence from reliable sources is required to substantiate claims of notability. These sources must specifically focus on the award itself, providing in-depth information. Sources primarily highlighting award recipients rather than the award itself don't establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedly Keep: Article meets wikipedia:Notability, Also meets GNG, all the source are reliable, independent sources and it’s not inherited Notability, i suggest the nominator searches the topic and read through the article, as it’s a Gospel niche award and has multiple references from reliable source, the nominator has always been on my watch and nominates all my article for deletion and i think it’s likely a bad faith nomination but I’ll love to hear from other editors, thanks Madeforall1 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I find the idea that sources need to "specifically focus on the award" as overly strict; if major independent outlets are choosing to cover the announcement of nominees and winners, that conveys a degree of significance to those awards. In other words, there may not be significant coverage of the awards as an organization, but there is significant coverage of them as an event. Having worked a fair amount with TV and film award articles, I think this is in line with other examples (as an example, see Los Angeles Film Critics Association, which is basically just about the awards presented by the organization – the sources cover the ceremonies/nominees/winners, not the organization). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the caveat that I don't know enough about Nigerian media to say if the sources here are generally reliable, but since that wasn't the issue raised in the nomination, I'm assuming they are. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how covering the award itself is a strict measure. How then do we measure the significance of a subject? There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to recipients at events, that aren’t notable awards, even campus/college/university awards are also being awarded at ceremonies, I don’t see how that generally counts towards establishing GNG. These coupled with the fact that most of these pieces from the sources used are just overly promotional and unreliable, WP:GNG isn’t anywhere closely established. Also, using Los Angeles Film Critics Association is a poor comparison, you can’t exactly say an award that has been awarded for over 30 years won’t satisfy GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces, You have dropped your comments before sir why dropping more and attacking someone that dropped his votes and options? As said notable independent news sites have covered more about the event over time and I think in creating articles, it’s shows how notable the award is and it’s not just school or private organization award but an award for gospel artist, as sources is not notable based on the number of references. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Madeforall1 Your comment above is nonsensical because it adds no value to this discussion. You’re literally badgering already and I’ve been playing along with you from your talk page to mine. My comments above were presented in line with this discussion, yours wasn’t and isn’t exactly useful to the discussion. Please stop this poor attitude of yours. Do not ping me if you have nothing useful to add to this discussion, I don’t want to be notified of your poorly presented comments. You’re already giving the vibe of both UPE and COI, and that’s probably the reason you’re upset because an article you created got AfDed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces Is this how you insult people? You don’t deserve to be a reviewer, you are just attacking everyone, you do everything with bad faith, I don’t think you deserve the privileges you got here, you are even a new editor and yet you talk to people carelessly, desist from such act and listen to people, I wonder if you know everything. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Madeforall1: Do you have any sort of relationship with the subject of this article? I agree with Vanderwaalforces, your editing pattern is often indicative of undisclosed paid editing or a more general conflict of interest. If you do have a conflict of interest, whether you're being directly compensated for your edits or not, you have to disclose it. Not doing so could result in you being blocked from editing. Also, comments like yours above could be taken as personal attacks, so I suggest you strike them out. Please reply to this message confirming whether or not you have a COI with Kingdom Achievers Award. CFA💬04:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA, I don’t have any conflict of interests nor connected to the subject, but it’s also not nice for a particular user not to improve and article instead of constantly give bad faith reviews, else I don’t know the subject but I know the award and I’ve seen many gospel artists that have received awards which the references are also added to there articles on Wikipedia so I choose to write about the award. Madeforall1 (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA I will advise you don’t be in support of bad government. I have gone through this discussion and the person who is wrong here is the AFD nominator. He started the personal attack. The article creator was just all about why the nominator is after his life and all I can see here was the Nominator using offensive language on him or her and you expect such a person not to feel bad. Like C’mon. One thing I will not tolerate here on Wikipedia is making other editors feel bad when they have no intention to harm the platform even if they don’t know why they are here. And I don’t care what you have to say if the truth can’t be told. Sometimes this kind of habit makes those who create articles feel like they have got something like a COI to do with the subject which they might be innocent. They are ways of catching people with COI and not by insulting them and they trying to defend themselves makes them now a COI. I am very far away from supporting bad government. Who knows if those editors went to acquire user level permission just to punish other people or make other people worship them? Who knows if they take money too to edit?. I have no business with what they said on their User page about Paid editing. Because even sock accounts do lie as well they have no other account. As for the article creator. I will advise you stay calm and do what is right here on Wikipedia by following it’s guidelines. I have already advised you before but you thought you now know better while speaking on the AFD discussion of Funnybros. I saw the user permission you are now after to. But it’s of no need base on your editing experience. Keep doing what is right here on Wikipedia and have a nice day. As for your article I will check if it’s a keep, delete or I don’t say anything and let other editors do their research. Gabriel(talk to me )19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are lots of non-significant awards like university awards, but you're not going to see significant coverage of those winners and nominees in major newspapers (aside from maybe a human-interest story, but the references here aren't that), so I don't really see what you're getting at. If newspapers are independently choosing to report on winners and nominees – and as far as I can tell, the references are independently written, not paid promotions, even if the loaded language can feel a bit promotional-y – that conveys significance to those awards relative to other awards. (As to your LAFCA rebuttal, awards can exist for decades and still not be notable. Depth of coverage, not longevity, is what matters.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article having significant coverage of the event means nothing for notability. What matters is significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. An article could be 20 000 words long and cover everything about the topic and still not be notable. CFA💬23:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Don't let the page title distract you. What matters is if there should be an article here about this subject. Renaming doesn't require an AfD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎15:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per nominator reason. Award was just even established in 2022 that means two years ago and annually show up. It is very hard to be called it notable for now as it hasn’t gotten enough significant coverage from independent reliable source rather than the event hold announcement and inheriting of nomination list because they nominated notable people. It can be notable in the future that is if they still exist by then. Meanwhile, they are other Awards Notable here on Wikipedia being won by Nigerian Gospel singers. So am not sure this is the only award to qualify a gospel singer.--Gabriel(……?)20:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601, Notability in this case is not achieved from how long an establishment has been in existence but how well known the establishment has become in the space, an establishment of 1 month can even gain notability than the one that has existed for decades, Well all the sources listed on the article are All from reputable and reliable news sources which was organically written based on the prestige of the awards, Before I wrote about this article, I strongly believe it’s an annual event that has come to stay which amounts to the fact the Awards meets WP:GNG, There's a WP:SIGCOV in the references too and these facts qualifies an article to be on Wikipedia for a valid reasonMadeforall1 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you strongly believe that they have come to stay. That means you seems to have a connection or sort of conflict of interest with the said subject. They must have told you they have come to stay for you to be a spokesperson this way. I will advise you don’t bother responding to me because you won’t get a reply this time again. I understand someone can just wake up one morning and become notable. Yeah that is possible. But not for the category of an award. Gabriel(……?)08:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve seen the nature of your edits and all your bad faith, you feel you are an admin or you can say anything you feel? Can you create an article you know nothing about? @Gabriel601, I only create articles I find notable, it is clearly written on reliable sources that it’s an annual awards and have serval editions, and secondly stop the personal attacks, I saw what you did when I tried to request a permission. Desist from that. Madeforall1 (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone's editing bad faith could be taken as a personal attack. I would recommend striking that out. CFA💬14:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With all humility @CFA, @Gabriel601 Please check Generally reliable sources for Nigeria-related information also note that the article has significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. I see no unreliable source on the reference provided on the Article, also it has improved with more source and was cleaned up before PROD.
Delete or perhaps draftify, with regret. The only sources that discuss the history, rationale, and prestige of the award are from people directly connected to it and thus not reliable or independent. We can't say an award is notable just because the people hosting it think it's notable. Since as Gabriel601 mentions it's a very new award, maybe it's just TOOSOON and time will produce evidence of notability. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: It is worth distinguishing this distillery, operating 1824-7, from a later similarly named firm retailing whisky cocktails [12] which operated briefly around 6 years ago. [13]. However, I don't think the available coverage (brief listings in the former case, announcement-based coverage in the latter) demonstrates attained notability for either. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Case of WP:TOOSOON. Plenty of casting announcements but no filming. Churnalism and other unreliable sources but show was just announced and is "planned to air" in 2025. CNMall41 (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The show already commence filming we will update the production details for reference. Also the announcement for 2025 airing is based on the network's statement however, exact date has not been discussed Tyamutz (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe redirect to the main article. The six ABS-CBN sources can't be used to show notability, obviously, and neither can the Facebook link to the production company. That leaves us with four potentially okay sources- which are all just routine casting announcements, regurgitating the press release. Much too soon. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There were no editors arguing for this to be kept on the merits, with the only keep being a procedural one (with a brief disagreement about one point stated by the nominator). As there are any number of reasons why the consensus for British Airways could be different from this article and the lack of policy or procedure saying we must apply precedent from other related discussions, the procedural keep gets weighted accordingly. If consensus is reached in a community wide RfC about this topic, the consensus of the editors in this discussion could be revisited at that point. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is failed because this is largely a listing of where this airline does not regularly fly to, since most of the destinations are listed as "terminated" or "seasonal". What little encyclopaedic content there may be here is already summarised at the parent article.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline. Either the information is taken directly from the company website, or (as in the ATO.ru and om1.ru sources) they are based on company press-releases. Links to Euronews, the BBC, and New York Times are included but these do not mention the airline at all - instead they are used to support the WP:OR conclusion that various NordStar flights are terminated.
There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not.
Finally this fails WP:V because whilst this is supposedly a listing of destinations served as of February 2021, none of the sources are from that date - they are all years before or years after it. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nom in this case is not based on the 2018 RFC. A no-consensus close (partly based on the a train-wreck) is just that: not a consensus. It says nothing about this specific article. FOARP (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't intend to !vote twice. I've struck the second one. But indeed, my initial !vote was based on the WP:NOT violations and other points you raised as nom, and on the rationale behind the 2018 RfC result, not on the RfC result per se. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I don't think the 2018 RFC was "vacated" by the later discussion because, very obviously, a no-consensus close cannot do that, since it is isn't a consensus to do anything. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely: no consensus implies that the status quo continues. But for the avoidance of doubt, the rationale that led to the RfC result is more important here than the result itself. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a mirror of airline schedule databases. Additionally there is no need for us to document every single place that NordStar once flew to over the course of its existence. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A minor member of the extended Trump clan who has no history beyond a speech at the GOP convention. Probably ought to redirect to Dad's list of offspring given that except for the one sentence its all either very basic tabloid/royal-watcher detail or is about other people. Not seeing any independent notability and I don't see having a WP:BLP on a minor child on the basis of one public appearance. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Baron wasn't notable here at the last AfD and he at least has some sort of notability... A grandchild is even less so, they're still a high school student, no different than thousands of others, having a famous grandparent isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In itself it has no relevance. She's a golfer, and a lot of people are golfers. The only relevance is that she is Donald Trump's granddaughter, but by herself, I repeat, she has no relevance. --Luciérnaga de conocimiento (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's getting a lot of press for her speech, but her notability is currently based solely on being the grandchild of Donald Trump. SWinxy (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is a joke. Her birthweight is in there? Because there is nothing else to discuss. I don't think a redirect to Family of Donald Trump is called for, but if someone makes an argument I would consider it. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps in time she will do more to distinguish herself to merit her own page. At present, there is not enough. She is still pretty young though. The RNC speech would be a good starting point for a page but more is needed to have one. Count3D (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Family of Donald Trump, same as Barron's AFD last month. I'm surprised at all these "delete" votes. It's not "delete" because it's an obviously viable search term, because WP:ATD, and because the Trump family article is obviously the place for content about granddaughter Kai. She received press coverage before her RNC speech (does anybody do WP:BEFORE anymore?), both as a member of the family and as a youth golfer: People (magazine)2007, Us Weekly2017, South China Morning Post2021, ¡Hola!2023, Footwear News2023, and of course now she is getting full write-ups such as this ABC News bio. Frankly, she is right on the border of WP:GNG-notable -- you know if she was a male footballer, there would be 25 "keeps! meets GNG!" votes here -- but while it's debatable whether a standalone is merited, there is definitely enough RS coverage here for a paragraph in the Trump family article. Due to her youth and WP:NOTNEWS, I'm voting merge instead of keep, but she will likely become notable enough for a stand-alone, quite possibly due to her golfing career and/or becoming an online influencer. But there is no way this is a "delete". Levivich (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe makes a good case for redirecting this until/unless there’s adequate RS coverage for a suitable standalone article, so I agree we should redirect it to Family of Donald TrumpDonald Trump Jr.#Family for now. Levivich also makes some good points regarding merging being preferable to deletion given that’s it’s likely to be a reasonable search term. 28bytes (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it more, I still prefer the family article than the father's article. Why not her mother's article? An article about the family is a better place for this content than merging daughters into articles about their fathers. F the patriarchy. Levivich (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you think about the patriarchy, it's that name Trump and her descent through his son that makes anyone care about her. And again, the problem with redirecting to the family article, how many times am I going to have to say it, is that it doesn't mention her. If you want to F the patriarchy, then change your response to "delete". Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this needs explanation but a WP:MERGE involves taking content from one article and putting it in another article, so it's ok if it's not there already. She isn't famous because of who her father is, she is famous because of who her grandfather is. And including the family members in an article about the family is better than merging a daughter to her father's article simply because he's her father. Levivich (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly because I lost track that you had switched to a merge outcome. I mean, if you feel up to writing up all the rest of Don Sr.'s grandchildren, I suppose, it would be seriously WP:UNDUE to put details about only her so you could justify the redirect. And I really don't see how there's anything much to merge other than the info that's already in Don Jr.'s article. I don't know why we're repeating her birth weight other than because we can, and as far as I can see the entire last paragraph is about other people. And I still don't see your argument. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Do Not Merge. Fails ANYBIO, BLPSOURCE. Passing mentions. Insignificant coverage. Nothing notable to merge, no CCS to justify a Merge. Bugger Merging. ——Serial Number 5412920:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. A promotional tone used in an article for a notable subject should be fixed editorially. WP:TNT is an essay about an editorial approach to rewriting a page about a topic that meets our notability guidelines. TNT is a relevant argument in a content dispute, but not a reason to use administrative tools.
As for WP:SK3, a faulty nomination cannot be used to speedy-close an AfD once a valid deletion argument has been entered. Regardless, an inaccurate assessment of sources vis-à-vis GNG is not the same as "No accurate deletion rationale". SK3 aims to close AfDs with nominations such as, "We don't need a page about a geographer", not to summarily reject poor or lazy assessment of sources. Owen×☎14:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG - non-notable researcher lacks significant coverage, in both reliable and non-reliable sources. Article seems autobiographical, with 20/25 sources being written by the subject. Couruu (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this article needs significant alteration and removal of unreliable sources in places, the subject is the Villum Kann Rasmussen Professor, a named professorship, at IT University of Copenhagen. This seems to me to meet C5 of WP:NPROF, which is sufficient to establish notability. Again, the article needs substantial editing but the subject appears to be notable. Qflib (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keepWP:SK3 totally faulty nomination fails to even consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG. Massive citation counts give him an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 and named professorships at two universities pass #C5. He also appears to pass WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing a WP:TNT in that case then. I missed PROF, and thank you for pointing it out - but given the sockpuppet's intense involvement in the article's current state, the extreme citespam, promotional tone, and general poor quality of the article, the article needs nuking from orbit and rebuilding by a SME. Couruu (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DINC. TNT is only for cases where there is nothing salvageable, far from the case here. The detailed descriptions of what his work is about lack independent sources and should be properly sourced or trimmed but otherwise the article looks factual and uncontroversial to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how he's notable under WP:GNG, nor do I believe there should be an exception for academics. It's also promotional - it's not really an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyerT·C22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to abide by established Wikipedia's guidelines and consensus is nobody's problem but your own, and is misplaced here, where to have any weight arguments should be based on those things and not on personal opinion. But, to be explicit: there are many published works that go in depth into his work (in particular the book reviews I alluded to above). Or are WP:BEFORE and WP:DINC, and the existence of sources beyond what is already in the article, another part of the established guidelines and consensus that you reject? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, being able to have articles on cricketers who appeared in any first class match were once Wikipedia's established guidelines and consensus. Consensus can change. SportingFlyerT·C07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the clear WP:NPROF pass through both citations (80,000 citations, including twelve over 1,000 and one over 20,000) and holding a named chair, there is also a good argument for an WP:NAUTHOR pass as a brief spot-check returned a number of reviews for his books. Academics generally do not receive coverage in the same way as celebrities and politicians, but (especially for those like this, who are at the absolute top of their field) are mission critical for us to cover. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF as argued above, and with three books (one co-authored) that are each widely reviewed enough to meet WP:NBOOK individually, WP:AUTHOR is satisfied as well. One tap of the delete key removed the promotionalism, so WP:TNT is no longer a concern. I did some trimming on the articles about the books as well. XOR'easter (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per Broc. The references are present to establish passage of NCORP and any concerns regarding promotional content can be addressed via editing. FrankAnchor15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As you know, being unsourced is not a reason for deletion but a reason to go looking for sources. Still it looks like few could be found. LizRead!Talk!01:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu], only a single mention. One can find mentions elsewhere, like in this Tivi (magazine) [fi]article. According to a licentiate thesis, "Kurki (2002, p.57–62) used Moppi Productions as
a case example when discussing developing visual styles", but I wasn't able to access the work. toweli (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nothing in this article suggests it passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Most references seem to be to the entity itself. My BEFORE doesn't help much, although sources might exist in Hungarian. The article has a big list of external links, in Hungarian, for anyone who cares to review them (they don't have English titles or publisher information or such). Hungarian wiki article seems to have more content but even fewer references than we do :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems promotional, many of the sources link back to the institute's own website, and I'm unable to find articles online to be used as additional sources. Ternera (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The whole article currently relies on primary sources. Also, I am not convinced that a research laboratory of a university and/or a research institute needs a separate article, since there are no major achievements for this. All relevant information can be easily migrated to MTA SZTAKI; therefore, the article can be either completely deleted or, more suitably, merged with MTA SZTAKI. Chiserc (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The suggested target article has been deleted. Is there an alternative? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!11:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article on an automotive filter company is written from the company's point of view, and says what the company says about itself, rather than what third parties say about the company. It does not satisfy general notability or corporate notability. The three references are all press releases.
Reference Number
Reference
Comments
Independent
Significant
Reliable
Secondary
1
www.counterman.com
A press release about the name change, in a trade publication
No
Yes
Yes
No
2
www.freightwaves.com
Transmission, a twice-weekly newsletter about auto supply networks. About moving facilities to Mexico. Reads like a press release.
No
Not really
Yes
No
3
www.aftermarketnews.com
A press release to a trade publication, about an acquisition.
Established in New York City, Premium Guard Inc.’s focus from the start has been on providing a turnkey solution with wide application coverage and private label programs for all segments of the North American automotive aftermarket.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Common sense is failed because this is a listing of where this airline does not fly to. As is stated in the second line "all flights are terminated". Even if it weren't, UIA is a charter airline, so when it was flying it would have gone anywhere you would have paid them to fly to. In as much as this page has any encyclopaedic content at all, it is already described at the main page about the airline so this is a duplication.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline - either the company website or reports of press-releases, or aggregators like Routesonline that re-post brief company statements. None of these are significant coverage even if they were independent. There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ukraine International Airlines for the time being Per WP:CRYSTAL to retain the page history (which meets N/GNG as far as source counts) until the war ends and it (or a future forerunner) flies again, but also, why the nom didn't choose to add a simple 'cities served before 22 February 2022' disclaimer to the article rather than pursuing wholesale deletion is also confusing. AfD is a last-resort venue and we have another example where the talk page is all but tumbleweeds with no discussion (and the main page since 2021) before it was posted here. Nate•(chatter)01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I also think this fails under WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and that a list of destinations for an airline that will fly literally anywhere you pay them to fly is pointless. WP:GNG is not the relevant standard because this is an article entirely about the services of a company and so WP:NCORP applies, but even if it were WP:GNG requires significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, of which there are zero cited here - everything is either garbage sources like airlineroutes.com, the company website, or reportage based entirely on a press-release from the company. FOARP (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Actually UIA was not a charter airline, but in any case, Wikipedia should not be keeping records of every single place that an airline has flown to in history. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Most 'Keep' views failed to address the notability-related shortcomings raised by the 'Delete' views. However, after three weeks, support for deletion did not achieve consensus.
Note to some participants: a "Note to closer" that merely rehashes points of P&G, or attempts to summarize views expressed by others, adds nothing to the discussion, and is generally ignored by the closer. If you find new information that is pertinent to the discussion, such as evidence of canvassing or COI, kindly post the link or diff, and leave it at that. Owen×☎13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Subject did receive an award Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism. Source 1 is a book review, source 2 is a blog, source 3 has a passing comment made by the subject himself, source 4 is a review by subject himself, source 5 is a bio written by subject himself, source 6 is more on bio written by subject himself, source 7 is a link to Ramnath Goenka Award and source 8 is a book written by subject himself. Many unreliable and primary sources here. Draftify would be an option to improve the page with secondary independent sources and remove primary sources like the reviews by the subject himself and the interview with the subject.RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI makes it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still do not find his books a significant monument or been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won wide significant critical attention by well known peers and critics in secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI falling under NEWSORGINDIA is an interpretation that I respect but with which I disagree in this case (not great journalism but not simply unreliable). The fact that the author of the book is one of the film critics of the Hindustan Times also indicates the article in the TOI should be rather independent.-- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: The article from TOI doesn't look like a review at all; it seems more like a promotional piece or an announcement. Additionally, the article was published by PTI. I don't think he meets WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I should have mentioned that I hapeen to have been the creator of this page many years back. I actually didn't even remember I was the one who created it, as I've created numerous pages for notable Indian film critics. As someone who has worked on Indian cinema-related articles, I can attest to the relevance of his reviews on dozens of film articles, including several FAs. Him being an author as well as the winner of a notable award only consolidates my position. Shahid • Talk2me18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are considered primary non-independent source. Independent sources helps to fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. If you use interviews as source for any statement made by the subject then the subject's statements needs to be cited with secondary independent source as well. Wikipedia:Independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Padma Shri does not establish notability. I wanted the names of some awards that establish notability and are given to more than 20 people every year. GrabUp - Talk15:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No award in the world "establishes" notability in and of itself; notable awards indicate notability, they attest to the recepient's notabiltiy. The notability is established by the professional achievments the award was given for. Shahid • Talk2me09:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not convinced that he meets any notability criteria. He fails WP:ANYBIO, as the award is not exclusive, with more than 20 people receiving it. Receiving the award first or last does not make it exceptional or add to notability. Regarding WP:AUTHOR, The Times of India is not a review, merely a short promotional or announcement piece with no author, published by the Press Trust of India (PTI), therefore, it does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria. The person does not meet the General Notability Guideline, which is already known. Also, I don't understand how interviews with celebrities establish notability. GrabUp - Talk09:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer. Keep votes are more focused on the subject's notability because of an award (not national award) but there is no argument on the unreliability of the sources on the page that are blogs, interviews with no secondary sources as attribution and self written reviews by the subject himself and part of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Two keep votes consider him notable but have no argument as to why and the two other keep vote (including the creator of the page) do not have opinion on the argument about the page and the unreliable sources that fails WP:GNG. I think the page is at best Delete but Draftify is also an option if there is any scope of improvement with secondary independent reliable sources. If this page stays a keep, then likely it opens a Pandora box to use unreliable sources like blogs and interviews and self published reviews on other pages or newly generated pages. RangersRus (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t understand why they are not providing good arguments for their Keep votes. It looks like @Atlantic306 is just here to go along with the majority. The question raises because how can he call it a ‘national award’? Additionally, they are posting low effort delete votes and not giving any counterarguments, which raises some questions in my mind. GrabUp - Talk02:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are not obligated to satisfy me, but to build consensus, they should explain further why and how the subject meets some notability criteria. Being a "National award" does not establish notability, such as the Padmashri Award, which is a national award, but the majority of the recipients are not notable and don’t have articles. Giving low effort votes does not really help to build consensus in every AfDs. GrabUp - Talk13:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK and US a national award means it relates to the scope of a whole country not that it is given by the government. For example the Oscars and Grammy Awards are national awards that are given by private organisations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The award is not exclusive enough to establish notability. Every year, more than 20 people receive the award. Are they also notable for this award? I don’t think so. GrabUp - Talk16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they might be notable. The UK Awards are given by a private organization. National, especially in the Indian context, means the recepients may be chosen from across all states and not just locally. The Ramnath Goenka Award is given by a notable organization which has existed for almost a century. The award might not necessarily establish notability in and of itself (although I think it should), but everything else about the subject certainly does. Shekhar is also a member of the CBFC, he writes for notable publications, he hosts programs where big stars are being interviewed (see Hitlist on YT), he has authored two books which received media coverage. I can't see the harm in having a Wikipedia article on this person even with half of these achievements. I do admit I'm an inclusionist. :) I strongly believe WP can and should cover as much as possible. The spirit of WP, as I think of it, lies in its ongoing goal to become a robust center of knowledge, where minimal restrictions are put on inclusion of information. Shahid • Talk2me13:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Being a member of the CBFC does not meet any notability criteria. Writing for a notable publication does not meet any notability criteria. Hosting big stars in a program or interviewing them does not meet any notability criteria. Lastly, his book has not received enough media coverage to be considered notable, nor have his books been reviewed by any notable media organization that would allow it to meet WP:AUTHOR.
I want to ask where it is written in Wikipedia’s notability guidelines that being a member of the CBFC, writing for a notable publication, hosting big stars in a show, or taking interviews makes a person notable. I don’t have a problem with your intent to include everything on Wikipedia, but there are rules that should be followed. Why keep a subject that has not met any notability criteria set by Wikipedia guidelines? GrabUp - Talk15:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does meet notability guidelines, because all these positions do not work individually but as a group. Going by your opening sentence, no critic/journalist is notable. Anyway, we should agree to disagree. Shahid • Talk2me09:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: My comment was: Journalists or critics are not inherently notable; they have to pass some sort of guidelines, such as GNG, JOURNALIST, AUTHOR, or similar, for an article in Wikipedia. You said, "because all these positions do not work individually but as a group. Going by your opening sentence," where is it written that these types of works or positions make a person notable, whether in a group or individually? GrabUp - Talk11:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N, WP:GNG is my answer. We wouldn't have known all of this had this not been published in reliable sources. And above all, common sense is an option. I will reiterate for you: he has won a notable award, he is a member of the CBFC, he writes for several notable publications, he hosts programs where big stars are being interviewed (see Hitlist on YT), he has authored two books which received media coverage, he is a film critic whose reviews are being quoted, and his work has made him the interviewee, as we can see. If you're not convinced, which I think is going to be case anyway, let's agree to disagree. Shahid • Talk2me09:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three awards are now reported by reliable sources (another one added just now). I can't think of many non-notable writers/authors whose books get a full review on India's most popular entertainment portal. Shahid • Talk2me22:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see the full review. These are promotional. The Asian Age article contains only statements from the subject and is not an independent article. The newly added source The Print is a press release and is not at all independent nor reliable per WP:PRSOURCE. Please share your “reliable sources” here. GrabUp - Talk01:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you can see it or not, it's there. The Asian Age is a legitimate interview. I really don't get the analysis here of independent or not given it's a film critic we're talking about. A notable one, of course. With all due respect, I don't accept your subjective analysis of the sources. Shahid • Talk2me09:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do interviews start to pass GNG? To pass GNG, independent in-depth coverage of the subject is required. How is this a subjective analysis? The article is just full of quotes from the subject or what you call interviews. Interviews do not help to establish notability at all. Read WP:INTERVIEWS, which states, "They may be used for sourcing some facts amid a mixture of sourcing types, but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have." The subject actually does not have independent sources. GrabUp - Talk10:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've said enough on this. I'm really busy. You and the other user haven't managed to convince anyone except each other. Shahid • Talk2me11:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, The Print’s ANI press release was provided by SRV Media, a PR company known for sponsored promotional publishing. Therefore, this article falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and cannot help meet GNG. None of the sources cited in the article are reliable, independent secondary sources. GrabUp - Talk02:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must be kidding - The Print is an online newspaper and the article cited is just used for the overage of the awards. All you said here is mere speculation. Shahid • Talk2me09:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That shows you have not seen any articles and are just arguing blindly. If you read the end of the article, it is clearly mentioned, “This story is provided by SRV Media. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. (ANI/SRV Media)” And since you are acting like you don’t know anything, here is what SRV Media’s website says: “A well-written press release informs and positions your brand as an authority in your industry, enhancing credibility and trust among your audience.” GrabUp - Talk10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I went to RSN about the source he wanted and mentioned that he wants to establish notability with that article, he immediately came to my talk page telling me to remove the word. Closer can see this. He says he has no time when I ask him to provide an independent, reliable source but has time to argue and tell people to remove things. After all this, he agreed at RSN that the article is a press release. GrabUp - Talk11:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is notable regardless of whether this specific article is a press release. I think we should let this AfD run its course and see what other people think. Shahid • Talk2me12:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can’t really establish notability (unless any additional criteria is met). You are unable to provide any secondary independent sources but are claiming this article is notable. You are replying to everything but saying you have no time when asked to provide independent sources, and acting like you have, but actually have not. Anyways, I will leave it to the closer to decide. GrabUp - Talk17:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with your points when seen specifically, but disagree about the outcome where all the criteria are taken together. I think I have made my point clear and so have you. Shahid • Talk2me22:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article cites in-depth coverage of the subject's books and his criticism. He is mainly known for his work, which is common enough. The same could be said of the poet Homer or the playwright Shakespeare. Mayank Shekhar is clearly notable as a film critic. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not cite multiple reliable secondary independent sources with indepth coverage on subject's book. It is very clear to me that you did not review the page. Subject's comparison with Homer and Shakespeare is bizarre. RangersRus (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer. Please do not consider consensus based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Keep votes have not made any logical and policy based arguments. The last keep vote by Aymatth2 before this note makes me suspicious of off-wiki canvassing who hasn't voted on an AFD for as far back as I can check and to just appear and make vote on this only AFD today just adds to suspicion. The creator of the page who voted for keep admitted that he is inclusionist and that is why his stance is amoral and disingenuous. Please assess the discussion and review the page and sources on the page for final consensus before closing this AFD. RangersRus (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Amoral and disingenuous"? As I've noted to the other user, please assume good faith on other participants here. The fact that they do not agree with you doesn't mean their arguments are not "logical". This is an AfD where no one is obligated to satisfy his voting peers. Please note it is your second note to the closer; I'm sure the closer will consider the entire discussion without us repeating ourselves. Also remember that if the article does not have enough good sources, although I think it does, it doesn't mean deletion is the right course of action; improvement is. With respect to inclusionism, beliving in it is totally allowed on WP as long as you follow policy - I have used above policy-based arguments and said that in my view this article meets notability guidelines. Shahid • Talk2me22:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enough good sourcing? Not a single independent, reliable secondary source is cited. Please share if you find any. Just promotional, Sponsored, NEWSORGINDIA, full of sayings of the subject. GrabUp - Talk02:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the Bollywood Hungama source, there is just a single piece, which cannot make the book notable as it requires multiple independent reviews. GrabUp - Talk02:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop replying to me in several places, especially when I call out another user for inappropriate conduct. You say the same above. Shahid • Talk2me09:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I wouldn't be opposed to draftifying if there is an editor who wants to work on the article. Source 1: A full review of the subjects book. reliable, independent, and significant coverage. Source 2: An WP:ABOUTSELF blog, reliable but not independent. Source 3: A passing mention which is a quote from the subject, reliable - not independent - not significant coverage. Source 4: This is by the subject themselves, reliable but not independent. Source 5: A piece about the subjects book, reliable - not independent as it mostly an interview. This is the Asia Age sources mention above. Source 6: By the subject, not independent. Source 7: By the subject, not independent. Source 8: One line noting they won the Ramnath Goenka award for 'Films and Television (Print)', this seems notable per WP:ANYBIO point 1 but that doesn't guarantee inclusion it only mean they are likely notable. Source 9: A press release, reliable but not independent. Source 10: A book by the subject, reliable but not independent. There are two more sources mentioned in this discussion. Two book reviews one by SpectralHues and another by Times Of India. SpectralHues is not a book review site, per it's 'Our services' page[16] it offers services including Content Management, SEO, SEM, Website Designing & Development, Social Media Marketing and Book Promotion. It's not a reliable or independent source. The Times India review is quite short and I fear could be promotional. So there is one reliable, independent source with significant coverage that has been mentioned so far, and that is a review of one of their works and I can't find any other online sources that would contribute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New sources have been added to the article and mentioned below. Source 1: A review of the same book as source 1 in my first comment. Not significant coverage. Source 2: Again a review of the same book. Again reliable, independent, and significant coverage-ish. Source 3: A blog by the subject, obviously not independent. Source 4: Subject is named dropped in the article, not significant. Source 5: Again a passing mention, not significant. That makes two sources so far that are reliable, independent and have significant coverage, and both are reviews about a book not the subject. That might contribute to showing the book is notable per WP:NBOOK, but I still don't see enough for the subject of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Update - five more sources have been added, just using a basic search online, including additional book reviews and pieces reviewing his film criticism and calling him a noted film critic. The latest vote seems like an effective source review, but my point has been all along - if the page can be improved, and it can, it needs improvement, not deletion. WP:BEFORE please. If I thought he was notable before, now I'm convinced of it. Shahid • Talk2me12:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources you are referring to as "Book Reviews" are not book reviews at all.
2. Are film critics 'retards'?: Just a passing mention, not a significant source, and no in-depth coverage, so no notability criteria are met.
3. Breakups, Twitter style: Again, it's just a passing mention, so it can't meet any notability criteria.
4. An Insider’s View of the Film Censor Board: Blog article by the subject himself, as it was under the domain of 'india.blogs.nytimes.com.' So, it is a primary source and does not meet any notability criteria.
I don't find any of these sources to be good for meeting any notability criteria, such as GNG. Obviously, passing mentions can't generate notability. GrabUp - Talk12:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the sources you added are from TelegraphIndia and these are Paperback Pickings section for advertising current and new books in the market as you can see the price tag in the source and briefing what the book is about. It is not a review by any well known critic. Three of these sources do not help with notability. Source by archived NY Times is an article written by subject himself (primary source and not independent secondary source). Rediff article is just passing mention and an opinionated one not written by any well know critic or journalist but by some one calling themselves Bolly wood and ends the article with "Till next week, love, Bolly." All these sources do not help. RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For passing mention - it's not about the quantity but the quality. To me, listing him as among the critics who "bring sense, and a measure of cinematic sensibility, to their writing" is solid coverage. As for the Telegraph sources - whether book reviews or suggestions - they are discussed and given importance. As for the blog, it just supports him being a member of the CBFC. The fact is that his input as a film critic is often considered in daily newspapers. I can dig more, but I believe the subject is easily notable. Shahid • Talk2me13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not finding evidence the company passes WP:NCORP; the only sources around, even in gaming magazines, are trivial mentions, corporate announcements and interviews. Almost everything about them is in the context of the Alone in the Dark reboot and I Am Alive. Was created by a WP:SPA and of unclear notability since then, suggesting some level of WP:SPAM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why redirect to Alone in the Dark specifically, e.g. Cold Fear also got an article. Maybe to a section about the I Am Alive development troubles on Video games in France? IgelRM (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Esta compañía, Darckworks, ha sido parte fundamental en la creación, desarrollo y marketing de muchos juegos que formaron parte de la infancia de personas en varios países. Darckworks no puede quedar en el olvido. La información disponible sobre ellos es verídica, ya que gran parte de su trabajo se encuentra en los créditos de todos sus juegos. Aunque sus empleados o gerentes no se pronuncien, no podemos negarles la visibilidad de su trabajo y esfuerzo.
A pesar de su anonimato, merecen el reconocimiento por el excelente trabajo que realizaron y por cómo contribuyeron a la industria de los videojuegos con su creatividad e innovación. Por ejemplo, en el juego "Cold Fear", un survival horror, introdujeron una perspectiva de cámara al hombro con la posibilidad de moverse mientras apuntas y disparas, así como secuencias de acción nunca antes vistas.
Darckworks merece ser recordada. Aunque ya no exista y sus juegos no sean relevantes hoy en día, fueron parte de la historia de los videojuegos y de la infancia de muchos. Kevinchy (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CONSERVAR No es necesario eliminar la poca información sobre Darkworks. En lugar de hacerlo, podemos contribuir a expandirla. Aunque la información disponible sea limitada y solo podamos guiarnos por el trabajo en sus pocos juegos, podemos darles el mérito que merecen. Es posible obtener y ampliar información a partir de los créditos de sus juegos, como "Cold Fear" y "Alone in the Dark".
No podemos simplemente eliminar y hacer desaparecer de la historia su trabajo y aporte al mundo de los videojuegos. Ellos estuvieron y participaron; fueron parte de la evolución de todo este mundillo. Kevinchy (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. However, based on my knowledge of Spanish, you are simply saying it's an important part of gaming history. If this is true, significant coverage will exist. Simply saying WP:ITSIMPORTANT without proof in the form of sources isn't a viable argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirectDelete - I found this Joystick article: [17] but it seems to be mostly about their first game, 1906. The Gamekult article: [18] seems promising but it's paywalled and it alone isn't enough to meet WP:ORGCRIT. --Mika1h (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel silly changing my mind again but I thought about it and Zx makes a good point. There's also Cold Fear which has a sizable development section. I Am Alive doesn't seem significantly more notable than Alone in the Dark or Cold Fear. --Mika1h (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and duplicating content that, to the extent that it is encyclopaedic, is already in the main article about the airline.
Taking the last of these first, the main article already gives a summary of the destinations it served. A complete and exhaustive listing is not needed.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline. FlightRadar24 simply relays airline-provided information (as the page states: "The information provided on this page is a compilation of data from many different sources including flight scheduling systems, airline booking systems, airports, airlines and other third-party data providers"). There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cyprus Airways - there's no reason for this to be a stand-alone page, but where the airline flew is indeed encyclopedic information. The WP:NOTs cited here really twist the purpose - none of the prongs under WP:NOTCATALOG apply here. WP:NCORP doesn't apply here because it's not an article about a corporation. The nomination also fails to understand what "indiscriminate" means - this is a very discriminate list. However the sourcing isn't there for a stand-alone page, so we can't keep the information at its current location. SportingFlyerT·C09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"this is a very discriminate list" - where was any discrimination applied at all here? In what way is this not cover by ""Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services"? WP:NCORP literally states in its very first line that "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service".
I don't understand this combative attitude when you straight up admit that this is yet another airline destination list page that shouldn't exist. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand throwing every single WP:NOT into the AfD soup when you could just say that it's not properly sourced enough for a stand-alone article. And a list of every destination served on the last operating day of an airline is clearly discriminate - there is a finite number of entries for a related group of items. SportingFlyerT·C09:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a list of every destination served on the last operating day of an airline is clearly discriminate" - this isn't a list of every destination served on the last operating day? This includes destinations that clearly weren't being served on that day since they are "seasonal"? The list is anyway explicitly of destinations the airline might have flown to in November 2014 some months before it folded?
WP:NOT has something like 30 headings and I've mentioned two here and given the reasons for why they are mentioned, so I don't think "throwing every single WP:NOT into the AfD soup" is fair.
If you list every entry in a list regardless of relevance, or whether they were even being flown to at the time in question (were "seasonal" destinations being served in November?) then I don't see where discrimination is being applied. Encyclopaedias are supposed to summarise, not be complete listings of trivia. FOARP (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be their final scheduled timetable. That's discriminate encyclopedic information as it provides a scope of where the airline flew to before it folded, which is indeed relevant information about airlines. SportingFlyerT·C11:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how taking the content of a document like this and transposing it on to Wikipedia is discriminate. This schedule was any way just a future plan - one they did not actually fulfil - and so excluded per WP:CRYSTAL. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination requires making choices about what to include and what not to include. This is literally taking every service a company ever offered and including it in a list. To be discriminate, only the main services of a company need be included - the classic "this airline flies to X countries" covers it. FOARP (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Common sense is failed because this is a cargo airline that operates charter flights and as such they will fly whereever you are willing to pay them enough to fly to.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline - either the company website or Airline Routes Maps (an agent) or AeroRoutes (a blog/industry press re-posting brief company statements). None of these are significant coverage even if they were independent. There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not.
A simple statement that DAT operates charter and cargo flights across Europe in the main article is sufficient to cover this, nothing from this article needs to be merged. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The previous history of the organization Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama, which was formed in 1926[19], was corrected on the page
In 1989[20], a new organization was formed after resigning from this organization due to differences in ideas
And the person who wrote the article made a full correction on the first page intentionally / for his own people (WP:CONFLICT),WP:PE and added the previous established year to the new page and wrote the new page in a promotional style. More content from the first page is also included in the new page ~ Spworld2 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though Spworld2 says to have included this discussion in the deletion sorting lists for Kerala and India, I could not see it. Is its inclusion necessary there? If yes, you being successful in adding this in deletion sorting lists for organizations and Islam, fee free to add this discussion to the same of Kerala and India. Neutralhappy (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete page on Hitler, USA, Samastha of AP Sunnis and EK Sunnis just because there are people who have COI. Content is to determined using the reliable sources. I am neutral in this. That is why I say "(of AP Sunnis)" and "(EK Sunnis)". Both the AP and EK Sunnis claim their respective Samasthas is the real one. I can show that. So accepting one group's only claim could be CONFLICT OF INTEREST, especially in Wikipedia where Ahmadiyyas are categorised alongside Muslims. Reliable sources call Samastha of AP Sunnis "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama".I am sorry to say calling for its deletion must be nothing other than COI since reliable sources do not support that claim. Neutralhappy (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, It's more than just a conflict of interest. According to government records, the name "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" is registered exclusively for the Samastha (EK Sunni's). Therefore, the claim made by the Ap Sunni's is not relevant. The government records tend to be more reliable than media sources Iyas Muhammed kc (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policy :
Naming is to be done as per the Wikipedia policy. It is not the government that decides in what name an organization should be known, but rather publicity, which in turn is used by reliable sources. So It do this as per naming policy of Wikipedia. See WP:NC. Hence "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis)" is apparently the best choice because this contains both the term "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama" and the term "AP Sunnis". This is because the term "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama" is needed to identify the organization because that is how it is widely referred to and the term "AP Sunnis" is added after the name to avoid confusion". The part "(of AP Sunnis)" is used in the bracket to understand that it is not part of the name. The terms "AP Sunnis" and "EK Sunnis" are widely used. So I recommend the name of the article must have two things: one is the name which is widely used and the other one is another widely used term "AP Sunnis". Other possible names lack these advantages. Hence keep the article.
Relevance :
As for your (Iyas Muhammad kc) claim, here we can watch a Malayalam video in which Perod Abdurahman Saqafi, belonging to the AP Sunnis, made the same but opposite claim that as per the government's register office, Samastha of AP Sunnis exists there. But it is not relevant here. Neutralhappy (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the discussion here is about deleting an article, not moving an article. Even if you have problem with the name, it can be solved by moving the article after a discussion. Deletion is not needed. Again there is no need of deleting the article. Neutralhappy (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCOI (fear of losing page or client demanding back deal so this page editor keeps writing many comments here without any other debate),.Split a samsatha and create a new one(this) , its information looks same here and edit some part for it. Ptmlp (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Two more sources: that too from one group of enemies of AP Sunnis. They are MediaOne and Madhyamam.
See also: Mediaone. The URL of mediaonetv.in shown in the Wikipedia Mediaone page leads to mediaoneonline.com, the domain name of the the said article that lists name of all the 40 members of the council.
Madhyamam
The website of MadhyamamsaysKanthapuram is general secretary of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama.
In short atleast we have to consider the stand of this group of enemies of AP Sunnis that Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama of AP Sunnis exists and that its name is Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama.
Neutralhappy (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and presence of reliable sources are to be considered for an article.
Relevancy:
AP Sunnis say that the Samastha has not split and that AP faction has not resigned from the Samastha or went out of Samastha but what according to AP Sunnis is the reorganisation of the Samastha. AP Sunnis say 11 people walked out of a meeting of Samastha and the Samastha was reorganised. All of these 11 would not be with AP Sunnis. EK Sunnis spread two opposite things: one is that they removed 6 people from Samastha and the other is that AP faction went out of Samastha. However, these things are notrelevant in the creation of a article. AP Sunnis also says their Samastha is the real one. I am not paid or offered to be paid for this editing on Wikipedia. I have not written the article in the promotional tone or added POV without attributing to the respective group of people. Anyone can check the article. Please avoid writing irrelavant things. Neutralhappy (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
The Economic Timescalls the organisation of AP Sunnis "Samastha Kerala Jem-Iyyathul Ulama". Note economictimes.indiatimes.com shown in the page of The Economic Times leads to economictimes.com, which is part of the URL of the said article.
Keep - I've tried to go through the nomination twice, and find no argument being made with a coherent rationale for deletion. Arguably the EK Samastha and AP Samastha are two distinct organizational entities, both clearly notable. Any issue of content clean-up or copy-editing should be dealt with in the respective articles. --Soman (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Essay-like article that relies on WP:SYNTH from mostly unreliable sources. The sources that are reliable are not about Fantasy Vikings, but only used to support some part or argument within the article. Some of this info can be relevant additions in Vikings, Viking Age, Viking revival or historical fantasy, if it's not already there, but Fantasy Viking fails WP:GNG. There may be justification for some kind of broader article about the reception history of Vikings or the Viking Age in popular culture, but I don't think this article can be transformed into that. Ffranc (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, wow the sourcing in this article is a lot worse than I remember. I see why this was nominated for deletion. I took a look at earlier versions of the article to see if maybe things were better and they're not. Clovermoss🍀(talk)13:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Vikings in popular culture. Surprisingly this title is indeed in use, e.g. in this PhD thesis. But considering some of the problematic sourcing, starting with the content which can be tracked to reliable sources and putting that to the parent topic first, and thinking about spinning it out if ever necessary later, would be my preferred course of action. Daranios (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vikings#In modern popular culture - This was likely spun out of that section of the main article, and contains essentially the same information. However, given the poor sources being used (not counting the obviously unreliable ones, the sources are generally on real Vikings, or on a very specific aspect of Viking popular culture like their inaccurate helmets), it was not ready to be split out into a separate article. I would suggest redirecting back to the relevant section of the main article, and working on improving that section to determine if a spinout article could work. If one is eventually spun back out, it definitely needs a better article title, though. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd agree that it feels like synth. There's already a sizable section in the Viking article, not really sure what should be merged - the sources are largely poor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, delete or redirect. There is something interesting here, but the execution is very poor, from weak sources to ORish title. Not sure if redirecting makes sense due to said title, but something might be merged there, perhaps. Realistically, nobody will merge anything, so soft deletion by redirecting might be the best outcome, I guess... but deletion won't be much of a loss, neither, sadly (OR essay indeed). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here22:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have enough material at hand to really protect this. It was created from necessity. Finding proper sources is hard as this is in the same manner as "the sky is blue", i.e. very few sources discuss it at detail and just calls it incorrect and moves on, even though this fictional trope continues. Blockhaj (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Viking fantasy is a semi established genre by name, but it varies from historically accurate yet fictional to the horned helmet trope in question, thus i choose the title fantasy Viking. Blockhaj (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I've already argued on the talkpage, the term "Fantasy Vikings" is OR and should not be a redirect. That being said, the few bits of reliably sourced information within the article should be merged into the existing Vikings#In modern popular culture subsection, assuming that information is not already covered there. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 14:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I on the other hand disagree that the term "fantasy Vikings" (lowercase) is OR, as it appears in serious sources like (En)gendering Medievalism or the PhD thesis linked above. I have no idea how widespread the use of this term is, though. Daranios (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment This seems to be focusing on the Singapore organization only, when most of the Google News coverage I see is for the United States organization(s). Maybe it doesn't need to be deleted, but rearchitected to cover the PRIMARYTOPIC. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable chef that fails WP:GNG and WP:Basic. Has received minimal media coverage in reliable media. Only three notable media articles about him exist and of the three, one is interview [24] which does not count for notability leaving only two which is still below minimum requirement for WP:BLP. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough coverage for this person. [25], somewhat RS, this is an interview [26] and this in a local newspaper [27]. I don't think have sufficient coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - She's a legitimate candidate, duly elected by the Green Party of Alaska. All the other past years Green Party of Alaska candidates have their own Wikipedia articles. I don't see how we can delete this candidate's article, if the Green Parity has nominated her. It could be argued to delete, but Wikipedia doesn't come across well if they disqualify the officially elected candidates. — Maile (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't even have ballot access and have been decertified so I'm not even sure duly elected is accurate in this case. If you think WP:NPOLITICIAN needs addressing, I'd be thrilled to have that discussion somewhere appropriate, but that doesn't make a case for Sherman but rather for further cleanup. StarMississippi10:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ETA on GPA OSE: Cynthia McKinney was a six term House member, Jill Stein received extensive coverage outside of her campaign and then we have Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader. (David Cobb may need discussion, it takes more of a look than a quick scan). Jasmine Sherman has not yet attained coverage the way any of these have. I know you know this, you've been here approximately forever. But I still don't see merit here. StarMississippi11:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 2024 Green Party presidential primaries. The AK state party's previous candidates were also national candidates or otherwise notable outside this nomination. All coverage is about her participation in the primary, for which she got a whopping 72 votes, rather than substantively biographical. Reywas92Talk13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I cannot find any mention about this film, not even in the references in the article. I suspect it may be a spelling mistake and in that case a redirect to Dost (1944 film) would be called for. But that is my speculation. As it stands, without any real references, the topic fails WP:GNGRuud Buitelaar (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Dost if anybody feels strongly enough that a redirect would be useful.) This does indeed seem most likely to be merely a misspelling of Dost, but apart from the year of release this contains no other information at all to be completely sure of that. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a long-unsourced article of a football club that seems to have never played in the highest Slovak First Football League. I can't find any significant coverage of this club that meets WP:GNG. My Google searches, even with "site:.sk" next to the club's name, only come up with club's official website and match reports, the former of which is not independent. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia has been tagged for notability issues for years, which certainly may not help copy over English article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆09:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The team played on the third tier continuously from 2014 to 2022, and participated in the national cup. That's usually more than enough to merit inclusion. They might not be called "TJ Rovinka" in the coverage, probably just Rovinka. Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could we get more evaluation of the local coverage brought up by SportingFlyer and whether or not it is enough to satisfy our notability guidelines? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk)15:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Sportnet coverage that SportingFlyer points seems in-depth to me - there's many, many articles - but that's only one publications. But there's other sources out there as well, and frequent coverage of their matches. onetwo. Nfitz (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Had a good look for sources, plus information in general about this team. They most likely never played in the second tier of Slovak football either. Sport.sk seems to have nothing about them at all. Looking at the SME sources provided by SportingFlyer, I have summarized details of those references to aid the discussion here.
Sources linked on page discussed above by SportingFlyer
In a match against Rovinka, one opposition player got a piggy-back from a team-mate while their team was preparing to take a corner. The referee blew his whistle.
Amateur team Rovinka knocked fully-pro side Senica out of the national cup.
Yes
For me there are 6 instances (some overlapping) where I would argue for it being more than a trivial mention – see third column. In addition to the SME sources, the first source from Nfitz in their comment above (Deník) discusses a 2017 "Super Cup" match between winners of regional cups in the Czech Republic versus Slovakia. According to that, Rovinka played in that on account of having won the Bratislava football association cup beforehand, which I found a primary source for here. All in all, I feel this scrapes WP:GNG. More sources may of course exist. C67915:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Opinion is divided between Redirect and Keep, no support for a Deletion. It would be helpful to get feedback on the source analysis which seems to indicate adequate coverage. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm satisfied with Cloudz679's essential source analysis that sufficient RS has been found. Thank you. Thanks also to SportingFlyer for the many links to check. I'd sure like to see some sourcing applied. BusterD (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. I'm closing this discussion as No consnsus but I think a sensible outcome would be a Merge to Lynn Carey now that it looks like that article will be kept. But I don't see a consensus for this as a closure. LizRead!Talk!00:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are a few minor gig announcements for this band, a few gig announcements for a different band, and a couple about lions in a zoo. Not useful for our purposes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They really existed and released a couple of albums, but unfortunately I can find little evidence that they received significant and reliable media coverage during their time. The current citations are for a one-paragraph album review, placeholders with no info in AllMusic, and a brief mention of a song being placed in a movie. They were mentioned occasionally in laundry lists of bands that worked with certain producers or at certain studios ([29], [30]), and a controversial album cover comes up sometimes in books about other controversies ([31]). In the Internet era they have a few bloggy notices of the "lost classic" variety ([32], [33]). Alas, I simply can't find enough reliable info with which to build an encyclopedic and biographical WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probable Keep, at worst a merge to Neil Merryweather (which should survive these proceedings). The article already cites a short but independent Billboard review from 1972, and they also were covered by Penthouse contemporaneously ([34]) and Ink 19 more recently ([35]). That's enough for this to no longer be about AfD and instead to be about ATD. Chubbles (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both proposed Merge target articles are also the subjects of AFD discussions so they are not ideal Merge target article candidates. LizRead!Talk!20:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, please see my comments about proposed Merge target articles which have also been sent to AFD. Right now, I don't see a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Penthouse link works here and the snippet view indicates substantial discussion of the band. Ink19 hasn't been subject to a formal discussion at RSMUSIC, but it is a longstanding publication I have used frequently for independent verification. Chubbles (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't count on either of the two merge targets meeting BLP sourcing standards to keep. I've just asserted delete on both; between them there was a single applied reliable source (from an encyclopedia). BusterD (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this argument misunderstands encyclopedias as independent sources; I've noted as much on the Neil Merryweather AfD. Chubbles (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was the other page which had the single encyclopedia source (with which you are defending a BLP page with vast sections of unsourced stuff). This article has nothing approaching multiple independent reliable sources which directly detail the subject. Which is our notability standard. Delete. BusterD (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An alert editor found a whale of coverage for Lynn Carey, the lead singer of this band, in old newspapers. Redlinking this title is downright foolish with that new information, and it suggests that people are not digging very hard for information on this fifty-year-old band and its musicians before punching "delete". Chubbles (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lynn Carey looks more likely than not to survive its AFD. Deletion of Mama Lion would therefore be a violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:ATD. Mama Lion should be redirected to possibly be WP:HEY'ed at a later date. Note: I chose Carey as a target over Merryweather because she was the "Mama" of the band. Geschichte (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this band was pre-internet there is a need to go looking through paper print archives such as archives of reputable magazines of the time. Also I do think it's interesting that there were 199 individual listeners over the last month alone to Mama Lion on the streaming music service that I happened to look at. Rockycape (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: No significant independent coverage except for a single article about its game published before the game was even released. This article was copied across a few websites. The article appears to be based on a press release, so even that coverage is not independent. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article cites no sources and contains almost no prose. It claims to be about "Music in Dresden", but it contains only three timelines of classical music composers who allegedly "spent a significant amount of time in the German city of Dresden". It makes no mention of any other kind of music that may have existed at any time in that city. I don't think there is any hope for a reliably sourced version of this article that is anything more than a list of trivia. If there is such a hope, this article is probably not useful as a base for creating it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:SELCRIT, there is no clear selection criteria (having spent "a significant amount of time in Dresden" seems quite arbitrary). Without any sources to support it, it is a case of WP:TNT. The list could be recreated if an editor wants to define precise verifiable criteria for inclusion. In this state, it should not stay on Wikipedia. Broc (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, unclear how these people are relate to Dresden, there is no references that the subject "music in Dresden" was discussed in sources, i.e., the subject is of dubious encyclopedicity. - Altenmann>talk16:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lacks sources and contains minimal prose, focusing only on classical composers who spent time in Dresden. It does not provide a comprehensive view of the city's musical history. Redirecting to Music of Germany or merge into Popular music from East Germany section in that article would ensure any relevant information is preserved within a broader and more complete context. Send down the rain (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article and the majority of participants believe there are sufficient sources to establish notability for this canine subject. LizRead!Talk!00:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable, as is clear from the media attention she has received. This is not based on a single event, as WP:BLP1E typically applies to biographies of living persons. It's crucial to note that Babydog is not a person, and sources have featured her over many years. Articles from the New York Times and other sources confirm this coverage. The subject is part of public discourse, meeting the standards outlined in GNG. This justifies keeping the article.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely passes WP:GNG. Not to mention that BLP1E doesn't apply to non-humans, and she has coverage from multiple events from 2021 to 2024. It doesn't even make sense to merge into the 2024 RNC page like the nominator suggests, as this article only has two sentences about her appearance at the RNC. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Mentioned above this dog is notable per the recent and previous domestic media coverage, but now is viral sensation on social media, and has international attention from News Outlets in, Australia, India and more. This article has already gone above and beyond with suitable sources from multiple places in print, TV and video, including previous articles well before the recent RNC event in 2024, such as the "Do it for Babydog" Vaccine Lottery in 2021. As stated above by others, I agree that it meets the basic criteria for general notability. RedatopiaM (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Babydog's relevancy is greater than her appearance at the RNC, and ought not to be merged with Justice's article due to her involvement in state-wide schemes like "Do it for Babydog". She meets notability similar to other dogs of significant public interest.
Keep - Should be closed as a speedy keep. Little merit in this discussion continuing for a week as there is a snowballs chance this ever turns about. Significant coverage in the NYT, Independent, and countless other perrenial sources giving full page articles to this dog in detail. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree. From news coverage starting in 2021, to national news coverage in 2022, with additional news coverage in 2023 and 2024, articles about Babydog herself have been rather prevalent. As a West Virginian as well, I think this fits the bill for coverage as an article (especially noting there are articles dedicated to other politicians who have appeared in fewer media stories), and believe this ends discussion on whether this article should be kept or not. Ocarina2020 (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jim Justice and the Republican National Convention. I say this as a West Virginian, an animal lover, and an inclusionist who likes quirky subjects: even though there's a lot of coverage in major outlets, it's all trivial. Babydog hasn't done anything noteworthy, and is at best a minor, local celebrity whose national fame is likely to be fleeting. If it persists for a few years, then we would have a reason for an article, like we do with important memes. But it's too soon for that, and I suspect that Babydog will quickly vanish from the national spotlight, as Jim Justice won't be able to bring him onto the floor of the U.S. Senate every time he wants to make a silly point (assuming he wins—Jim Justice, I mean, not Babydog). I will overlook the possibility that the nominator's real name is "Catsprings", and that he or she is motivated by personal animus toward canine politicians... P Aculeius (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Babydog has coverage from 2021 to 2024, so I don't really see how "if it persists for a few years we would have reason for an article" makes sense considering her coverage has persisted for a few years. As an aside, I recognize that the comment about the nominator's username was probably a joke, but jokingly accusing a nominator of personal animus could be easily construed as casting WP:aspersions, so perhaps don't make those kinds of jokes in discussions. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of Babydog prior to her appearance at the convention was plainly trivial—she appeared only in announcements or press appearances by Jim Justice, and nothing of her own, and has never been anything but a prop for Justice. She would be better covered under Jim Justice and/or the Republican National Convention. I don't think that anyone would construe my remark about "Catsprings" (not Casprings) nominating "Babydog" for deletion as a cast aspersion. You evidently knew it wasn't, and unless someone else believes it was, I would refrain from scolding editors for obviously humorous asides. P Aculeius (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purr, purr. In the spirit of friendliness, I accept your apology and proffer my own for overreacting. I also present myself for a conciliatory stroking. P Aculeius (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Socks and "Obama's dog" (pretty sure that's not the title of the article) belonged to Presidents of the United States, not state governors. And they received fairly substantial and national coverage over periods of several years, not just passing mentions of their use as physical props when Presidents Clinton and Obama were grandstanding behind them. Socks received a lot of mail from children, which even became the source of a newsworthy book; and a nationwide search for a hypoallergenic pooch helps explain why "Obama's dog" got so much coverage, aside from belonging to the president's family.
If you want a more apt parallel involving a presidential pet, consider that we don't have articles on Lyndon Johnson's dogs, which gained attention solely because of the way he handled them, and not because of what they did; and we have an article about Nixon's Checkers speech, but not about Checkers, the dog (noting that Nixon was only vice president at the time, but due to the speech, Checkers is one of the most well-known pets that ever belonged to someone who became president). P Aculeius (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
paid promotional puff
