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. Without a valid nomination or any !vote to delete, or--after discarding sock/canvassed accounts--to keep, there is nothing for us to do here. Content disputes can go to WP:DRN or be resolved by consensus on the article's Talk page. Owen×☎17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's the rationale for deletion here? A list of episodes is a very common page type for a TV show. Why would it need to be deleted? Toughpigs (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agee with @Toughpigs there should be no limit on episode numbers to create a new episode list I have seen shows that have less than 12 episode split into new pages. Anime9000 (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TVSPLIT was created in 22 Feb 2007 and the episode list for first Pretty Cure series was created in 22 Nov 2004 so there was no limit of episodes in order to put episodes into new page. I am sure older editors don't know this rule from MOS:TVSPLIT. Even some of the split the episodes list into new seasons pages with only 12 episode per page. Anime9000 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this line "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone" means they don't need to follow guidelines or policies. That is why users create episodes list into new pages because they don't follow WP:TVSPLIT guideline even though the episode number is really short. A lot of anime series that have 24 episodes have episode list page separate from main article. Anime9000 (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Say you want to create a new episode list page for a new anime that has 12 episodes and say it will improve the article but goes against WP:TVSPLIT guideline. The user will say I will use WP:IAR to ignore the TVSPLIT guideline. Anime9000 (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure a lot of users don't even know the policies and guideline because it's hidden and I never knew there were guidelines and policies because it was never mentioned when you create an account because Wikipedia has no firm rule. Anime9000 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TVSPLIT is a guideline and user can ignore guideline based on this quote from teahouse "people who know a lot can choose to ignore guidelines since guidelines are for the general case and sometimes not following them could be the better option." From @Usedtobecool
I'm nominating this to stop a WP:BLAR edit war. I don't see a BLAR edit war here. There was one BLAR, it was reverted, and the article stabilized. In the future, should probably wait for multiple BLAR attempts before sending to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as redirect: I know that the Pretty Cure series has a bunch of episode lists, although not all of them follow the MOS:TVSPLIT guideline, and this article is no exception. May do something about these lists in the future but for now this should be a redirect. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are usually made whenever a show ends. So, leave it as a redirect until a new PreCure season starts airing next year. Same with the recent Sentai and Rider seasons. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So is the episode list going to be merged back onto the series page? I don't understand why this is being called a deletion or a redirect, rather than a merge. Toughpigs (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an easy problem to solve. #1) Merge the 12-episode page back to the show's page; #2) When there are more seasons of the show, split it out to a separate page again. What is the disagreement? Toughpigs (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While technically the list is currently short enough to merge back in right now, this is an long airing series so it'll have to be split out pretty quickly anyways. Better to save valuable editor time to keep it split even if its early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anime1990 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, this split was done a bit too early, and the contents needs to be fleshed out a bit more, but what's the point of shoving the episode list back into the main article again if it's going to being spun out either way in a matter of weeks? The main problem is more: deciding and reaching consensus when the right time is (in terms of season progression and episode list size) to split off an episode list. See also: WP:SIZERULE which might be a better rule of thumb, also the anime MoS. Any other of the 20 prior seasons also have separate 'List of xyz Pretty Cure' episodes' lists, splitting off its episode lists was more of a given, eventually. Cubchring8000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge to Subtitle (titling) - the information in the 3rd paragraph is not in that article and it is a nice bit of book history. Also, a redirect from Alternate title to Subtitle would be useful. Lamona (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same thing as subtitling? This appears to me to be discussing a distinct if similar phenomenon. A merge might be OK anyway though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought, but the "OR" titles are covered in Subtitle (titling). I checked for definitions in "Genette, G. (1997). Paratexts : thresholds of interpretation. Cambridge University Press" (a key work on the various parts of books), but may have missed it because the index of that book is (ironically!) very bad. I did find one source in G books that makes the distinction between alternate and sub-title. The problem is that the Subtitle (titling) article would need to be re-written and that article is a mess and lacks sources. Maybe it's best to leave this one as is and consider it more authoritative than the sentences about "OR" titles in the Subtitle (titling) article. I'll think on that. Lamona (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After PARAKANYAA's comment I decided to reconsider. I conclude now that the Subtitle (titling) article is wrong to include alternate titles (especially to the extent that it does). I found additional sources for this article that define the difference between subtitles and alternate titles, but have not yet found any to verify the statement that use of alternate titles declined in the 19th century. I will keep looking for that. Lamona (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge (selectively) into University of Tennessee Medical Center. There is some coverage, for example this. Possibly not enough for NORG but that doesn't matter. As an improper SPINOUT of University of Tennessee Medical Center, a short article as well, it should be merged into its parent. Even if someone would prove that both articles are notable under NORG. gidonb (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Keep but Move: It should be kept as it is an important category of landform. If kept, the name of this article needs to be changed to Tableland, which the proper terminology for this type of landform. Table is not the proper terminology and needs to be changed. Go see:
Merging with mesa is an incorrect, confusing, and scienfitically unjustifiable move as not all tablelands are mesas. Mesa is a subcatergory of tableland. They are not equivalent terms. This can be seen in the below open access paper in which mseas, buttes, and pinnacles are all considered to be types of "tablelands".
Keep and move to Tableland, which is clearly in the literature. The case for a separate article would be made by the sources in mesa, but I can't access those at the moment. SportingFlyerT·C17:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if a person does a Google scholar search for Migoń and tableland he or she gets 325 hits; for tableland and escarpment he or she gets 8,390 hits; and for geomorphology and tableland he or she gets 11,500 hits. A number of these papers have URLs for PDF files attached to them. Thus, there are plenty of accessiable potential sources that are currently available online and downable to be sources for an article. In addition, there exists online an abundance of public domain, open source digital elevation models, and georeferencedraster graphics of topographic maps and aerial photography to create figures from. Paul H. (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia. This is the typical outcome for unelected politicians who have not established notability aside from their candidacy. Content is retained so if circumstances change, like they win their election, the article can return. But for now, this page will be redirected. LizRead!Talk!22:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was not notable a year ago; all that's changed since then is running for re-election. Frankly, the list of military medals isn't notable, but it makes up a good third of the article. The rest is a biography. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes sense to have an article for Cao because he vastly overperformed against Wexton in ‘22 and he is now the nominee for Senate. Joe Kent of Washington, who is not a horribly notable figure has his own page and they both have somewhat similar political backgrounds.
Keep. The subject seems to meet WP:GNG§WP:SIGCOV guidelines through his major political party nomination in two national elections and the coverage of him in the interim with a decent amount of coverage in foreign media. WP:POLITICIAN reads "being...an unelected candidate for political office...does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". WP:ROTM § Political candidates is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and even it does not preclude articles for non-incumbent candidates if GNG standards are met. — AjaxSmack01:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While ROTM is not a policy or guideline, it gives the condition that The person was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons as it is. So, not just meeting GNG for the election coverage itself like you seem to imply. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a US Senator candidate, covered in a lot of articles. Thus, saying that he is not well-known is a weak view. People may need to search for more details about him to have a better decision in the election or for other reasons. I think content about him as a politician will increase significantly in the near future. Given that he has some possibility to be a senator in the near future, deletion of his page at the moment is not a good choice. Zenms (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Fails on WP:NPOL as he hasn't been elected. Creator can draftify and if he gets elected can update (removing articles he wrote used as sources) and reinstate it Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL reads any subject "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". That's the argument here. Falling back on a rote interpretation of WP:NPOL makes life easy (and I opposed this article in the previous AfD on that basis), but it is not a faithful interpretation of GNG which calls for "significant coverage". On the one hand, all 100 of Virginia's state delegates have articles pro forma, but by and large fail GNG (e.g. Barry Knight, Alex Askew) and on the other hand we have a subject here who is a far more significant political figure, has been a serious major party candidate twice (with coverage of his sometimes unusual statements and questionable actions in the interim) and has been the sole subject of numerous articles in national publications. — AjaxSmack15:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been very notable domestically, and I have seen a few sources internationally mentioning him as well. He made big headlines in 2022, and has been generating many large headlines from numerous large media corporations about his candidacy for US Senate. 1980RWR (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be redirected to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia as he is not notable at this time based on our understanding of GNG, current political candidates, and WP:POLOUTCOMES "Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged ... into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as 2010 United States Senate election in Nevada." That said, I have come to the conclusion that it is rarely worth the effort to debate US Senatorial candidates who have won their major party's primary during the period between the primary and the general election. There are editors who suggest that just being a nominee is sufficient for an article, despite there being no policy or guideline asserting this view. So, at this point, I think it is better to use the editing process from keeping these articles from becoming repositories of campaign brochures (or a series of political statements or positions) and refrain from bringing these cases to AFD until the election. --Enos733 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about your opinion on a couple of points. Firstly, though "candidate...are not viewed as having presumptive notability", do you think a candidate can be notable on WP:SIGCOV merits on a case-by-case basis? Secondly, you say we should "refrain from bringing these cases to AFD until after the election", but I would argue that losing an election cannot remove notability; conversely if Hung Cao is going to be non-notable after losing, then he's not notable now either and the article should be deleted now per WP:NOTNEWS. Should articles be permitted to exist only for a campaign period? (I'm asking this seriously and not trying to be argumentative.) — AjaxSmack15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think that a candidate (who is not already notable) can pass WP:SIGCOV as a candidate, but in my mind this is a very high bar, usually with substantial international coverage (see Christine O'Donnell), but could be demonstrated in other ways, such as academic writings, notable documentaries, or similar coverage after the campaign is completed. I think that many political candidates are low profile individuals and the coverage they receive is for their participation in WP:BIO1E one event. As to the second question, my position is that it grows increasingly difficult to hold a AFD (in the US) the closer we get to election day, especially with US Senate candidates who are nominated by either the Republican or Democratic parties. Because notability is not temporary, we should be careful with our assessment of notability, especially of political candidates who may not pass a ten-year test of significance and may quickly fade back to obscurity. All of this is why I think the pages about the campaign can be expanded to discuss the race, the candidates, and the issues. - Enos733 (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say that it is possible that a candidate that has a weak claim to pass GNG prior to the campaign could meet our notability standards with coverage of the campaign. But in this scenario, we would be looking for at least one substantive source prior to the candidate filing for office. - Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I like your idea that "the pages about the campaign can be expanded to discuss the race, the candidates, and the issues". Many of those "articles" largely resemble machine-generated lists of figures. I agree that many losing candidates in single elections are like WP:BIO1E cases, but in this case you have a major-party candidate performing well in two different elections. There comes a point where something can render a candidate notable during or between campaigns, but I'm not quite sure where the line is. (In an extreme case, if a candidate shot an irate debate watcher during a campaign, it would make the candidate notable even if the shooting without that political context wasn't notable.) What bothers me is the lack of judgement that results in four-sentence (non-)articles for non-notable incumbents like this and this while suppressing articles on non-incumbents who have received widespread, sustained news coverage. I support general rules to control the number of articles, but there should be leeway for exceptions that rests on the spirit and not just the letter of these rules. — AjaxSmack16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those incumbents are notable, though, though Will Davis is very hard to search for. They just have underdeveloped articles, and those articles may not ever be a featured article, but they don't fail GNG. Senate candidates face a massive recentism and a "you can't make yourself notable" problem, and at some point, we do keep failed perennial candidates. SportingFlyerT·C16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL defers to the GNG in the case of unelected candidates. I'm just not sure how Hung Cao doesn't meet GNG with the number and quality of citations already in the article. It contrasts starkly with Davis et al who would fail GNG in most other situations but who gets an ex officio a free pass by NPOL. — AjaxSmack02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of material about elected federal and state legislators. And, there is an extensive public record of legislators votes and speeches. There is also some real-world considerations as well - as there is value to readers to know who is passing legislation. - Enos733 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive reliable sources. It's been the practice of Wikipedia to have articles for first-time US Senate candidates with a lot of reliable sources ever since 2020 when the AfD for Theresa Greenfield was overturned. -LtNOWIS (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I really disagree with the belief that U.S. Senate nominees in competitive states should be considered automatically notable. They seem notable at the time, but if/when they lose, it becomes evident that they are not. I mean really, is anyone searching for Theresa Greenfield anymore? I don't think Hung Cao is notable enough outside of this election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the current election as a viable ATD or delete - being an unelected candidate anywhere does not guarantee notability, and keeping a page up in case an election is won violates our policy that once you're notable, you're always notable, as some !keep articles have mentioned. I also disagree there's any sort of an exception for American senate candidates as they can be adequately covered on the page for the election. SportingFlyerT·C16:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has won the Republican primary and has recently gained prominence and is speaking at the Republican National Convention 7-16-24, so many people can be expected to be looking for this article after that. In addition to being a Senate candidate, he's also a genuine scholar and military hero. Please note that John Fetterman has had a Wikipedia page since 2006, when his most significant accomplishment was becoming part-time mayor of a nearly dead town, Braddock PA, which then had a population of just 2722, and there was no opposing candidate. He was paid $150 per month for the position and depended on his father for his support. He didn't become a Senator until 17 years later.Sowatee (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. This is a stub that I created when we presumed notability for those who played in the NFL. (Olmstead appeared in six games as a guard for Louisville in 1922 and 1923.) The presumption was revoked by community-wide consensus, and I have searched extensively (including searches in the Louisville newspaper) for SIGCOV without success. I did find and add the family's paid death notice (here), but such a notice lacks the required independence to contribute to notability. (As far as I can see, there is no obvious redirect target. Cbl62 (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:NOTNEWS, non Wiki worthy news event only covered by Turkish media. Creator has a history of pro-Kurdish agenda editing and creation of articles generally negative of Turkey, and Turkish government. Ecrusized (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Articles can not be merged to non-existent articles. Is there an alternative target article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my original vote was to merge this page into an existing page. If no new pages may be created as the result of an AfD discussion, the additional idea may just be taken as a future note. Aintabli (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Can't find anything beyond a story in the wrap and a handbook by his organization (which has been deleted). Given the lack of an Israeli page, it seems Israeli sources are unlikely as well. One source is not enough for WP:GNGAllan Nonymous (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Content can't be merged to Idealist.org as this page is a redirect. Is there a different target article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I disagree. The list is not useless even if not all office holders on the list are inherently notable. The ones with knighthoods/damehoods would be considered notable, almost by default. Uhooep (talk) 15:42, 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.
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)20:21, 25 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!23:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV coming up for the subject. (There is a Slovenian footballer with the same name, but not so many search results I couldn't sift through them.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is a clear consensus against deleting the page. Discussion about a potential merge can continue on the relevant Talk page. Owen×☎17:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains one reference which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could also be said about the separate extant articles on 2, 3, 4, and 6 Intelligence Company though. Why single out just this one for being amalgamated up? Anecdotally, in terms of actual personnel numbers it's actually one of the largest of those five currently. 90% of the content of those other articles is just Intelligence Corps history, repurposed (the 2 Int entry reprints basically two other Wikipedia articles on Pickersgill and Macalister)... at least the 7 Intelligence Company entry is humble enough not to pad itself out with redundancy.
It's also somewhat problematic that we've recently privileged the Canadian Intelligence Corps, which is currently a notional/paper organization with no responsibilities and zero staff of its own, with an article, over the Canadian Army Intelligence Regiment, the working unit which comprises most of the working military intelligence personnel in the Canadian Forces. While the names are similar, this construct makes more sense for the British Intelligence Corps. In the Canadian context it just looks silly. BruceR (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should certainly be somewhere (here or merged). It's a reasonable search terms given the media reports of sexual assault - for example it's mentioned 7 times in this article. Nfitz (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Just seems to me we've privileged all the other articles for exactly comparable things that engaged in shameless entry padding over the one article that didn't and kept itself factual. BruceR (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article can probably be kept but needs to be improved. The articles on companies 3 and 6 may need attention as well. Vacosea (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).
A previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of sources shows the following:
This in Ad Exchanger doesn't have any content about the company, but at the bottom there's a link to this Announcement in Media Post on the name-change from Survata to Upwave, and this article relies entirely on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This in USA Today quotes from a survey conducted by the company. It is a mere mention of the company name, contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This in MrWeb regurgitates the exact same announcement as in the Media Post article above, also fails ORGIND
The first TechCrunch article relies entirely on an interview with their cofounder and CEO, Chris Kelly and other information provided by the company. This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
This next TechCrunch article has 3 sentences about the company based on information provided at a "Demo Night". Insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH and also, this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This is a Primary Source and is not an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability
Finally, the WSJ article is 4 sentences and is based on the company raising a seed round. This is not "Independent Content" nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
Keep and stubify, aggressively with great prejudice. "It is the leading Analytics Platform that provides software and data to plan, measure and optimize brand marketing" - holy slop Batman!!!!!!! There are indeed sources here that seem to show at least some notability. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think that it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do and who funds them. The web is a freaky place with lots of shady players on it, and I feel like anything that helps people more effectively navigate the landscape of endless conglomerates and funding rounds and servers sending data to other servers sending data to other servers is good. The only concern is that these companies may use their Wikipedia articles as a form of advertising, which of course we should not permit. jp×g🗯️02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: which sources do you believe demonstrate notability? I agree that, generally speaking, it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do – but to do that in the first place, we need substantive coverage from independent sources to lay the groundwork for an article. – Teratix₵03:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to disagree with both of the above two comments. Every single article on a company is a burden on the Wikipedia community to ensure it doesn't get turned into an ad. The less notable the company is the harder it is for the community to meet that burden, both because there's less content to base a neutral article on and because fewer people are likely to be watching it. This is the very reason why we have the strict notability guidelines for companies that we do. And since there's been no specific answer to Teratix's question, the argument that it fails them has gone unchallenged. * Pppery *it has begun...03:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG. I have added the only two sources I could find, which support the text, to the article. That there do not appear to be independent/reliable sources available to support even the basic facts in the text (formation date, current status, disestablishment?) suggests that SIGCOV is not met. Apart from northernirelandworld.com (a hyper-local online news sources which has perhaps a handful of match reports and other randommentions), the only coverage in "mainstream" news sources are these passingmentions in the Belfast Telegraph. Even if these two news articles dealt with the subject org as a primary topic (and they don't), it'd be difficult to argue that two (semi-regional) news articles amounted to significant coverage. That the article was created and expanded by clearly SPA/COI editors (seemingly as a form of NOTWEBHOST) is hard to overlook. Cannot support/advocate for retention. And cannot conceive of an appropriate WP:ATD. (Draft? To what end? Redirect? To where?). Hence: delete. Guliolopez (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Stella Assange just spent the last 13 years of her life securing Julian Assange's freedom. This represents a significant legal victory, and indeed, would be considered a considerable career achievement for any attorney. The fact that she is also Julian's wife does not detract from the significance or notability of this accomplishment. Were Stella only Julian's wife and not his attorney, I'd agree that she's not independently notable. However, her legal accomplishment is what makes her notable, rather than her marital status. If you were to strip away the fact that she's Assange's wife, then it seems you'd have to admit that her legal accomplishments and advocacy make her notable. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is strictly sourced to Julian Assange articles, or to stories about their family. I don't see notability outside of the Julian Assange connection, so nothing needing an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A factual article about a notable woman. Published author. Sourced and referenced. Wikipedia stop eating your tail and deleting good encyclopaedic content. Firefishy (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is rarely helpful to make broad general statements about Wikipedia during a formal deletion discussion. It usually moves these discussions forward more quickly when AfD contributors stick to policy, guidelines and sourcing. Let's save our personal thoughts for talkspace, shall we? BusterD (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the keep votes substantively address that the coverage of Stella Assange is not independently but due to her relationship with Julian Assange. Longhornsg (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My Keep vote certainly does. You emphasize "her relationship" while failing to acknowledge that the aforementioned relationship is one of attorney-client. She has won a significant victory in helping Julian Assange gain his freedom. The press has treated this as a historic event. You act like she did no work to win this battle and is merely garnering attention because she is the spouse of someone famous. This page has nearly 700,000 views. It should not be deleted. People want information on this attorney.Ben.Gowar (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are certainly articles where she is the primary focus, rather than Julian Assange, so she may not fail on WP:ANYBIO. Also, I buy the argument that she is a lawyer and author. Agreed, the subject of her work is primarily a well-known guy who happens to be her husband, but this doesn't negate her work. Even without this, she might pass under the description of WP:NOTINHERITED where it says, Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG., based on previous observation that there are articles specifically about her. David Malone (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not an expert on wikilawyering, but the article appears to add nothing to the Julian Assange article (his legal fight and personal life). BorisG (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is on Stella Assange. It is a biography that contains information on her early life and education (in addition to her career). Though there is some overlap between this article and the article on Julian Assange, you would anticipate such an overlap between any two biographies on closely related people. Nevertheless, there is indeed additional information in this article about Stella Assange. You seem to have ignored this and fixated on Julian. Ben.Gowar (talk) 01:54, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a biography of a thirteen-year-old boy. The only claim to supposed notability (badly sourced) is that he won a prize in an obscure busking competition, about which the Australian media seems to say next to nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep@AndyTheGrump: it is feeling to me like uncollegial WP:FOLLOWING - you took two articles that I started to AfD in the space of one day. This article has reliable sources which are non-trivial. 1, 2 I have no idea why you think that a fourteen year old cannot be notable. The Berkshire Eagle (Published daily since 1892) is clearly a reliable source so I removed your unreliable tags unless you can state why the source is unreliable. Lightburst (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth do you think that local media for Berkshire, Massachusetts would be reliable for content concerning obscure busking contests in Australia? They clearly aren't if they are claiming that this child won the event. He didn't. He won the 'primary' section: presumably for primary-school-age children. [6] I have no idea why you are trying to concoct 'notability' for a thirteen-or-fourteen-year-old busker, but it seems grossly inappropriate to me, given the questionable sourcing, the lack of evidence that the events he competed in are of any real significance, and the obvious privacy concerns in revealing personal details about a minor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added sources - I think this is clearly a notable guitar player/songwriter based on the RS. A reliable source can report on events from other places but I added sources that call out the same wins. I also reverted your removal of the win when he was ten, and added an additional source for it. \ Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of Roberson doesn't come within a mile of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. None of the sources cited even offer significant commentary on his performances. He's a kid who's won a couple of obscure prizes for kids, that's all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either SNG or GNG has to be met per our WP:N guide. The article has multiple non-trivial RS about the person so they meet GNG. There are no BLP or privacy concerns so the "think of the children" argument is a non-starter. Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I want advice on WP:BLP, I'll ask for advice from someone who doesn't think that the name of a non-notable younger sister of a kid who's won a couple of kids' busking competition belongs in an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted)... but I did not contest your removal. FYI: it is normal to mention siblings and children in articles but I guess if you are adversarial you can find all sorts of threads to pull. I will move on after I finish adding archives so that others can read the non-trivial RS. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PRS Guitars is one of the three major guitar manufacturing companies in the U.S. and in 2023 they named Noah Robertson as one of their artists. It is a big deal especially for someone so young. When I added the information, the nominator erased it twice calling it "promotional". And now the nominator threatens me with ANI if I restore it. So I have to leave now to avoid this unnecessary drama. Here is more drama about this subject. 1Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AfD discussion. One where notability is demonstrated through significant coverage in independent sources. Which doesn't include guitar company websites plugging their own products. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure winning junior music competitions are what we're looking for... "Congratulations to our Year 7 student Noah Robertson who won first place in the ... guitar gift pack and $500 Colemans Music voucher." This is not notable. I mean, the article has sourcing but winning a guitar and 500 bucks isn't what gets you a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WP:GNG provisions on sourcing are subject to a second test: whether the subject warrants a standalone page. A few policies bear on this to say no: (1) WP:BLP1E. The article uses newspaper sources to describe as notable for winning a (non-notable) busking competition, but since that's the limit of his notability (at the moment), that's one event and he should not have a page here. (2) The busking competition would fall under WP:NEVENTS, which appears to be covered in "the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers" per WP:ROUTINE. It's not notable, and even if it were, the notability does not transfer to its winner. And (3) we would want to rely on more than human interest reporting per WP:NEWSORG, which states that "[h]uman interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy." Bottom line: The subject may become notable in the future, but under these policies he is not right now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Thanks TarnishedPath for the draft idea. I would accept a draft or to have the article moved to my userspace. The AfD was canvassed at WPO so I have no confidence in the fairness of the AfD result. The AfD is also discussed at WP:ANI right now and that may allow others to arrive here in an unorganic way. Lightburst (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, I was aware that the article was being discussed at WP:ANI as that is how I found my way here. Although I might have found my way here anyway given it was included in the deletion sorting for Australia. TarnishedPathtalk06:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the careful analysis of Dclemens1971. I also want to say that I resent Lightburst's preemptive strike above against "the fairness of the AfD result" and against commenters here as potentially "unorganic". Why couldn't people just as well have their attention drawn by WPO and/or ANI and then vote Keep? Way to assume bad faith. Bishonen | tålk10:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen I am sure you have read about the low opinion of me and my work at WPO. It is not assuming bad faith to believe someone when they gin up the WPO regulars with anti-Lightburst rhetoric in a thread called...wait for it..."Crap articles". Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it seems that WPO has a bit of a broad audience and I don't think one could take a casual comment by a user of that website that they had started an AfD as an invitation to only those that would vote delete. TarnishedPathtalk10:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is verging on WP:PRODIGY territory. I see no claim that he has reached adult levels of accomplishment, and winning a junior competition is not terribly remarkable. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have 13 year old child stars with demonstrated notability. This one, as yet, has not evidently done so. Maybe they'll have some bright and famous career in the future (and good luck to them), at which point we write about them. But as yet, I'm not seeing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - Hi @Boleyn, not sure if this is the right place to chat about this. I've added a few sources for the stadium and I believe it should be kept, as it's used by Liga IV and Liga III teams to play Cupa României matches, along other events as well. It's arguably the 2nd most used stadium in Galați. LaUr3nTiU (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's okay for a stub article, and sounds like it could easily be expanded with far more content than what is there. Govvy (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. PROD removed by @Salvidrim!: with edit summary "Not eligible for PROD (previous 20180419 PROD deletion contested by recreation). must use an applicable CSD criteria or XFD > Undid revision 1233186368 by Shhhnotsoloud" but 20180419 was before this page was created at 20:39, 28 August 2018. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ridiculously short article that fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. No hits of reliable sources on google books or search. No article in Romanian is a bad sign. Template:Dacian cities lists dozens of these ultra stubs, but I won't do anything with them until we see just one. -1ctinus📝🗨16:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a step towards salvaging the article, but the Romanian article also cites no sources, andseems to be about a cave rather than a fortress :( -1ctinus📝🗨17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "cave"/"ruined fortress" difference is somewhat concerning; but for a micro-stub like this it is easily dismissed as confusion by the enwiki article creator. As far as rowiki sourcing, there are some websites in the article (like [8]); it might not be enough to demonstrate notability but is enough to verify that something exists. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete without prejudice against recreation of a sourced version. It' shouldn't be AfD's job to research and write these articles; it should be the author's job. We are not losing anything by deleting these completely unverifiable articles, and we waste too much time on these. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. After discarding arguments of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type and those not based on guidelines, we're left with a consensus to delete. Any editor is welcome to create the page as a redirect to Air Europa with an appropriate section at the target. Owen×☎17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Elaborate. To some extent we have to avoid make articles about events just because they're in the news, but some events are notable enough to warrant an article, such as an in-flight upset that injures over forty people. Poxy4 (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly and not just 40 injured but 10 being critically aswell. I've seen a few articles (which are now deleted) that from my perspective isn't notable, but people thinking this incident should be deleted is mind-boggling. 2605:8D80:400:9392:E4F1:C26C:D541:CCEA (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a few people were injured doesn't make an article notable - these events are relatively common and there's no evidence of lasting coverage. SportingFlyerT·C17:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turbulence occurs in such a way that passengers are injured very frequently and it makes a news cycle. There's nothing to suggest this will be any more notable than any of those non-notable events. SportingFlyerT·C19:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Turbulence is such a regular occurrence in planes, but I'm assuming from the plane's flightpath, from it going from Spain to Uruguay which crosses the Equator. The "extreme turbulence" mentioned in the article might have been caused by the Equator's turbulence. A regular plane incident isn't worthy of Wikipedia standards.
Plenty of flights cross the equator every day that do not experience such severe turbulence. Also, most emergency flights do not have any injuries at all. If this is a "regular plane incident" then that's news to me. Poxy4 (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to the discussion, the IP user above gidnob's post appears to be a troll acting in similar patterns to other deletionist trolls, if someone could get a mod that would be great. 174.27.146.142 (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to fight back, just going to give you a reminder to stay civil, I have an account on my school laptop if that helps you, this is a discussion not an arguement. 174.27.146.142 (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you all must, maybe next time start such a discussion under the comment that is relevant to that discussion? gidonb (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I advise you do some more research about this Air Europa incident because it clearly looks like you have not even tried to make an effort to. 10 people were badly injured and 30 others suffering other injuries. The connection between this and LATAM is relevant. The only difference was that this was due to bad turbulence. Would love to hear a reply from you because i seen you revert an edit from another article stating that this is a "run-of-the-mill"? Remember that 40+ including 10+(badly) were injured. 2605:8D80:400:9392:798A:5167:ED51:6104 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyobons mots17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVENTCRIT item 4 says Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. The same applies to turbulence. This incident was more severe than average, sure, but it remains a run-of-the-mill event with no inherent notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Severe in-flight upset that resulted in 40 injuries and numerous hospitalizations. Has received significant media coverage and is thus notable enough to be included. As for WP:OSE, it would apply if these editors were saying "well if we delete this we have to delete the other one too," but that is not the case. Comparisons were drawn to LATAM 800 as a comparison. It too received significant media coverage and was deemed notable enough for an article. Perhaps you should review WP:ATAATA? Changing my vote to Delete, numerous editors have provided several sources and policies that apply almost perfectly to this article. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL It only makes sense for me to change my vote. I do think we should make a list of turbulence-related in-flight upsets that have resulted in injuries though, so as to emphasize their increasing occurrence.Poxy4 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If we delete this we have to delete the other one" is not what WP:OTHERSTUFF is about. What it actually says is that the existence of an article about a similar topic cannot be used to justify a keep !vote (the case at hand), nor can the non-existence of a similar article be used to justify a delete. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make arguments to the person. I'm sure this person is a levelheaded Wikipedian who simply doesn't have the same view of Wikipedia as us, which is totally fine and doesn't mean he "hates articles." Poxy4 (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the qualifying factors for notability is that the event receives significant media coverage, which it has. multiple editors have provided sources that cover the flight. I myself heard about the incident through the news and came to Wikipedia for more information. Isn't that what all good encyclopedias should do? Poxy4 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually, on reviewing OSE I have realized that that's pretty much what it says. However, the examples it gives are all two very different and unrelated articles, whereas LATAM800 and UX45 have undeniable similarities. We have decided that one is notable, so I believe this virtually identical incident is also notable. Poxy4 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're not similar, and each article has to stand on its own merits. LATAM 800 was either an issue with the plane or a pilot error, which is unique. This is simply that a plane went through turbulence and people were injured, which happens relatively frequently. SportingFlyerT·C17:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with our rules here on Wikipedia - we require sustained coverage for events, and considering how often events like this one occur, how rarely they have sustained coverage, and how there's not really any sustained coverage for this one - the vast majority of coverage is from the day of the event. SportingFlyerT·C05:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am neither in favor or opposed to deletion. However, I advise the IP to let this discussion run its course and not treat it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Calling others "trolls" and alleging that users "hate articles" is not constructive and will not help your case. - ZLEAT\C21:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Air Europa Flight 045 is an ongoing event. Like SQ 321 and LATAM Flight 800, this latest plane incident receives significant coverage in news networks such as CNN and BBC, and I'm not surprised there will be an investigation conducted on this matter. I also agree with GalacticOrbits opinion, in which they mentioned there are some serious injuries that have taken place as a result of plane turbulence. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something passes the WP:GNG does not mean we need to have an article on it, that is why we have WP:NOT. One of the specific parts of WP:NOT is WP:NOTNEWS: most newsworthy reports do not qualify for inclusion. For aviation events such as this one, sustained coverage is required. As I've noted above, most incidents of this type are not notable enough to receive a Wikipedia article, even though they make a full news cycle. While every article needs to be assessed on its own merits, I am not seeing anything which distinguishes this one from any of the other "injuries due to turbulence." But, regardless, just because the media writes about something doesn't mean we have to have an article on it. SportingFlyerT·C14:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of emergency landings and in-flight turbulence events occur every week, but very few result in as much damage and injuries as this one. This has made a full news cycle and is still in the news several days later, which I think sets it apart from many other flights and warrants notability. Poxy4 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a Google News search, the event happened 4 days ago and there hasn't been an article written on the event in the past two days that was in the search. So I did a Bing news search, the only article written within the last 48 hours which came up was a Daily Mail piece, which clearly isn't notable. So I did a third news search, and again, nothing in the last two days. This doesn't have lasting notability. SportingFlyerT·C19:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS. Whilst the event has received a lot of coverage, the fact that (major) coverage ended 2-3 days ago (constituting mostly of breaking news coverage), compared to SQ321 where coverage continued for at least two weeks, makes this event fail WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Around 65,000 aircrafts suffer turbulence in the US, and about 5,500 experience severe turbulence, so cases such as this would be considered run-of-the-mill.[17]Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very few of the incidents result in injuries or are so shocking. One passenger was launched into an overhead bin and had to be pulled out by fellow passengers. That's not run-of-the-mill. Poxy4 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The incident had a lot of repercussion and still has a lot of attention in Brazil, as of writting this, a news featured the incident showing one of the videos in the aftermath. Iyusi766 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and the last news articles (in portuguese) covering this flight were published 4-5 days ago so I'm not sure about what news articles you're talking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Please offer arguments based in policy and sources that provide SIGCOV. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This incident is similar to Singapore Airlines Flight 321 and just recieved about as much coverage. I understand that some people have been saying that this occurance is run-of-the-mill but there were 10 major injuries and 40 in total, not very common. Most of the cabin was destroyed unlike the hawaiian flight Sportingflyer sent. I have seen a lot of turbulence incidents but this specific one was the most that stuck out to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:400:9392:C15F:4B19:511:5CED (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC) This IP has already voted above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Air Europa I found this article when searching WikiProyect avition, seems like something you would see from a news article, this is a encyclopedia. We have WikiNews for News covers, (and if you’re asking why I know a lot, is because I read and even understand Wikipedia, when I was in I.P.) Protoeus (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Two relistings without any further comments. Editors can pursue Merge or Redirect options on the article talk page. LizRead!Talk!16:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any independent reliable sources with coverage of Campbell. As one of teams of people, he is credited on multiple notable role-playing games. I think it's stretching NAUTHOR #3 beyond the intent of that SNG to consider every person who is credited on those games as inherently notable. (#3: "...has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work") I cannot find any reviews of any of those games that call out Campbell's contributions. Schazjmd(talk)14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fully get how annoying White Wolf Publishing's approach to book credits has been, over the years - by crediting the contributions of everyone involved, they often don't end up attributing authorship clearly to anyone.
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.
Unable to locate significant coverage of this individual's career. Made 2 substitute appearances for his national team (Seychelles) in 2008 - I am unable to locate any other information on him. Does not meet the GNG. C67915:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This may be too early to do, but this is WP:TOOSOON. we still don't even know lots of the damage, and as usual this tornado has already been widely forgotten (from what I've seen on the news and other sources). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado for an example of this. While both tornadoes are barely comparable, this still has that same general precedent. The driving factor for this AfD is still the WP:TOOSOON, as we usually wait more than a month to make an article on a tornado.(And it wasn't even the deadliest tornado of the outbreak). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This tornado is also notable for its DOW measurement, which has already been published in an academic setting. It's certainly important to the history of tornado research, and its death / injury toll was the highest since Rolling Fork. This tornado will almost certainly not be forgotten in the meteorological community on account of its damage and measured intensity, unlike Sulphur, as well as other EF4 tornadoes such as Barnsdall 2024 and Keota 2023. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It wasn't the deadliest but it definitely was the most infamous tornado of the sequence, arguably one of the most tornado of the 2020s, not to mention its record breaking DOW reading that (even though it lasted only a second) had recorded winds up to 300+ mph, so personally I think the article should remain Joner311 — Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this, it likely was one of the strongest tornadoes since at least 2013, and will likely be a remembered tornado in the state of Iowa. ImAdhafera (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As people have said above, the DOW measurements of 300 mph winds, the death/injury toll + the damage is a good bit enough to justify an article. Poodle23 (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Professional publications were already out at the time of both deletion discussions. Anyone claiming it was twitter speculation was just not paying attention. Wikiwillz (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't exactly call that 'full community consensus'. At the time, the sources known to editors from June were the FARM team's Twitter post, and the NBC article. NBC stated 300+, and, while Wikipedia does allow Twitter in certain contexts, editors gravitated towards the NBC article's lack of a precise wind speed estimate. The University of Illinois paper is now a known reliable source with exact wind speed estimates (309-318). The other argument I saw was the article being short and having 'empty spaces', which I will concur on, but the main point from the original draft's lack of consensus has been resolved. As for notability, the paper states the estimate is one of only three above 300mph, alongside Bridge Creek-Moore 1999 and El Reno 2013. Both of those have articles, so notability shouldn't be an issue. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the AfD has nothing to do with its' notability (as it in the past day has proven its' notability) but that it is WP:TOOSOON. I'm reiterating the now-inactive User:TornadoInformation12's policy of "wait till all info is out." It's notable, just the article was created in a hurry. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly wanting to !vote neutral. Basically, here is my thought process: Article was made WP:TOOSOON, given everything regarding the tornado (damage wise) is still preliminary and will be until mid-August 2024 (at the earliest). However, I also believe the tornado should have an article, given the WP:LASTING coverage/impacts of it. A search on Google for "Greenfield" "tornado" shows several news articles (10+) in the last 2 weeks, even though the tornado occurred nearly 2 months ago. So, here is what I propose doing: We draftify the article only until the finalized damage reports come out in mid-August. Following the release and a subsequent re-check on LASTING coverage (that shouldn't be an issue) then it is moved back into mainspace. Seems a little formal to do, but that has and still is my overall ideology: no individual tornado articles until finalized reports come out. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I am new to the editing game, still deciding even whether to make an account or not, but would Merge with the article in draftspace ( https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Professor Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld &lang=en&q=Draft:2024_Greenfield_tornado ) be an available outcome? While both still have their issues, this one in in mainspace seems to be a bit further along. To me, it makes sense to take the good information in here, put it in the draftspace article, and then publish that one. From what little I understand, that seems kind of like a Merge process to me, but it's unclear whether merging from mainspace back into draftspace is an allowed outcome of an AfD. 199.209.147.178 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion TOOSOON is more for articles created hours or days before any official information is revealed beyond its existence, or for when facts aren't known or verified. The page for the 2013 El Reno tornado was created well before the final survey was completed, and only 1 week after the tornado occurred, and was never nominated for deletion in its opening months; same for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, which was created a mere 48 hours later. This article (this specific page, not the old draft) was created a full month later when there are concrete and reliable sources for facts giving it notability. I think TOOSOON was a better argument before the University of Illinois paper or NWS survey, but now that the paper's out, as are most of the damage point surveys, the tornado has enough concrete facts and information to warrant an article. The final assessment isn't the only source in most tornado articles, so it shouldn't dictate whether this one gets deleted when so much is known and confirmed about it. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply for GeorgeMemulous: I sort of agree with that, but also partially disagree. The main issue isn’t really with there not being sources, but the fact the sources (and the article subsequently) are all using preliminary information. For example, almost the entire Formation and path and the entire Adair County sections of the article are sourced with only the Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT), a preliminary tool by the National Weather Service to release preliminary statements/press releases. In fact, when anyone opens the DAT, they are automatically greeted with a big slash text which says:
Welcome to the National Weather Service Damage Assessment Toolkit. Data on this interface is collected during NWS Post-Event Damage Assessments. While the data has been quality controlled, it is still considered preliminary. (Not my bolding, that is NOAA’s bolding)
Official statistics for severe weather events can be found in the Storm Data publication, available from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/sd/sd.html
Because of that splash text, that is why TOOSOON still partially applies. That said, I do see where you are coming from. I honestly think we need some new template (similar in a way to a “clean-up” template or the current event template) that we can put at the top of articles or sections (tornadic, tornado outbreaks, hurricanes, ect…) to indicate information in this may still be preliminary. Wikipedia obviously already is an unreliable source for information (WP:RSPWP), however, saying that would help readers know things here are not “set in stone” per say and will be changed at some later date. Eh, I may think about that template proposal later. For this, I am still wanting to stay neutral, but I will say I am leaning towards keeping only on grounds of me finding clear LASTING coverage. I still stick to my premise of waiting at the very least until the official information comes out rather than preliminary information. Basically, wait for the official primary source rather than purely use the preliminary primary source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Despite the annoying fact that the NWS Des Moines doesn't put in damage summary information in both their PNSs and event pages, the DAT had more than enough information to create this summary. Additionally, despite being short, the "Aftermath" section is well written and uses secondary sources. This was not only the strongest tornado of the year so far, but also one of the most well-documented tornadoes in recorded history as well. With all that mind, I believe there is enough justification to keep this article and I don't see it as WP:TOOSOON. ChessEric23:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm going to change my position to "keeping" this article here, as long as we can work on it as a community since it does have a lot of issues. I don't think the WP:TOOSOON issues are that important in the context of this tornado, due to what is is said above. Wikiwillz (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is still substantial discussion ongoing we'll likely need to wait the full 7 days before closing the AFD, unless there's a full consensus here to end it. Wikiwillz (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Personally, I see no reason to delete it, and believe it doesn't match WP:TOOSOON. it is not to soon, the total distance between May 21st and July 13th (Time of me writing this) is around 53 days. I also think we do indeed, have enough information, just enough for the article to not be deleted. Gamerman-GPC (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is a carbon copy of https://www.afsc.af.mil/About-Us/, which is in public domain, but retains tone issues. I do not believe there exists sufficient amount of information in independent sources to justify a article instead of a section in United States Air Force. My search in Google News is unfruitful, and while I did find some coverage in Google Scholar, they are either written or sponsored by the US Air force, like the RAND air force.
, Catalk to me!10:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This content should not be removed as it is consistent with other Air Force organizations listed within Wikipedia. Additionally, the Air Force Sustainment Center is similar in content and tone as other centers listed under Air Force Materiel Command's Wikipedia page. Gradye80 (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that other Air Force organizations are in a similar state as this article, citing only sources written by the air force and having promotional tone. They require improvement, and if insufficient independent sources exist, deletion as well. Catalk to me!14:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently removed content that could be perceived of as having a promotional tone. The remaining content is matter of fact and relevant to Wikipedia users who may research USAF or other world-wide air forces. Gradye80 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Other pages exist isn't a great argument. If an article with an appropriate level of detail and neutrality is written, it can always go back in place of the redirect. tedder (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable Islamic high school. Not a full high school as it does not go beyond grade 10. The sources while numerous are mostly from non reliable sources and do not prove significant coverage needed for notability guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The sources do not show that the notability guidelines are being met. There are no significant claims to notability. The majority of the sources are from an online bookstore and obituaries. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911 There are references in Bengali and English language to verify the article. Most of the references are in Bengali, because he is a Bangladeshi man. And the book references given are his published books. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The whole article is based on WP:PRIMARY document prepared by OUN (pdf, p. 340-341). I wasn't able to find any reliable informations about this battle or its importance, probably some minor clash, when to groups just fired at eachother. Of course OUN in his internal documents reported huge losses of the enemy, but as I said it's not reliable. Marcelus (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately, this article cannot be allowed to remain, it is based on some UPA chronicle what is it anyway? Such a source will not be acceptable due to such as lying UPA documents often on which the book is based. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see any sources in any of the three languages of the title. Meaning that the notability is highly questionable. - Altenmann>talk18:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Biography of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and the inclusion test for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article about their political impact -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this essentially just glancingly mentions that he served as mayor while primarily concentrating on background trivia about his childhood and educational background that has no bearing on notability at all, and it's referenced more than 50 per cent to the self-published website of the funeral home that held his funeral, which is not a notability-building source -- and what's left for media coverage is entirely run of the mill short blurbs about his death itself, with absolutely no evidence shown of any at-the-time coverage of his work in politics. Again, just minimally verifying that a mayor existed is not how you establish him as notable enough for a Wikipedia article: we need to see coverage and analysis about the impact of his work in politics, not just background biographical trivia about where he went to high school. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The whole article is based on WP:PRIMARY document prepared by OUN: https://avr.org.ua/viewDoc/2785/. Author of the article also omitted massacre of Polish inhabitants of Kopanki that happened the day before on April 10. I think it's quite important context.
In general, there are no reliable information about described events, I wasn't able to find anything in avaiable monographies. Marcelus (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately, this article cannot be allowed to remain, it is based on some UPA chronicle what is it anyway? Such a source will not be acceptable due to such as lying UPA documents often on which the book is based. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
In Sri Lanka, the rank of Marshal of the Air Force is not notable, and only one person has got the rank, the Sri Lankan TV media and newspapers do not have important news regarding the man who has been awarded with the rank. In the Wikipedia article, the rank insignia is British Royal Air Force's insignia. Hamwal (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Academic without a significant publication record or major awards. While he has written two textbooks, notability of them is unclear with only one review. In any case, even if the book is notable the author does not have to be. Page was moved to draft following NPR; editor rejected draftification and moved back to main without attempting to prove notability. Hence time for AfD.Ldm1954 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject holds a named chair at Pomona College, but I am unconvinced that Pomona is a "major institution of higher education and research" in the sense of WP:NPROF C5. It is difficult to disambiguate this Thomas Moore from the many others of the same name for citations. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific criteria notes at NPROF state that Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Pomona is one of the most selective higher education institutions in the U.S., so it unambiguously meets that standard. Sdkbtalk14:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, NPROF is for impact in the larger field. The Pomona press release [20] certainly makes it sound like this endowed chair is essentially a high-powered university-wide teaching award. So I am unconvinced by NPROF C5. I will think about the NAUTHOR case you make below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The press release focuses on teaching because Pomona is a liberal arts college and liberal arts colleges emphasize teaching over research. But authoring a popular textbook is certainly impact on the field (academia's bias toward research over pedagogy notwithstanding).
In any case, the NPROF C5 discussion is now moot given that the additional sources XOR'easter has found (two reviews of his other book in peer-reviewed academic journals, plus a fourth academic source with SIGCOV of Six Ideas) make the NAUTHOR case pretty unimpeachable. Sdkbtalk18:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are paths to notability both under WP:NPROF #5 and under WP:NAUTHOR #3, either one of which would be sufficient. For NPROF, he holds an endowed chair indicating a significant level of academic achievement, having previously been a full-tenured professor.[1] For NAUTHOR — 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 — Moore is the author of Six Ideas that Shaped Physics, which has been the subject of multiple reviews in peer-reviewed academic journals.[2][3][4] Contrary to the nominator's assertion that I rejected draftification without attempting to prove notability, I communicated with them about NPROF and then more recently added the three reviews, which they may have missed in stating that there is only one review. Their comment that these would count only toward notability of the book and not Moore is a misunderstanding of NAUTHOR, per a plain reading of the guideline text. Sdkbtalk15:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reviews of a book can count towards the notability of an author (what else should an author be known for, other than their books? their stroganoff recipe?). However, authors are generally not seen as notable unless there are multiple reviews of multiple books apiece. An author with only one book is typically seen as a person known for only one thing, in which case it makes more sense to write an article about the book instead. There are exceptions, of course. Someone who writes a book that becomes one of the standard texts used in nearly every university course on a topic would be argued to meet WP:PROF#C4, even if none of their other accomplishments stand out. Jackson would be notable just for writing Jackson. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having done a literature search for substantial, reliably-published reviews of his textbooks, I believe that WP:AUTHOR is met. (In addition to the references I added, there is also [21], which I wasn't quite sure how to incorporate; it's more about the work that led up to the Six Ideas book than the book itself.) I don't think that Moore is at the level where the book is known by his last name, which roughly speaking is the kind of status that would meet WP:PROF#C4, and I have no opinion about the WP:PROF#C5 case, but neither of those is necessary here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence this actor passes WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Adames is a WP:BLP1E for his Razzie award. The article's earlier assertion (removed by me) that he is the youngest person to receive a Razzie is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH based on WP:SYNTH (none of the sources actually state that he was the youngest). There's no other claim to fame or notability; inclusion in other sources is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. There was a stable redirect to Gloria (1980 film) until recently; I would be OK with restoring the redirect per consensus or outright deleting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Looking at the rules you were right to remove the “youngest winner” assertion… thanks for pointing that out. As for the article I figured winning a Razzie, especially one of the first ever, qualified as a “significant event”. Kind of like how we have many stub articles for everyone who ever competed at the Olympics. So that was why I made it at the time JSwift4901:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my thinking: Under WP:NBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" is a criterion -- but the Razzies are really a tongue-in-cheek anti-honor. Most people who win them are already separately notable under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NENTERTAINER, but for those who aren't independently notable I don't think being recognized for being bad at something should qualify as "a significant award or honor." And so all the news coverage for this guy then falls under WP:BLP1E and should be covered at the movie's page, not as a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could being generally recognized for being bad be, as the criteria says, “interesting or unusual”, if not an honor :) If we had a source specifically confirming that Adams was the youngest recipient I would definitely advocate for the article to stay, as that’s an additional notability; the Razzies had a controversy recently for nominating children. But since we don’t have that source yet, I’m not too concerned either way. JSwift4916:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The first three sources are from USARL, which is the competition the subject played in and thus not independent. The fourth source is a blog post with a passing mention of the subject, and thus is not reliable OR in-depth. JTtheOG (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. In this case, "speedily delete" refers to speedy deletion, a separate, much quicker procedure which does not need a discussion to delete a page. This rugby article is not eligible to be deleted through that medium. However, in my opinion, the subject has not received significant coverage from reliable sources that cover him directly and in detail and thus might fail our general notability guidelines, which is why I brought it to a discussion. JTtheOG (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States men nationa rugby league team#Current squad. Delete. Doesn't pass WP:RU/N, because on an inernational level, he played for United States men's national rugby league team (Eagles), but the player is presumed notable if he played for United States men's national rugby union team (Hawks). Per WP:RU/N USA domestic leagues aren't notable. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV, I haven't found any secondary sources that relate directly to the subject. Tau Corvi (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the current squad so the redirect there would not be useful and only played one match at world cup, an alternative could be Colonial Cup (rugby league), but lack of significant coverage makes delete seem a reasonable option. EdwardUK (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Embassies are not inherently notable. This has been marked for notability concerns, 3.5 years ago. The history section is not even about the embassy. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. This is a stub that I created when we presumed notability for those who played in the NFL. (Shurtliffe played 4 games for Buffalo in 1929.) The presumption was revoked by community-wide consensus, and I have searched extensively for SIGCOV without success. A redirect to 1929 Buffalo Bisons (NFL) season may be appropriate as an alternative to deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP and lacks any references at all in the current state. Previously survived PROD in 2016, so bringing to AfD. Brandon (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created by a WP:SPA and later edited by another account in the company name. The company's website seems to have gone around the end of 2015; I am not seeing anything to indicate whether this was due to a merger or whatever. More generally, although the DEPROD challenge in 2016 suggested potential sources, nothing in the article text suggests notable achievements and my searches are not finding the WP:RS sources needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom; the 4 sources in the current version are not reliable news agencies but are likely paid placement. He seems to have been involved with a blockchain project called SingularDAO; I don't see any good sources related to that either. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: A patent and the Endgadget article are all there seems to be for coverage. Nohting found in media, what's used in the article for sourcing doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 10 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.