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: Well, all four used in the article are RS, but the interview and the "listen to his music" don't help notability. The last two are trivial coverage and these are about all I can find, so not enough for musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically what I meant but I didn't do a good job verbalizing it. The sources are reliable but the content itself reads like it's primary (promotional in tone/press releases). 💥Casualty• Hop along. •16:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article moved from draftspace, despite being declined twice when submitted for review. Subject does not seem to meet notability guidelines yet, and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Delete unless reliable sources are found and added to article. CycloneYoristalk!23:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to NCAA Division I Men's Indoor Track and Field Championships and do not draftify. Way WP:TOOSOON for an article on an event which has no coverage outside of a single WP:PRIMARY routine announcement of date and venue. This can easily be covered on the chart of championships listed in the proposed target article. I oppose a move to draft space because it is highly unlikely any significant coverage will be available until January 2026 at the earliest (the start of that year’s indoor track season), meaning there is no benefit to creating a draft at this time. FrankAnchor00:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Frank Anchor. It is probably too early for the 2025 article; this one is definitely too soon. I could probably be convinced it is too soon for even a redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too soon, and not mentioned at parent article, and so redirect is inappropriate. I also oppose moving to draft space, since it's about 21 months until the event and draft space is not an indefinite holding area. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic doesn't seem to match WP:SPORTSEVENT. It clearly states that student competitions are not considered noteworthy, and the article itself about the sporting event should not be just a collection of statistics. When the event is held and something significant happens there, then maybe it will become an acceptable candidate for an article--Saul McGill (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The language, scope and tone of this article feels completely self-promotional. In an effort to conduct wp:before, I uncovered minor articles that appear to be reprints of press releases in Newsday. If anything, a portion of the content from this article should be included in the large article on Hofstra University. Otherwise, I recommend deletion. Variety312 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - only as an ATD as it could be a valid search term. Content is completely promotional, a BEFORE shows nothing to indicate notability independent of the university. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An article from 2006 with only one source - a radio interview from 2003. There are no independent, third-party reliable sources cited. A WP:BEFORE search is complicated because there is a commercial radio outlet with the same name which came later. There is a body of work on the general subject of pirate radio in Europe in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but I could not find reliable sources for this particular station. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG and lacks WP:SIGCOV, Geoff | Who, me?23:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All kinds of hits for pirate radio all over the world, Japan, Australia, the UK, that come up with this search, but nothing about this particular incarnation of pirate radio. Oaktree b (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG with sources added to article. Insufficient WP:BEFORE. Yes, Dutch newspaper archives are particularly difficult to access online without going to a physical library (preferably in the Netherlands), but online sources like this and this are accessible via Google (and if you look closely at some of the websites covering the King David, they include photographs of old newspaper clippings as well). Pinging Oaktree b for reconsideration. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also found a whole section dedicated to Capital Radio on board the King David in this book about pirate radio. There is enough coming up via Internet Archive, such that going through it will take more time than I have right now. This was a happy discovery so in the end, no harm done and the article can keep improving. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are three-and-a-bit pages about this in the 2009 2nd edition of Pop Went The Pirates (the link above is the 1st edition), and as above there are also Dutch sources. Adam Sampson (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Merge into WDNN-CD, as WDNN not only has the coverage to sustain continued existence on Wikipedia, but also the 2 actually seemed to have once simulcasted eachother and share common ownership. --Danubeball (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ordinarily, I'd do the suggested Merge but WDNN-CD is being discussed at AFD, too, so it would be wise to see the outcome of that discussion first. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, actually. To my surprise, I’m already recovering some stuff about this station. I should be finished straightening up this article soon. Though if you want sources, why not? [1][2][3] For some reason, apparently the times mentioned one of their shows so Danubeball (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep - first a note to the nominator: deletion discussions are about the subject, not the article. It seems to me that the claim sourced to the school of being a pioneer in development of four-handed dentistry is true, that fact would be sourcable to a book on the history of dentistry. WP:BEFORE requires the nominator of an article for deletion to do reasonable research into the subject prior to nomination and specifically mentions that a Google search is not enough. So, did you read any books on the history of dentistry? If reliable independent sources can be found for that bit, my keep would no longer be weak. Second, if it cannot be independently verified after real research, WP:ATD tells us that this title should be a redirect to the university, not a delete. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to go look for a book that may or may not exist. The onus is on you to bring sources forward that would improve the article. Nominators need only conduct a WP: BEFORE search, which I already completed. Anything else is a massive waste of time for nominators. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, this nominator is trolling at my edits. Sources are weak but can be added eventually. He probably has some connections with other schools lol!
"this nominator is trolling" is an ad hom. It's not a valid keep rationale. I don't have any conflicts of interest to declare. In fact, it's common for users to nominate several related articles at once. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not appropriate. You should peobably read the instructions for participation at AfD linked at the top of the page. WP:AGF is a pillar policy and not optional. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge When searching around, I could not find anything special about this school except that it exists for 75+ years. Article is filled with run of the mill info over the school, based on related sources. Sources seem to be mostly social media. So deletion is the best option but a merge into the university is also an option. The Bannertalk23:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: There does not seem be enough sources to justify a standalone article. However, it seems notable as a part of the University of Alabama at Birmingham so merging with the page, adding The School of Dentistry as a subsection of the article seems to be the correct move. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Added a few things. If judged insufficient, redirect to Motu Patlu#Recurring. Again, I am inviting the nominator to PLEASE slow down nominations of Indian animated series or to directly and boldly redirect them to obvious related articles if they think apparent notability issues need to be addressed urgently. THANK YOU. Taking a page to Afd with a minimal rationale may take some time but checking sources, improving the page, verifying potential targets, etc, also does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)23:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to boldly redirect articles to other articles because I believe in the significance of discussion and reaching consensus. M S Hassan (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not redirect to Motu Patlu#Recurring because that page segment too has no sources, no inline citation and possibly contains original research. I would have redirect to the production company if they had a page with this spin-off in the list of production. Reviewing the sources, the indepth coverage is insufficient and fails general notability guideline. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the English sourcing is borderline-sufficient for GNG, and there appears to be Hindi-language coverage as well. It might be better to merge with Motu Patlu, but I'm not familiar enough to have an informed opinion. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete no substantial coverage about him that would meet GNG; the one source in the article is a one-line mention. Google search results mainly return other people of the same name. His most prominent role appears to have been 83 episodes of General Hospital, which is insufficient to meet any SNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this individual found, what's used (the one article) isn't sufficient. No coverage, no notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He wasn't even part of the starring cast on General Hospital and even if he was, it would be considered as WP:ONEEVENT which is still not enough to warrant an article for the actor. — YoungForever(talk)23:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I feel a huge problem here is that there's no indication of this thing having any impact or importance outside of its base series or any enduring legacy of said concept. A good paragraph devoted to it is basically gameplay tweaks that mean nothing to anyone that hasn't played Gears, and doesn't provide any reasonable grounds to be a standalone article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and WP:MERGEREASON. Better covered in the context of its respective game(s), in a much more efficient, condensed manner. Current article is bloated and drawn out to an insane degree. It would be very easy to cover most in a much more focused paragraph that didn't branch out into these tangents. Sergecross73msg me18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Eurogamer article here is quite impressive, unfortunately that appears to be the only major coverage for the gun, with the other articles being announcements of balance patches or minor coverage. I likely wouldn't have created this article if I had only these sources available so I will have to agree it fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Even with some reception, it provides more coverage and context if we include this as part of the overall reception of the game and series. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not actually a separate organisation. MoRD recognised Kudumbashree as a National Resource Organisation (NRO). Kudumbashree acts as a nodal agency for executing several schemes of central government in Kerala. This is one among several of such. The article is a content fork of Kudumbashree as it can be integrated within it and also fails WP:SIZESPLIT as there is not enough size to justify article split. Gan Favourite (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Other articles on non-notable Olympians have been moved to a special draft category where they won't be deleted after six months. That would seem appropriate here. Eastmain (talk • contribs)16:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nemanja Markovic seems like a very common name, at least judging from the multiple footballers bearing the name. (Some of them are also found as incoming links to this article. None of them seem particularly notable either.) Geschichte (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Medium, Soundcloud and a few other websites that don't seem to relate to this individual. I'm not seeing notability with the sources given, nor can I find any we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. Tone is also highly promotional thanks to this edit, which was when User:Mytrum replaced this page with a promotional rewrite in 2022, which was also the user's only contribution. And hmm, I was thinking of something... Aaron Liu (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, it's all about Mr. Trump in the sources I find, whose name in Finnish sources appears as "Trumpia". Nothing about this software found. Source 6 doesn't even appear to be about the software, maybe a name drop. The rest of the sources used in the article are primary or of questionable notability. The Forbes piece is not notable/not a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: I think that this page is very short and needs to be expanded. There is actually a sufficient number of third-party sources regarding to this brand, such as:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess newly found sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!19:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
So before nominating this article for deletion, I consulted with SouthernNights, who has expertise in evaluating academic-related BLPs. They also expressed doubts about the subject meeting our WP:N. I've also conducted a BEFORE search and found nothing that could help establish GNG. Fwiw, this is a PROMO BLP! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, This is awkward! . I must admit I only conducted a GNG check and consulted @SouthernNights for WP:NPROF, who said it doesn't meet the WP:N, and then I proceed to nominate this BLP for deletion. But now you're claiming that it meets WP:NPROF. @SouthernNights, Could I ask you for clarification on this, please. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The page clearly needs a couple of edits to show it more clearly but as David says, this subject clearly meets WP:NPROF in at least two categories; one is enough. Qflib (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It happens. I did take the opportunity to tune up the article a bit so as to make significance clearer and to improve its flow. So, as we've seen before, an Afd can sometimes lead to a better article. Cheers! Qflib (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Biography of a person not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. The attempted notability claim here, "melter and refiner at the U.S. Mint", could get him an article if he were well-sourced as passing WP:GNG on coverage about his work, but is not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him an article without proper sourcing for it -- but the only two footnotes here are a primary source directory entry that isn't support for notability at all and one page of a book about the history of the county where he lived, which is being cited in such a way that it's deeply unclear whether it even refers to Joseph Cloud at all, or merely to an ancestor of his — but even if it does mention Joseph Cloud himself, being namechecked on one page of a book about something else wouldn't be enough all by itself. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived American media coverage and/or history books than I've got can salvage it with better sources than I've been able to find, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mentions in journals from the 1800's [2] and [3] (apparently), but these are tertiary sources, so I can't vouch for the validity of each statement. I can't find anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, it's written: melter and refiner at the Philadelphia Mint, appointed by Washington. Perhaps it can meet GNG due to his role in the primacy of the Philadelphia mint and the early currency development of the United States. O.maximov (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is a measure of the quality of the sourcing present in the article, not of the subjective significance of their job title in and of itself. So getting him over GNG would be a matter of finding adequate sourcing, not just of asserting that he had a prominent role without properly sourcing its prominence. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is yet another obscure Trotskyist international with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the two currently cited sources, one is from the organisation's own successor's publication; the other is Robert Alexander's book, which only mentions the TILC briefly in passing, in a section about the Revolutionary Workers League. A search on Google Scholar yields only two results: a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, and a Czech PhD thesis, which only references it once it in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.[4]
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 yet another obscure Trotskyist international without any apparent significant coverage in reliable sources. This article has been tagged for multiple issues since 2010 and its only cited inline source is a simple list of abbreviations. Looking this organisation up on Google Scholar, I found only three results:[5] one is a Czech thesis that lists it alongside many other Trotskyist internationals, without any further detail; the other two only give it a passing reference in sections about the Spanish far-left, without any real detail. It apparently only has one notable section, the Spanish Internationalist Socialist Workers' Party, which has little information about it either. The Spanish Wikipedia article doesn't help with finding sources, as it is almost entirely reliant on the FI-ICR's own newspaper La Verite.
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.
With only one match in lower league as well as database sources listed, this article of a men's footballer obviously fails WP:GNG. The closest thing to significant coverage is SME where he debuted for Senica. My other searches only came up with match reports and passing mentions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆11:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks to be 6 matches in the highest domestic league, not 1 in a lower league, but still that's not really a career, and the lack of sources corresponds to that reality. Geschichte (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – seems to have played in six matches not just one, but I was unable to find any significant coverage of this guy. C67912:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Book reviews are fine, seems to pass AUTHOR. Source 5 shows multiple reviews in multiple journals, that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this person meets either NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. For the latter, his books, save one, have been cited in the middle to low two figures. The other one was cited ~160 times. I'm also not convinced that the fact of having a book reviewed in what are essentially trade journals suffices for AUTHOR. I am unable to get to the EBSCO journals but the fact that most of the reviews are in Library Journal and School Library Journal do not tell me that this is a major author. Like Publisher's Weekly, these are non-academic publications that generally provide short "advice" type reviews (buy this/don't buy this). Looking up "Encyclopedia of Invasions and Conquests" in WorldCat, it's held in 5 WC libraries. It's hard to know what this means since school libraries are rarely found in WC, but I would not consider this person a notable author by any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the EBSCO reviews should be accessible through The Wikipedia Library. That might be relevant if you completely ignored the two substantial academic reviews of Ends and Means in academic journals, the three of Masters of the Battlefield (counting H-net as equivalent to an academic journal), and the two mainstream-media reviews of Masters of the Battlefield. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these reviews indicates that the books are NOT considered major contributions to the field. For example: "This book is a generally accessible book for a mid-brow audience as opposed to a scholarly work." (That's H-War) The Michigan Review states: "Serious students of military history, however, will find here neither a dependable reference book nor an original contribution to the scholarship of command across the ages." The two for Ends and Means are one page each, and one states "Its principle weakness lies in a failure to draw in literature on the Middle East, and especially the Arabic results in gaps and misconceptions. It is nevertheless a strong study of the modus operandi of the British in the area, and of the muddle and misinformation which lay behind their eventual success". This sounds to me like the reviewers are not seeing these books as being major contributions to the field. Nothing in NACADEMIC nor AUTHOR states that if a book (or a few books) get ANY reviews the author is notable. Both of those policies include much more rigorous criteria, and among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics. This person clearly fails that. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in NAUTHOR says anything about the reviews being positive, nor about the reviewed books being scholarly works. They merely have to provide depth of content about the books they review. Your quote "among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics" is completely false. There is nothing in our criteria that reflects that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the 8 criteria in WP:NACADEMIC and indicate which of those this person meets. I don't think he meets any of them. And note that nothing in academic nor author notability mentions book reviews. I don't know why this has become a thing here at AfD, but the mere fact of reviews wouldn't satisfy the policy criteria for either of those categories. If, however, you are looking to see whether a person has (as the policy says) "...made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" then what their colleagues say about their work is evidence.Lamona (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have I even tried to argue for a pass of WP:ACADEMIC? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:POLITICIAN? Have I tried to argue for a pass of WP:ATHLETE? Do you think that minor politicians who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as politicians, or that minor athletes who write books cannot be notable because they are not also notable as athletes? How about you address the criterion I am actually arguing for, WP:AUTHOR, instead of trying to make the ridiculous argument that being notable requires being notable for everything? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like you are going for #3 of AUTHOR. Here's the whole AUTHOR list:
This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
I do not see that this person has created a "significant or well-known work" merely because it has been reviewed. I am leaning on the word "significant" and when a book is reviewed as not being dependable (as above) then I don't see it as "significant." As I said, just getting reviewed doesn't make it "significant" and if you're looking at "well-known" then low citations and low library holdings (the only number we have because we don't have access to sales figures) tell me that this greatly stretches the concept of well-known. Also, I'd like to mention WP:CIVIL. Lamona (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4(c): The works have won significant critical attention. Perhaps you are having difficulty with the grammar of that criterion? The word "significant" is a description of the amount of critical attention the works have received, not of the works themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by way of passing the WP:AUTHOR bar. Reviews don't have to be positive; what matters is that attention was paid to the author's work. Nor do we require that the books being reviewed have to be scholarly in a narrow sense. We have articles on authors known for inaccuracy, popularization, and inaccurate popularization. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Would it not make more sense to find consensus on ONE of these MOTU characters and handle the rest through merging, redirecting and/or prodding rather than spamming AfD with near-identical nominations? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the character list. Even the brief reception section doesn't discuss anything noteworthy about the character, and all sources appear to be listicles.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Moss Man]] - The character already has a section on the main character list describing the essential information on them, and there is no sourced material here worth merging. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 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 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 or merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is a fairly substantial article with a number of secondary sources. A merge would be the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use. And there is at least some content based on secondary sources here which can be used to improve the respective section of the target, so simple redirection would be a step backwards. Daranios (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his section in the character list. Even the few mentions of the character in the "Reception" section aren't even about the chracter, but the toy; and they're all listicles.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. As with the nom, my own WP:BEFORE identified a relatively high number of (seemingly) independent/reliable news sources which deal with the subject org as a primary topic. And in some depth. The nom was, in my view, quite correct in dePROD-ing the article. And opening this AfD. Personally I cannot support deletion. The sources found in my own BEFORE, a number of which I've added to the article, would suggest that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. Certainly I can't support summary/procedural deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello. I created this page myself. This was sometime after the 2019 LEs when I also created for Irish Local Elections across the years 1985-99 and for each City & County Council election of each and have added to others since and created additional ones including individual pages for several elected politicians, past and present and national and local level. Devite (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit of Wikipedia is that in some cases GAA personalities, actors, actresses, comedians and people who then become TDs, Senators and MEPs start out in their first election. The pages I helped create show links to all elections that the people stood in, if they become a significant national or international personality. You understand as a fellow editor. Its the fishing effect that we have in economics to add to the overall level of combined knowledge and this is why I like doing this. Its safe and quiet. Devite (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another section I found on the pages of each Council was a list of Councillors who were Cathaoirligh of each Local Authority. This has been done for each city such as Dublin, Cork, Belfast etc and I felt should be started for each County Council at least. I am happy to discuss this further. If you analyse the list of Coucillors of Monaghan County Council, McNally is also a former Cathaoirleach. Other former Cathaoirligh include some Ministers and TDs and then again some of those weren't Ministers or TDs but significant historical personalities in each county's political history regardless. Indeed some former Councillors are famous national figures despite never having been TDs such as Nicky Kelly from Arklow, profiled in Wicklow County Council Councillor history. That is part of my argument for keeping this McNally article as part of an overall database that could be enhanced. It is the 125th anniversary of Irish local government afterall this year in 2024. Devite (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should say first that I really appreciate the work you did adding each of the very many local elections to Wikipedia. I've edited around the edges of them in the last year or so, and they're an invaluable resource to have here.
That said, even as each of these elections are themselves notable and worthy of Wikipedia articles, and that we can dream of further progress in adding to the series, that doesn't speak to the notability of individual councillors, even long-standing ones. In the case of councillors who do go on to become national representatives, or who had a sporting background, or were otherwise prominent like Nicky Kelly before they were elected, they would get an article, or be eligible for consideration for an article, on the basis of their own notability (WP:BIO), rather than the fact that they were a councillor, or even Cathaoirleach. Seeing someone in blue in these election pages suggests that there is something more to be said of them, beyond their service on the council.
It would be great to have a referenced list for all local authorities of who served as cathaoirleach or mayor, but that doesn't give each of those office-holders notability for an article themselves. The nature of the office is that the chain rotates between councillors who might otherwise be known only locally. Dublin is an exception, being the capital and largest city, so the occupant of the Lord Mayor of Dublin will get an article. It might seen an extreme option now to delete Pádraig McNally's article, considering WP:NOTPAPER. But I also think it's good to keep a consistent standard of who qualifies for notability to merit an article. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:SIGCOV. While I've found and added a few refs, which mention the subject as a primary topic, they are largely of the same type we might expect for any other (even long-standing) local councillor. The coverage of the subject's planned and then actual retirement, for example, is relatively light and only given in (very) local news sources. Can't advocate for a "keep" based on the available coverage. Guliolopez (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy delete per WP:A10. The content is copied basically word-for-word from the main article on the 2024 World Cup. I do not think this is a plausible redirect title due to its length (and users looking for information on this round are more likely to look for the general World Cup article). There is no content needed to merge because content is already at the main article FrankAnchor10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a valid split, no consensus to split and it's an unattributed copy of text from the main article. So should be deleted, probably by speedy deletion as either WP:A10 or WP:G12 (as unattributed copies of text violate copyright). Joseph2302 (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: The sources provided by Saqib meet WP:SIGCOV standards, with extensive reporting about him, sometimes due to his controversial statements and attempts on his life. If he is not notable, why is there so much coverage about him? Sources like BBC Urdu, as well as Indian and Pakistani news sites, report about him. In my POV the subject meets WP:GNG and the article should be kept. Minor portion of the article which are from non reliable sources can be removed. GrabUp - Talk12:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is just an ordinary Pakistani YouTuber. The reliable sources such as Dawn, BBC Urdu e.g. primarily only focuses on Mirza's arrest whereas nearly the entire article is relying on poor sources such as "MM News", "The Namal", "The Pakistan Frontier", News18 Hindi e.g.Leithiani (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grabup, Of course, this is what happens when 4 days old accounts with a mere 300 edits participate in AFDs. By the way, did I forget to mention? Keep based on the coverage I provided above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:47, 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 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.
Maxim Novoselov has never been ranked in the top ten, has never beaten a notable fighter (or one with a winning record for that matter), and hasn't fought for any notable promotions/events. Checking his Russian Wikipedia his biggest claims to fame are almost fighting Viacheslav Datsik, getting jailed twice, and setting up a small club in prison. The article is currently orphaned as well. User:ZenZekey (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's hard to evaluate the quality and reliability of these sources. I'll admit to being skeptical about them, but I'm open to being convinced (which is why I didn't vote yet). According to FIAS, the world sambo organization, he's never competed at a world championship and the European sambo association's webpage only has results back to 2010 so I can't confirm his European title. Fightmatrix.com shows his highest MMA ranking was 110th, but he never fought another ranked fighter. He certainly appears to be a scary guy you wouldn't want to cross, but I'm not seeing anything that meets any WP SNG criteria. The question is whether or not he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did manage to dig up evidence of him winning a European championship in 2007.
I'm still not convinced this warrants a Wikipedia page. He certainly doesn't meet WP:MMANOT and actually meets one of the criteria supporting deletion (no fights at top tier organizations). Aside from his Sambo/MMA career all he really has going for him is going to prison a couple times. ZenZekey (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked closer at the article's sources as well as doing my own search. What I found where some fight results, MMA databases, interviews with content that can't be verified--and evidence of criminal activities. None of this convinces me that WP:GNG is met or that he is WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk)02:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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!03:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I think we're facing the same issue as with Michał Tomaszewski AfD back then. From what I can read based on my Google search ("Krzysztof Komosa łyżwiarz figurowy"), news sources only refer to Komosa in brief mentions (2001 and 2004); nothing in-depth about himself. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia has been unsourced for nine years and likewise does not have significant coverage in secondary sources. No news have been released on Komosa over 20 years either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆10:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't seem to find anything on this guy. He played in MLS for one year, made one appearance, and then totally disappeared. I've tried several searches, and nothing is coming up, much less WP:SIGCOV or anything approaching WP:GNG standards. Anwegmann (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first Signal article looks fine, but I think the Los Angeles Daily News article and the other Signal article fails WP:YOUNGATH as that source is merely a local paper covering local high school sports. I still think a redirect is the best option for the time being, with the history being preserved in the event more sources appear. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My biggest issue is keeping an article about a player who only made one professional appearance. In any case, I will withdraw my vote for deletion. Svartner (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an issue at all - we can easily have an article on a player with one professional appearance. The issue is whether he passes GNG. SportingFlyerT·C19:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as nom. I think this discussion points most clearly to draftification, as the sources shown don't necessarily do enough to show WP:SIGCOV, but there clearly are some sources that could, with work, produce a reasonable article.Anwegmann (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect per above argument, and per nom. No point having a disambiguation page that just redirects both uses to the same article. —Mjks28 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article lacks notoriety typical for an article. The sources have a vested interest in the subject, which itself is not compelling. Repeated death in committee should itself be evidence for the notoriety level. Jasavina (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent of the subjects intrinsic lack of stature, I have attempted to find non-vested sources on the topic and failed. Jasavina (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start a discussion concerning that other section on the relevant talk page.
As for these source you found, thank you, I genuinely went looking and didn't find those. I'll recall the proposal for deletion. Jasavina (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to List of PlayStation games (A–L) - Official UK PlayStation Magazine reviewed the game in issue 98 per this guide in issue 108 of every game reviewed in OPM up to that point, I was unable to find a copy of that issue to see how in-depth the review was and the guide only gives a score and brief summary. I was unable to find any other coverage on Archive.org. Waxworker (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Waxworker. I did an extensive search on Newspapers.com, Both Naps Team (the game's developer website) and Phoenix Games website (the game's publisher) but ultimately found only this [27]. It being a budget game might explain why there is almost nothing on it. Timur9008 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98(Talk)00:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches didn't come up with any coverage to meet the WP:GNG, but please ping me if there is any coverage unearthed. As it stands, all there is here in terms of sources are interviews and databases. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk)00:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BOOKS, with only primary sources used in article. A BEFORE search is complicated by the title of the series. Google Books and Google Scholar turn up citations to individual books in the series, but I can find no secondary coverage of the series as a series. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the book exists! [28][29] and there are reviews [30][31] Not sure where to go with this. It's a massive undertaking so is probably notable in its field but not enough coverage yet— Iadmc♫talk 03:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLogos has the entire 130 volumes for sale electronically for a cool $2365.00 before discounts. Not every book sold by Logos is notable, but many (most?) of them are, and recognized as reference volumes for Christian and adjacent religious studies. How many of the 130 included volumes are individually notable? I have no idea. We've had previous discussions on book series articles recently, and looking at this in that light, I'm relatively certain this should be kept, but more research would be reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was not able to turn them up in my BEFORE search but I would like to keep the article if we can establish additional sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was just a discussion on how series relate to NBOOKS, last month I think, and I believe the general consensus was that a series involving multiple notable books merited an article. Of course, it would then have to list or link to those books, which it currently does not. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From that discussion, actually, I'd say that a series article without individual book articles to link to can be a sensible outcome per WP:PAGEDECIDE when individual books are notable but readers will be better served by series-level coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 Sure, it's here. Looking more closely, there were a few folks who wanted to treat "large general-topic publisher book series" different from, e.g. Game of Thrones-style series. But if folks are able to turn up NBOOK reviews for a few of the individual books in this particular series, there would at least be a case to be made. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see what comes up. After reading the debate, I'm reluctant to withdraw this nomination on the basis of proposals that have not been adopted as policy; my read of the governing policy would still require WP:GNG to be demonstrated for a series even if individual books are notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: I'll throw my two cents in: I think that if the series is published as a series and there are many reviews for the individual books (but those are not independently notable themselves) then the series should be treated as notable. That said, it should absolutely be up to the quality of the reviews and where they were published. Offhand the reviews for the series looks to be pretty numerous. They seem to get routinely reviewed in The Heythrop Journal and Scripta Theologica, but have also received reviews from Isis (journal), New Blackfriars, and so on. My workplace's database is pulling up hundreds of reviews. Granted I haven't been able to verify them all, but that does point fairly heavily towards notability and I do think it would be a disservice to not cover the series because there aren't enough individual volumes that are notable. That's kind of taking a "not seeing the forest for the trees" approach. Besides, with something like this it's usually better to just cover the series rather than the individual volumes in order to prevent the creation of dozens of articles (assuming that the individual books are notable). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offhand I am seeing enough reviews to where I could probably argue individual notability and articles for some volumes, but I think that might be a waste considering that these would likely be multiple stub articles. Better to have the one article and cut off unnecessary individual ones. (Here is what I'm seeing, if anyone is curious.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)14:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are dozens of reviews of articles in the series: people write reviews every time a new one comes out: so the series is certainly notable, with many reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some books in the series are independently notable and were previously published. Augustine's The City of God has been published in many different versions over the centuries, for example, and thus there are many reviews. But are there reviews of the version published in this series? Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I take a look: yes. The reviews are specifically of these editions, and evaluate things like the editors' selection of sermons to include and the usefulness of the footnotes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having had a chance to comb through some of the reviews, I'm seeing too much to justify either deletion, or articles about the individual books. As far as I can work out, all of the 100+ volumes has gotten at least one serious, scholarly review. If you look them up individually by title & translator you start to get clear NBOOK passes, e.g., the first two I tried, vol. 70 [32][33] and vol. 131 [34][35][36]. This appears to be a thoroughly notable series. As for the name, I am not excited about renaming but The Fathers of the Church (series) works for me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:20, 26 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.
_(16844722920).jpg){kind=icon}
Note: This is is embarrassing so I'll withdraw this nomination. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree Hammad (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)