Not a notable cryptocurrency. Sources are in Japanese and mostly broken; the ones that work seem to be PR pieces or listings on trading platforms. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all I find [1]. Cite Highlighter doesn't index most of the ones used in the article other than #2 - orange- so mixed-reliability. I don't find anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of objects from a television program, such as "Celery". A lot of this is WP:OR, both in the content, and the arbitrary way in which non-notable objects are selected for inclusion. Jontesta (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only objects I'm iffy on are Eye of Harmony, Psychic Paper, and Vortex Manipulator due to all three being important recurring elements in the series that lack a viable redirect. Maybe The Doctor (Doctor Who) for Psychic Paper, Gallifrey for Eye of Harmony, and Jack Harkness for Vortex Manipulator? I'm not sure.
Either way, this list is, per nom, very CRUFTy, and I've honestly been meaning to getting rid of it myself. I will note per nom that most of these objects are at least the recurring (Meaning they're not really "non-notable") but there definitely is a lack of inclusion criteria and not much showcasing the list needs to be a separate thing from the other viable redirect targets for most if not all of the entities. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no discussion in the article about why the items as a group are notable. It is an indiscriminate list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Skins characters - Many of the reoccurring characters listed here that actually had any importance are actually already also covered at the main character article, making this a rather redundant spinout article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:OR of a list of watercraft from batman comics. Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire. It has no independent reliable sources. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge reliably independently cited content into another article if relevant. Most of this article is uncited, and most of it is trivia, and most of the cited content is not cited to independent WP:RS. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MKat your service.12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft. Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve... Sergecross73msg me14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My technology section at Batman claim is that it would be the only other place to mention the Batboat as some of Batman's other vehicles are already listed in that section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overly detailed plot minutia that runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are no viable sources being used, and despite the "Keep" arguments in the previous AFD in 2009, this is not, and never was, a proper topic for a spinout article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article isn't important enough for an encyclopedia because it looks like fan trivia and doesn't have independent sources to back it up. It doesn’t bring notability and verifiability. So I think deleting will be a good way. Yakov-kobi (talk) 18:10, 05 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know that some interpret WP:BOOKCRIT as meaning that any book that gets a couple of reviews is notable. First, whether or not a book gets reviewed often is a function of the degree to which the publisher does its promotion - publishers *push*, reviewers do not *pull*. Second, there shouldn't be much weight given to Kirkus reviews because Kirkus reviews everything they receive, and their reviews are intended to indicate whether libraries should add the book to their collections. Third, I know that the policy does not state that the reviews have to be positive, but there is some common sense that says that it makes a difference. Negative reviews of factual works may be useful but fiction is art, not science, so there really isn't the kind of back and forth of facts or conclusions that you have in the non-fiction world. In this case, the reviews clearly state that this is a mediocre novel, with cliche'd writing. To further deny notability, this was presumably being made into a movie but almost ten years have passed and it has not happened. I don't know how to find out if the movie concept is totally abandoned, but this is another strike against this book. (Note that movie studios snap up lots of books, mainly to keep anyone else from using them. It's actually making them into movies that should be noted.) Lamona (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with Lamona's arguments. Wikipedia does not only contain articles on books with good reviews and a movie. I can see why Lamona wouldn't want to add this book to their bookshelf, but critical reviews are the definition of notability for a book, and anything else is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Toughpigs (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need at least one more "non-trivial work", IMO, because the existence of a Kirkus review is pretty much the definition of trivial. Kirkus reviews every book coming out of a standard publisher, and the reviews are brief. They also are aimed at predicting popularity rather than cultural import. I ran through the EBSCO database and didn't find any. It's made more difficult because the title "Down to a sunless sea" has been used many times by different authors, including Neil Gaiman. I was able to learn that David Graham is a pseudonym of Evan Wright, an RAF pilot who claimed to have had psychic experiences. (Charman, R. (2017) ‘Research Note: The Gloveless Ghost of Air Gunner Stoker and Pilot Officer Douglas Worley’s Apparent Premonition of Death: Two Very Baffling and Disturbing Cases’, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 81(3), pp. 194–204.) He wrote under other names as well. I'll add this to the talk page. Lamona (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I had originally created this article, and had to look up when. It was probably one of my first creations here, since I created it in January, 2004, or more than twenty years ago. Since then, dozens of other editors have contributed hundreds of additions and corrections to the article. If the book wasn't interesting to others I doubt it would have been regularly updated and revised. I concur with ToughPigs, I think Lamona's desire to "cancel" this article is more of a case that he does not like it than that it is not notworthy or qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. As to the allegation that some critics consider it a "mediocre novel with cliche'd writing," first, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it, but it could be they do not like the subject matter: the story begins with the first-person narrative of a British airline pilot on a lay over in a bankrupt, third world country that is so impoverished that its neighbor country to the north imposed the death penalty for smuggling gasoline to it, and starving mobs try to rush airplanes leaving the country to someplace better, with military troops having to shoot them. The "third world country" in question? The United States after it exhausted its oil reserves. As the book progresses, things go from bad to worse. While later real-world events proved the scenario unlikely, I believe the book is a reasonable look into a dystopian New York City and how if the world is balanced on a knife's edge of sanity, any event can trigger a catastrophe. Not every book of this sort of dystopian future is necessarily going to get positive reviews, I think it is a relevant example of the zeitgeist of the period and how some people thought the 1970s oil crises might end. For these reasons, I urge retention of the review.
"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."
Another WALLEDGARDEN of an original television program and all its adaptions. References do not show notability and most of the references are about the other adaptions. Would recommend a redirect to Anandha Ragam (TV series) (the original) as an ATD. Would redirect myself but know based on history we would be back here anyway once it is removed. CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Very vague definition of 'internet TV provider'. Questionable accuracy, see Germany for example where linear channels are listed and which are not 'Internet TV providers'. Lack of references, and seems to be an easy target for vandalisers who want to promote their own services. Amchipo (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considering the article creator doesn't appear to respond to any message and continuously creating pages on a contentious topic, this might be better discussed at WP:AN. IgelRM (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not sure what the issue with the article is. Perfectly notable and has an impressive amount of sources and references. Brat Forelli🦊22:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Weak Keep. People from the school were a part of several books (albeit endless passing mentions) and the college's tryst with sports is documented (albeit passing mentions). DareshMohan (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previous AfD brought up several interviews, but those are primary sources, and arguments used there do not rise to our current standards. Besides the one SIGCOV Dean Takahashi piece brought up in the previous AfD, it appears to fail WP:NCORP with just trivial mentions and announcements of their closure. Merge to Hasbro perhaps? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep There appears to be enough sourcing, and the nomination statement doesn't engage with what there is. There are multiple CBR references, but there appear to be enough RS to meet GNG, and the burden of BEFORE is on the nominator to show how what's already in the article does not. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no less than five non-Valnet online sources and one magazine source listed. The above does not constitute a source analysis. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-The Los Angeles Times source is merely a one sentence mention of Linda Gary voicing her. Same deal for the Polygon source, except with a different VA.
-The San Francisco Chronicle source is a plot summary overview of her character
-The MTV Link is broken, so I cannot view it. I cannot view the SFX sources either.
-The HashtagTV source doesn't seem to even mention her? The source also doesn't seem reliable, and even then is only verifying that she'll appear in an upcoming production.
There's not even commentary or dev info here- at best there's two sources verifying VAs, which is not enough to pass the GNG bar. Nom seems to have done a BEFORE, and a brief BEFORE didn't yield much for me, either. Do note if I've missed anything, but this seems to be a rather minor character with very little additional sourcing to back up any substance. Ref count is not equal to notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but MTV link is broken again; all links to mtv.com archives seem intentionally broken, but wayback may have a copy of it. Regardless, the SFX source has still not been dealt with. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is definitely in a pretty bad state, but Evil-Lyn is one of the most significant characters in the franchise. Given the presence of MOTU: Revelation, a couple of sources do exist pertaining to Lena Headey's portrayal of the character; interviews and reviews. From some research I've done, although critics from the 1980s don't seem to bring up Meg Foster often when discussing the live-action film, retrospective reviews do somewhat often single her out for praise. The article itself may not show it, but sources and coverage of Evil-Lyn do exist.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews may count as primary, but depending on the other/surrounding writeup may well count as independent RSes contributing to notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can an interview be primary for a fictional character? Were they interviewing Evil-Lyn in character on some in-universe interview show? I would think that only the show itself is a primary source for the show. BD2412T00:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Merge and Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!19:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list for now due to lack of sourcing and a clear WP:ATD. No objection to a spin-out later if enough sources are found to rewrite the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his father Antoni Potocki (1780–1850) to which Przemysław's mother also redirects. Oppose redirecting to Potocki family, which I assume is for notable entries (although I see one non-linked entry). Also, neither his father nor son who have standalone pages, have entries in the Potocki family. Jay 💬00:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (although not on BLP grounds for a subject who purportedly died in 1847). Not finding any sources to pass WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Procedural keep on grounds of nominator being a banned sockpuppet with a pattern of disruptive AfD nominations. (I stand by my earlier !vote but would rather see it nominated by an editor in good standing.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say that this article does not contain footnotes and it says " He was married to Princess Teresa Sapieha since 1830. They had five children together: Roza Marianna Potocka, Idalia Potocka, Pelagia Potocka, Stanisław Antoni Potocki and Antoni Potocki. " No further description and some hopeless information AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly maintained and deeply-context deficient list with significant maintainability problems. For starters, it just indiscriminately lists women in one common omnibus list, regardless of whether they served in a federal or provincial/territorial cabinet, which isn't particularly helpful -- if there's any value to this, it would be far better served by either splitting the list up into separate subsections for each individual government, or actually creating full standalone spinoff lists for each individual government, for clarity of context, because federal and provincial/territorial cabinets are different beasts. For another thing, it's actually missing far more names than it's including -- a quick WP:AWB comparison between this list and ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Women government ministers of Canada found 326 women in the category who are not in this list, compared to just 135 women who are in both places. This list hasn't been updated with any new names since 2017, so no woman who joined a Canadian government cabinet in the past seven years has ever been added here at all, and even in 2017 it already wasn't particularly complete, because the creator basically aimed for at-the-time comprehensiveness only for the federal and Ontario cabinets, and bunked off nearly the entire rest of the country. In other words, this list is deeply incomplete, and isn't organized in a way that would actually be helpful or valuable to a reader -- and since we already have ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Women government ministers of Canada as it is, it's not entirely clear that it would be worth the time investment to actually fix this list. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody actually is willing to put in that time, but it's not serving readers to hold onto a deeply incomplete and poorly organized version that isn't actually being repaired. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - also, is the name correct? Woman is not an adjective. I suppose it could be a noun phrase - but where's the hyphenation? Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to Patrick Carney, then delete to prevent restoration. Absolutely fails WP:NCORP. The suggested target is also tarnished by public relations editing activity, so that page needs to be carefully scrutinized for potential GNG fail. Graywalls (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The person is notable, he meets WP:BIO — he is a CEO of the biggest mobile operator of Ukraine for many years and has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the person. He also has several awards and honours — Head the best leaders ranking according to Forbes Ukraine, Lead Ideal Managers (a ranking of the telecom industry's best executives), he made it into the top 10 executives of Ukraine, top 20 most successful leaders of Ukrainian companies and many others. --Perohanych (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Keep. The page reads pretty much as his personal CV, but there are numerous sources (primarily in Ukrainian) with non-trivial coverage of the person. Probably passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the person's notability. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. The page is REFBOMBED and contains only passing, routine mentions. There are no good, reliable sources. Profiles on Forbes are not reliable at all, nor are press releases. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But mentiones sources are not paid or superficial news! They do contain an in-depth analysis of the person. It is not just a profile on Forbes, it is a profile in connection with the fact that Forbes recognized Komarov as the No. 1 person among businessmen in the whole country! --Perohanych (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. I have searched but did not find WP:SIGCOV about him. The search is complicated as the name is common. For example, this is another (slightly older) Edward J. Doyle, who also coincidentally attended Canisius. Cbl62 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having figured out the Doyle who died in 1997 is the one we're discussing, he turns out to have been a prominent sailor (aka Bud Doyle) and received significant coverage, including an in-depth staff-written obit at The Buffalo News. See e.g. [6] and [7]. Also, FWIW, the obit does discuss his NFL career. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: The subject seems like a young athlete, and there just isn't enough independent information about them yet. Waqar💬18:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass WP:GNG. This event and all of its (so far 2) seasons falls foul of WP:NOTINHERITED- just because some notable people played in the event, this doesn't make the event itself notable, as it's a clear GNG failure. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and this league has not sustained and has not attracted noteworthy significant attention for notability. Two seasons were played with the last in 2022. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any evidence that it's been covered by reliable sources for a long time. Perhaps if the event gains more traction and consistent coverage in the future, it could be recreated then. Waqar💬18:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass WP:GNG. This event and all of it's (so far 2) seasons falls foul of WP:NOTINHERITED- just because some notable people played in the event, this doesn't make the event itself notable, as it's a clear GNG failure. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikas265:. Cricinfo has scorecards of early 2000s club matches, doesn't make the leagues notable. Most of what you introduce just isn't notable. AA (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom, this league does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Routine match reports, statistics and coverage of individual players don't cut it for notability, and that is pretty much all I'm seeing here. Let'srun (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. Firstly, notability is not inherited, so he isn't automatically notable just because of who his brother is -- but in terms of establishing his own standalone notability, the only claim even being attempted here is that he's been a chair of political committees, with absolutely no indication that he's ever held a noteworthy political office, and there's only one footnote being cited to support the article, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself. As I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Dutch politics, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more expertise in the area can expand the article with a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but nothing stated here as of right now is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from needing more than just being somebody's brother. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schoof was the mayor of FOUR different Dutch municipalities, among these Alphen aan den Rijn, a city of more than 100,000 inhabitants. The fact that his brother just became prime minister of the Netherlands SHOULD NOT be held against him. Family members of famous people can also be notable! gidonb (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mayors aren't automatically notable just for being mayors either, not even in cities with over 100,000 inhabitants. The notability bar for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article about his political impact — specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth — and just throwing the word "mayor" around is not dropping any mics on anything if that type of substantive content isn't present in the article to legitimize it. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one says it's automatic yet Dutch mayors of contemporary municipalities (+historic Frisian municipalities), all the equivalent of cities, are usually kept. It has to do with the differences between mayors in the Netherlands and in most other countries. gidonb (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about Gidonb's claim, but as it stands it's a BLP with one source, and will need to be deleted or draftifyed if better sources are not found. The pages on him in other languages are not helpful. SportingFlyerT·C16:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not have time to reference this right now. Since Schoof also has a literal meaning and mayors are/were commonly mentioned without first names, it's complex. Someone else can reference and recreate this later. Another problem is that 1997–2008 roughly corresponds with the website to archive lull. gidonb (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SportingFlyer. I am really busy. Nico Schoof is notable yet probably the article was created by someone who thought it was cool that his brother had become prime minister. I just invested tons of time in saving Korfbal Combinatie Capelle. It's all too time consuming. It's way too easy to nominate and way too difficult to save articles. gidonb (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Terwin corporation doesn't meet NCROP - no reliable independent of the subject sources; advertisement, Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The corporation is notable, it meets WP:ORGCRIT— it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the corporation. It is one of the biggest corporations in Ukraine with $1,6 billion assets and $1,7 billion revenue (2023). Before the Russian invasion, the revenue exceeded $2 billion. Nowadays, the corporation is building logistics hubs in four regions of Ukraine (Odesa, Lviv, Dnipro, Kyiv) with a total investment of more than $500 million. Of course, this and other activity of the corporation has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. --Perohanych (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the company notability per WP:NCORP. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. Google News is not a measure of notability. Every source should be analyzed, and I have done this, concluding that all the sources met in the page and here provided by the author, are only superficial mentions or routine announcements with no single source providing in-depth, independent media coverage. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Let's analyse every mentioned source:
The text of European Business Association is entirely devoted to Tervin and provides enough about the size of the corporation.
This text of Forbes is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's composition, assets and revenue, as well as information about the founders
This text of Liga is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's history
This text of New Voice is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the largest companies that make up the corporation
This text of Interfax is entirely devoted to co-operation of Tervin and the state Agency on investments.
Delete. There is some coverage that is more than run of the mill. The topic may move in the direction of notability for the tournament series, not for the editions. The proposed is an annual edition, however, and it is early for such historic perspective. So delete. gidonb (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are just basic announcements, and it's too early to say if the tournament itself will be historically significant. Waqar💬18:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge into Manufactured Superstars. Nothing wrong with Wikipedia providing discographical information, which is encyclopedic, but the roster of artists for this label is underwhelming and I don't see a strong case that it needs a separate article from its founding members. Chubbles (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't really see what should be merged. I don't see the label having any particular cultural or artistic impact, and a discography such as this might be better served at discogs for which we have a linking template. Except for the catalog, (agree in most circumstaces with Richard3120 here), we don't really have anything about the label. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)19:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Look at Template:Years in Ukraine, or any for any other nation. I link to anything notable enough to have its own article, so its a valid navigational list. There are also two references there, one for the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, and the other from Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. DreamFocus22:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Ukraine#18th century per Geschichte‘s vote and per WP:NOPAGE. The three cities/ports established during this year can be included as a single-sentence mention at the proposed target. Absent a redirect and/or selective merge, my second preference would be to keep the article as is. FrankAnchor10:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that these claims are enough to confer notability. Otherwise, its simply a very unremarkable block of flats, with all that I could find being 'property' listings & the like.TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you do when the only substantive source basically says that this place never really amounted to anything, i.e., it isn't really notable? That's what the county history says: the place was laid out on speculation, but in the end the railroad either picked the more northerly route it has now, o wasn't built at all (the text doesn't make this clear). What we're left with is a crossroads with some houses and "Carbon Church", which I can't find much about besides a FB page. Also, the location given is just wrong. Older topos put the label in the right place, but round about 2013 both it and Carbon are shown about 1/2 mile west of their actual locations; they fixed Carbon but not Pontiac. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carbon, Indiana. There does seems to have been a small settlement there, but this 1915 map simply identifies the site as "South Carbon" (which makes sense since it's less than half a mile from the town). The few other old maps I found that showed it as a populated site didn't name it at all, and none mentioned Pontiac. Given the site's lack of notability, the presence of "Carbon Church", the fact that it's right on the edge of the larger town, etc., I don't think it merits its own article. I recommend redirecting to Carbon, Indiana. I can also add a brief mention of the site to the Carbon article. ╠╣uw[talk]16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the document of the Russian military historical archive is not specified correctly, and cannot be verified through the archive, the article really needs to be deleted for lack of sources Dushnilkin (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so a tabloid. A short article with no byline on an online news source with no indication of fact checking and a very short piece on a local news sources that allows user submitted content that has no byline. SpartazHumbug!20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable award which effectively serves the purpose of rewarding people who promote tourism in Seoul. The awards don't seem to have any significant coverage in third-party sources aside from trivial mentions and promotional pieces. There are no mainspace pages that link to the article either, apart from List of awards and nominations received by NewJeans. The article has only had a few edits made since its creation 15 years ago, mostly by bots. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of notability. I encourage you to search for articles about the award in Korean; the award has a ton of non trivial and non (at least it seems like) promotional coverage.
BLP1E. Football club directors are not inherently notable and by coverage this is a pure BLP1E as the appointment of a porn/glamour performer caused some noise at the time. Beyond that, nothing. Not by her real name or alias SpartazHumbug!12:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cricketer, who hasn't played at first-class/List A/Twenty20 level. Under-19 cricketers are deemed non-notable and most of his coverage seems to come as a result of his famous father, so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. An article can be created once he makes his senior debut. AA (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG easily. Do we have an SNG being abused to deny wider community norms here? Where does it say under 19 cricketers are always non notable. This is no ordinary cricketer here but the son of a cricket icon. Easily passes notability standards and his coverage reflects his own efforts and not his Dad’s. SpartazHumbug!12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear that he passes GNG - County 2nd XI would not generally make GNG, no major honours (per WP:SPORTSPERSON). Of citations, overwhelming majority are framed in terms of his father (WP:NOTINHERITED) - e.g. "Inside Freddie Flintoff's life with his adorable family...", Biggest test for Flintoff's talented sons...", "Freddie Flintoff's son, Rocky,...", "Andrew Flintoff's son makes...". He may well progress beyond county cricket into first class & intl - but he hasn't yet WP:LAGGING. Hemmers (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widespread coverage across the world in the BBC, Sky Sports, The Times, Malaysia Sun, Times of India, News18, The Independent, The Telegraph, Wisden, ESPNCricinfo and the list goes on. Yes the articles often mention his father in the headline or the article themselves but that is going to be the case his entire life unless he manages to totally surpass what his father achieved which is a high bar to set. The articles themselves are about him, not his father, and as such he easily passes the coverage test. Shrug0220:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of convenient ignoring of WP:NOTINHERITED going on here. If his father was Joe Bloggs, a plumber from Cleethorpes, there wouldn't be any coverage. I might start adding club cricketers with loads of coverage in county newspapers. AA (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shall never know as his father isn't "Joe Bloggs, a plumber from Cleethorpes". But many of the players selected to play for England under 19s get media coverage despite not having famous fathers and also I would think that whoever broke a record set by Andrew Flintoff would at the very least get coverage in and around the Lancashire area and probably further afield too. But again we will never know as that isn't what happened, it was his son who broke the record. Shrug02 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the Second XI Championship has never been a high enough level of cricket to be deemed notable. Its matches hold no status, and as such are and have been considered since I've been here (2010) to be non-notable. Same with Under-19 cricket; there are countless Under-19 cricketers who have been deleted over the years, because that level of cricket also isn't notable and carries no match status. Just like many associate cricketers who have played T20I cricket aren't notable... AA (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFCRIC is a depreciated guideline that doesn't overrule WP:GNG. If someone has significant coverage to pass WP:GNG then they are entitled to an article regardless of the level of cricket they have played. Similarly, just because someone has played in a certain high level of cricket, that doesn't man they're automatically notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes he gets more coverage as the son of Andrew Flintoff, but he has exceptional levels of coverage about him/his career compared to most others at his level. And the coverage of him passes WP:GNG. Just because most articles have half an article about him then half an article about his father, that does not invalidate the coverage about him in these articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a blanket ban on non-FC/LA/T20 players... otherwise we'll end up with minor counties cricketers, club cricketers, school cricketers, etc, who just so happen to do something in a form of cricket that doesn't carry status and has no notability here. Matches that carry status should be the gold standard for inclusion, especially after we have spent years defending our strict inclusion criteria from a certain Belgian and his friends who thought we were lax. Especially when articles like this lack quality and are refbombed the hell out of. 34 references for an article this size, seriously? AA (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass musical notability; coverage is only about his death. I gave up after 20 pages in Gnews trying to find mentions of him before his passing. Simply not a notable performer. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page, definitely. I have known about this rapper for years, and I am not a big rap fan. The fact that he has been known for so long indicates notability. Dag21902190 (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. Another no-name rapper whose death has made more headlines than his (non-notable) music. Dead rappers always make headlines no matter how obscure they are. Changing vote to keep after performing article cleanup. There is considerable coverage about the subject, but it's mainly about his role in the Jville gang wars while his actual music career is virtually irrelevant. Would also like to see primary SoundCloud citations replaced with reliable sources. 💥Casualty• Hop along. •21:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rapper is notable. Particularly within Florida especially in Jacksonville and through the south. He has many notations in different news articles. Foolio is also is featured on Pimp of the Nation album by Natalac Featuring international recording artist sean paul, grammy award winning Project Pat, Three 6 Mafia Member La Chat, Pastor Troy, Ying Yang Twins, Keak da Sneak to name a few who all are very Notable rappers Yameka (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are Radio Edit and Explicit versions released Pimp of the Nation & Pimp of the Nation (Radio Edit)
This project was released Presidents Day 2018 aka feb 19th 2018 in hard copies throughout the south and online on all platforms Yameka (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
News Article .. First Coast News contacted Jacksonville Rapper Natalac and got his and the sheriff of Jacksonville input on Julio Foolio outcome. Natalac with his decades of experince with Hip Hop & younger rappers he worked with through messages through music.. he chose Foolio for his 11th Studio Album with grammy award winners etc. with their song Bridge This Gap a song to send a positive message. On natalac Pimp of the Nation. going by this article
Delete: Artist is fails notability guidelines. There's barely any coverage I could find apart from his death. I do think we could have an article about his death like @Thriley suggested, though.DaCrashy (T.C.) 16:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting how all the “keep” votes are repeating the “he’s notable because he’s from Florida” mantra, and verbatim to boot (“Rapper is notable. Particularly within Florida”). Florida does not represent the entire country. 💥Casualty• Hop along. •19:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While BIO1E and 1E are extremely important these don't apply here. Wikipedians apply these too much after violent deaths. In a way this makes sense. It's an unusual feature. Still, we should work by policy and guidelines. The keep is by GNG. gidonb (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent the past hour removing all the original research and unsourced content shovelled in yesterday as part of the "improvement". Magnolia677 (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More policy based input please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi12:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Foolio is definitely a noticeable and well-renowned artist. I wouldn't delete this page. He falls under the category of hip-hop artists killed by gun violence. Which has its on list of all notable hip-hop artists that have died. There is more information about him within interviews hosted online. 2600:1005:A017:1BB:A844:C313:B47E:CA62 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike my vote first. I do not believe those interviews are primary sources in the first place since it addresses the subject person's company and the trade industry as a whole, so I did not identify them as PS per WP:IV. But I had no idea that the Forbes India interview is sponsored content, and I agree that paid advertorials should be considered non-independent. My rationale was mostly based on the two interviews, but with one deemed non-independent and one with disputed views, I no longer possess a strong rationale to go for keep. —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul)14:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I conducted another round of searching but did not find any other usable sources. Thanks to S0091 for pointing out that the Forbes and Fortune sources are non-independent paid advertorials, which I had overlooked. A single GQ interview is not sufficient for passing GNG. Changing my !vote to Delete. —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul)13:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: none of the sources contribute to WP:GNG as they are either primary such as press releases or interviews, trivial coverage or not reliable such as the Huff Post which was written by a contributor rather than staff. S0091 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, term doesn't seem widely used. The article is entirely unreferenced and I can't find any indication it's increased in notability since the previous deletion in 2017. The deletion reasons from then still seem to apply. JaggedHamster (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems to be in the same boat as the previous deletion attempt in 2017. There are no sources listed, and I can't find any evidence the topic has become more well-known since then. Waqar💬19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as Journalist and politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems the coverage isn't substantial enough. Perhaps with more time and accomplishments they could qualify in the future. Waqar💬19:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 procedural close. The last AfD was closed just a week ago. A merge is still pending and the article is tagged accordingly. Please be patient (or do the merge yourself). – Joe (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated a previous version of this page for deletion. The consensus decision was Merge to Just Stop Oil, which was not what I had originally proposed. The Just Stop Oil page does contain a brief summary of the relevant event, but I don't think a full merge has been carried out. Instead, this page has been expanded to cover other instances of vandalism. However, it's still got the infobox and the undue emphasis on the flash-in-the-pan event that prompted the article's creation. I believe this fails WP:COATRACK, and I still think the article should be deleted, possibly with a merger of the relevant bits into Stonehenge, not Just Stop Oil. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unnecessary WP:CFORK, and violates WP:NOTDATABASE as almost the entire content of the article is just a copy of the ESPNCricinfo source [29]. Just because the men's IPL has this article (which I also don't necessarily agree with), that doesn't mean this article meets WP:NLIST, as I don't see significant coverage about these captains grouped together in news sources (i.e. not just copies of the table). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are captains of teams, rather than captains at tournaments (apart from BPL and IPL, neither of which seem notable either). Why would we need a list of every captain ever at one competition? Also, WP:OSE applies to this rationale. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source analysis: 1. Bilanz (Handelsblatt) is likely sigcov but, as a trade magazine, may be paid. 2. Telegraph has less than one sentence of coverage about him, not sigcov. 3. Le Monde has only quotes, zero sigcov. 4. Wired Italy mentions his name a whopping 15 times, but has no sigcov of him or his biography, only quotes. 5. Le Temps (link is broken, the article can be found here) also only mentions him, no sigcov.
Since this is a COI creation I will not bother to search for other sources. If another editor with more patience than me finds enough new sources to meet the GNG, ping me and I'll reconsider. Toadspike[Talk]14:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. In-depth coverage by multiple unrelated sources indicating encyclopedically WP:DUE biographical prose appears absent. WP:COI concerns are well-founded, but merely explain this article's existence. If the subject were notable, the article would merit a rewrite from scratch by someone who is not the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 00:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems like it's about someone who isn't quite famous enough yet to justify a whole page. Waqar💬18:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was only able to find mentions and brief descriptions (<100 words) of the subject in reliable sources (such as by searching "filetype:pdf "Kosmic Free Music Foundation" " on Google). The article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. toweli (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must not have been on the internet in the mid 1990s. Back then, "reliable sources" would not be covering what they individuals were doing in the online music community. 75.3.240.177 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Clearly unnotable. All but one of the sources are about his record company or Kidz Bop. The sole source documenting him is an interview. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Gseach brings up his website, a few social media, then off into other people with the same name. What's used in the article now isn't enough, simple directory listings or his charitable foundation (primary). Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I don't find reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject to justify WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Additionally, he was not a lead character in any of the listed films. GrabUp - Talk08:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Struggling to find independent sources that make a strong case for this article. Additionally, their acting credits seem more minor roles. Waqar💬18:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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: There are multiple reviews from reliable sources, including the Guardian, the Sunday Times and the Evening Standard. What is the problem? Toughpigs (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Toughpigs points out, the article already includes several reviews from reliable sources, including well-known British newspapers. The nominator should considering withdrawing this AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs)06:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The article notes: "The Last Chancers began as a Comedy Lab sketch, directed by Stephen Merchant of The Office and starring Buxton and Steve John Shepherd of This Life. Channel 4 later commissioned it as a two-parter, "obviously with Stephen no longer on board because he was too busy winning awards". The result is more mainstream than his previous stuff, but the pop cultural digs are still sharp. The wry observations on in-band politics and musical tribalism, in particular, make you wonder whether Buxton, like his co-writer MacMurray, has a murky past on the gigging circuit."
The review notes: "A new comedy drama about the ups and downs of life in a rock band rings all the right bells, largely because it raises hopes that we might be in for a 21st-century Rock Follies. The Last Chancers (Channel 4, first shown on E4) was not that longed-for event, but it was an agreeable hour that wasn't short of laughs or insight. Writers Tony MacMurray and Adam Buxton have clearly done their time in the lower depths of the music business ..."
The review notes: "The ineptitude and staggering self-belief of Buxton's Johnny is bound to draw comparisons with David Brent, but there's also something a little Alan Partridge-y about his desire for fame. The characters of his fellow male band members, alas, have not been developed as much. However, the two female leads, guitarist Liv (Valerie Edmond) and gobby Aussie Kirby (Emma Pierson) are played with confidence and add an extra dimension to what might have been a bloke-centric drama."
The review notes: "Underused on TV since The Crow Road, Edmond is a welcome signing; but the comedy's problem is its hero, who suffers as many humiliations as Brent and Alan Partridge but lacks their compelling and richly imagined awfulness."
The review notes: "The Last Chancers looks a bit like a six-part sitcom that has suffered a rear-end shunt and ended up as a two-part comedy drama. The tone was certainly more sitcom than drama, since Adam Buxton plays the part of Johnny - a white-bread wannabe rocker - with the same slightly arch, sketch-like performance he used on The Adam and Joe Show. Looking at my notes, I can't find a single line that would withstand quotation in cold print as an example of something funny, but that doesn't do any kind of justice to what was a rather engaging comedy."
The review notes: "There are a lot of influences in here, most notably The Office and Spinal Tap, but it's well observed and written and (all too rare in comedy nowadays) funny. In particular, the characters are all well-defined and instantly recognisable without being total cliches."
Keep: There are already reviews from major British newspapers like The Guardian. Maybe the nominator missed them? Waqar💬18:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Like with far too many other HC2/Innovate stations, it's been nothing but national services and no significant coverage (nor the real prospect of any) in the station's 25-30 year history. (The various secular channels that HC2/Innovate has added since taking over from 3ABN ownership are enough to tip me in that direction for the all-that's-needed-here {{R to list entry}}.) WCQuidditch☎✎04:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Thanks to participants who quickly responded and presented sources. I hope they find their way into the article. LizRead!Talk!04:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this does somehow survive deletion I am able to get some photos for the article. I haven't looked much into the Museum itself so I can't currently comment on it's notability. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf04:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not written like an advertisement, instead it needs improvement, not deletion. I'm appalled to see this nomiated for deletion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from being written like an advertisement (WP:NORG), this entry fails WP:GNG. Its only sources are its own website. AstridMitch (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2024
Delete: Could be notable, but sourcing is primary in the article. I can only find various travel blogs or listings for them [31], without much coverage at all. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Disagreement here among editors on the quality of the sourcing in the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I was going to close this as No consensus until I looked at the article and saw that only one source wasn't from the official website. Where are all of these independent sources editors arguing to Keep this article are referring to? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it would be great if this article gets expanded, but meanwhile it passes content and sourcing, as is. Good starter article. — Maile (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The book notes: "Conceived in 1986 by four friends with a shared passion for historic military vehicles and who thrilled at driving their own vintage models in parades this museum has developed into a place to honor America's other veterans of the battlefront. It boasts a collection of more than 60 meticulously restored fighting machines, ready to roll at a moment's notice. Most vehicles have been acquired within a 150-mile radius of the museum. When tractors were in short supply in the 1940s and early 1950s, local farmers often relied on retired warriors rugged jeeps, trucks, and half-tracks to work their land. The Heartland's dedicated staff has rescued many from rust and oblivion, returning them to mint condition."
The book notes: "Ever wondered what sitting in a tank would be like? This central Nebraska location encourages exploration of all vehicles on display. Besides tanks, helicopters, halftracks and even ambulances are on display. Jeeps from every branch of service are lined up. From World War II to present day, about one hundred restored vehicles are ready for action. Most are still operational. Military engines are also housed here."
Hammel, Paul (2007-06-14). "Museum shows how military goes rolling along" (pages 1 and 2). Omaha World-Herald. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes: " Such moments and memories are hallmarks of the Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles, a volunteer-run, admission-free facility off Interstate 80 at the Lexington exit. It displays military memorabilia, including more than 70 restored Jeeps, tanks and helicopters, to honor those who built and used the "Arsenal of Democracy." ... Lauby, 60, is among the three farmers and an attorney three of whom are Vietnam veterans who founded the museum in 1988. ... Most of the vehicles were found within a 150-mile radius of Lexington, but several were purchased through military surplus sales or donated by veterans. Over-the-road truckers and local railroads have donated services to haul the hulking machines. ... One of the museum's six Huey helicopters was shot down five times in Vietnam; another was a medical ambulance during Operation Desert Storm."
The article notes: "At the Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles, they've got Nebraska's largest private collection of military jeeps, ambulances, armored personnel carriers and Burma trucks. On the northeast corner of the Interstate 80 Lexington interchange, they've got about 60 restored military vehicles representing every armed conflict from World War I to Operation Desert Storm. ... What Nielsen referred to as a group of naive farm boys and ranchers incorporated as a nonprofit group, took out bank loans, raised money and built the first building on the site. They opened in 1993, but only in good weather. They put the word out that if the flag was up on the pole, the museum was open."
Ward, Malena (2005-04-30). "Lex museum depicts memorable Vietnam moment" (pages 1 and 2). Kearney Hub. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes: "The Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles was founded by Vietnam veterans, but it doesn't limit itself to that era. The museum is dedicated to the restoration and preservation of historical military equipment of all types. It is at the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 283 and the Lexington Interstate 80 interchange at exit 237."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No reliable reviews or other sources other than a single production source. A search in Sify ([32]), Chennai Online ([33]), and BizHat ([34]) proves futile. Please find the Kalki and Cine South reviews or redirect to Chennai as all online sources prove to be a description for the city. A WP:BEFORE found a fleeting mention here (சிங்கார சென்னை). DareshMohan (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is coverage in international sources as well CNNNBCAl Jazeera. The fact that plenty of national sources RaiAnsa also reported on the following trial shows the depth and duration of coverage needed to fulfill WP:NEVENT. @PARAKANYAA: I would like to hear why you think the coverage is not sufficient to pass NEVENT. Broc (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides a single Engadget review (the "Wii vs. Vii First Shot" source), the sources appear to either be unreliable (such as GoNintendo) or trivial mentions such as minor announcements/mentions, making it fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's redirected it will have to be moved to Vii (console) beforehand. A new redirect at this name can be created if necessary (though it's not actually necessary) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus. Article page moves can occur if an article is Kept but can not be carried out by a closer because it's an editing decision. If you want an article moved, first vote to Keep it then a move can be discussed. But right now, we also have arguments to Delete and Redirect so no consensus exists. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't have the sources to meet the WP:GNG. The Wii is already an WP:FA without a mention of the Vii, so I believe that shows that's it's of little importance of the Wii and not worth a redirect. Sergecross73msg me14:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@Sergecross73: While I believe the Wii article may be in good shape, that doesn't necessarily mean it is complete. There's multiple quality sources discussing the creation of knockoffs of the Wii, so I don't think it'd be a problem to mention this fact and the existence of the Vii in particular. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. FA's are not perfect. But I think it's telling that an article that has existed for almost 2 decades, and has had enough experienced editor's interest to get it to FA status, never felt it was important enough to include this... Sergecross73msg me03:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't redirect to an article that doesn't exist, it'll just be deleted. Also don't delete comments and write new things. WP:STRIKE the old comments if they dont apply anymore. Sergecross73msg me20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, If a Wii clone section with a mention to Vii is ever written at Wii, this can be recreated and redirected there. --Mika1h (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected, contested draft. Moved back against advice of HD. There is no indication they meet N:ORG. A merger would be fine, but would likely need protected. StarMississippi00:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources that talk about inauguration, appointments and organization structure and most of these sources are from the organization's own website. There is no significant indepth coverage in secondary independent sources. Per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NORG. RangersRus (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point to note that, out of 11 almost 6 references are from different news articles, and rest which is there referenced is the actual information, which is true and not for promotion by the website... Pls review again the page references & visit those references Pratik.S2005 (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6 sites are the police stations own website mbvv.mahapolice.gov.in and 1 another government source has nothing but a link to this police station site. So these are all unreliable and not secondary independent sources. 4 others news site have nothing significant that satisfies notability. It does not have any criteria to pass the notability guidelines for organizations. RangersRus (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Main issue: the 2nd film of the director never released --> WP:TOOEARLY. This guy only directed one released film, not meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative professionals since the film received mixed reviews. The notabliity guidleine states that the director creates a "well-known work or collective body of work". As of 2024, the work is not well known, it is a single film with mixed reviews, not a critically acclaimed film. I don't know if a writeup by an assistant professor at American College, Madurai holds any weightage but that info can be added to Penguin, the director's only released film. The deletion was caused by an undo of a redirect to Penguin. Long sources are mainly direct interviews about Penguin, not independent. Acting roles seem minor and not notable.
If anybody who directs one film, gets an article, doesn't this set a bad precedent. The film didn't win a National Award or any award for that matter.
This source [42] talks about six films including Penguin, all of this information pertaining to Penguin should be moved to the film article. This director can be notable after more of his works release. DareshMohan (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: if you are wondering what the contents of source #7 is, it is here: [43]The story focuses on the pain and struggles suffered by the female lead. A pregnant woman remembers her child who went missing years ago. After the child’s missing, her husband started becoming toxic by saying she was the reason for the loss and separated ways from her. Later after years, a male character was shown who accepted her as she is and started living happily with her. No strong characterization or importance was given to both these male roles. They are just part of the screenplay.
That's just the plot of the film. How is it scholarly analysis? The assistant professor mentioned above [44] (page 100) is the only significant analysis but that is of the film and can be added to Penguin.
Keep: This seems like a bad-faith nomination and I believe you are upset about your friend, User:Monhiroe's autopatrolled rights being removed. You first edited this article on 8 October 2023, what changed your mind between then and 19 June, 2024, when you redirected it? Did it take eight months for you to judge its notability? On 19 June, you skimmed through all the articles I have ever created and made some changes on three of them [45][46][47]. Was it to check which ones you could nominate for deletion but couldn't find any, so you thought Eashvar Karthic was borderline because he had only one film and chose to redirect it? Is this how you get back at an editor who may have upset your friend?
The main issue you have mentioned in you nomination rationale is countered by WP:FILMMAKER#3 where it explicitly mentions significant or well-known work. It need not be a collective body of work.
I believe the film receiving mixed reviews has no weightage here as we are not debating for WP:FILMMAKER#4c
As of 2024, the work is not well known, it is a single film with mixed reviews, not a critically acclaimed film. - Adding to my previous comments above, the film has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, which can be verified by checking Penguin (film).
Apart from the above, the film has been cited in journals for three completely different reasons: A film that discusses women-centric films, OTT during the COVID-19 pandemic and representation of the subaltern.
If you had taken the time to read through Source #7, you would have known that the PDF you have linked is another journal that has cited the original source #7's work. In the PDF you have linked, Penguin (film) was selected as one of the films out of all the other women-centric films that were released in 2020. The scholarly analysis is in the findings and conclusion section of the same PDF. The journal entry's objective is independent of the subject, so it's absurd to ask for an analysis about the film when the objective is different.
FWIW, here is another journal that extensively cites the subject's work.
Hello Jeraxmoira, I completely agree with you on the notability of this director and, like you, I do indeed disagree with DareshMohan's interpretation of the guideline in the present case, but is your very aggressive opening statement absolutely necessary? I am inviting you to kindly strike it. I don't think it's appropriate here, nor helpful. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)09:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any bad-faith nomination will be called out. My statement is true and the diffs/timeline make it clear, so it will not be struck out. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the analyses of Mushy Yank and Jeraxmoira wrt Penguin meeting GNG via sufficient reviews, thus Karthic automatically passing NCREATIVE#3 and therefore being automatically considered notable by the wording of NCREATIVE's header. I don't like it, but individual AFDs aren't a great place to overrule clear guidelines so I've started a discussion at NBIO Talk because NCREATIVE#3 is clearly a much lower standard (at the lower bound) from the other criteria. That also said, I also suspect that when Zebra is released that it will also receive more than sufficient reviews to pass NFILM[48][49], there will be no good single redirect target, and Karthic will pass my proposed modified NCREATIVE#3 anyway, so a WP:NOPAGE redirect would likely be short-lived. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~09:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, i.e Penguin (film). Are you implying that Penguin is not a significant work even though it has an article on Wikipedia and has been cited in 3+ journals? RangersRus. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I do not find his work significant or noteworthy that has received a wide critical acclaim or award or even considered for a remake by other makers. Noteworthy: If we take film Kill (film), the director Nikhil Nagesh Bhat (does not have a Wikipedia page), has created a noteworthy significant work noticed by International critics and the film has also been considered for remake by Hollywood makers. RangersRus (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:FILMMAKER#3 does not need wide critical acclaim, award or remake by other makers when it fulfills the 'coverage in periodical articles or reviews'. Are you still going to stick to your point? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article mentions the Telugu film but it should also mention how that film was delayed and never released. I genuinely feel that this article should exist after that film releases per Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline#View_one:_Don't_rush_to_create_articles: We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established.DareshMohan (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]