Another long-time stub of a Slovak footballer named Matúš, he last played for Spartak Trnava in 2021 before disappearing from the football world. My Google showed nothing better than brief mentions and routine coverage, including this one. I've checked corresponding articles in other Wikipedia languages but none of them provide significant coverage; the Slovak one has been tagged for notability issues since 2021 so it obviously will not help copy over English article. ⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆10:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is based on a guideline that has been abandoned following NSPORTS2022. The fact that someone has made over 100 appearances in a fully-professional league or senior national team is no longer supported. This article needs to actually meet WP:GNG in order for it to be kept. ⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆11:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I didn't state that their number of appearances was sufficient. Note how I didn't even write "keep" and how I said I'd look for SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant disambiguation page. There is already a comprehensive dab page at Pan Am (disambiguation); this page instead only disambiguates between two articles which could be disambiguated via hatnote if necessary, or not at all, now that their leads have been clarified, and the relationship between the articles in question has been explained much more meaningfully there. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to disambiguate: The games here aren't identically named. Their subtitle is also intrinsically part of their name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not need individual season articles for this tournament, as its individual seasons don't generate enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. All content can be handled in parent article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any significant coverage of this young Slovak men's footballer to meet WP:GNG. In terms on sources that are not database or match reports, I only found an interview on AktualitySK, while the rest are passing mentions in squad list. This might be the case of WP:TOOSOON. ⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆10:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!08:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I support Pyeongchang's assertion that the SWC is "the pinnacle of speedway". We allow bios of sports that is the pinnacle of sport, so why can't this? SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subjectLibStar (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Like the majority of articles, sources determine notability, an analysis would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are related to the protests not to the actual murder itself, as it does not inherit notability from the protests. You could go ahead an make an article about the protests themselves. Aydoh8[contribs]07:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's current content is not relevant to this discussion. This *local* event has led to a *national* doctors' strike with *international* attention, satisfies WP:NEVENT. Title may well need changing, but the event is notable and having significant flow on effects. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NLIST. One of 20+ extraneous articles created by now-WP:CBANed user Geo Swan, unnecessarily breaking out the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees into country-by-country counts. The large list includes detainees' nationalities. If separating by nationality is necessary, the chart on that page can be reformatted to enable such an examination. What this has led to is pages of various encyclopedic quality and accuracy, when maintaining one article, out of date in its own right, is more than enough. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, the nominated articles are very different from each other (Danish and Swedish has one entry each, Afghan states there have been over 200). AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, somewhat for the OP's concerns, somewhat for WP:BLPCRIME issues. I realize it's a broad interpretation, but these are lists of people who have been imprisoned by a government for doing something the government deems wrong, and generally have not faced a trial and conviction. Looking at the lists, there are a lot of non-linked names and red-linked names, and many of those that are blue-linked, their page is just about the fact that they were so imprisoned, so these qualify as otherwise-not-notable folks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all Duplicates main page, where I've combined the letter tables so the sorting works. No, these pages are not different from each other, they are all redundant to the main article and none are needed separately. Reywas92Talk17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to one list. Guantanamo being Guantanamo I would argue that a list of all inmates is potentially encyclopedic but I don't see why we would need it to split it into multiple articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus and there is one argument to treat these articles separately(as opposed to an "All" outcome). Also, would editors suggesting a Redirect identify their target article of choice? Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discovered page after the South Korean boy group of the same name. [1] and [2] don’t work. The only sources are a mention of the band and an interview, don’t see a reason to be kept. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it would probably be better to have the article moved to '20th anniversary celebrations of the independence of the Republic of Macedonia'. The event seems notable in its own right. --Soman (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find anything about this dictionary, but it is admittedly in Norwegian and my source searching may have been impaired by that. There are a decent amount of non-sigcov hits for a dictionary which makes me suspect there is something I am unable to find, particularly due to the language thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few passing mentions here and here but no sigcov. There is something here; it's in Japanese and I do not understand it but it does not look like sigcov either.
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.
Nominated for failing WP:GNG. The current article has no refences listed, however that could be solved by incubating to the draftspace. The reason for deletion is that the resulting google searches on the subject do not return any non-trivial WP:RS. Therefore, this would not be a notable subject and should not be included in the namespace. Wibbit23 (talk) 02:53, 17 August 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.
As an article for concept of a clue, I don't really like. For a simple concept, it is as dull as an article for the concept of quality, say for, which there is not because that page is just a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary may provide explanations on how to improve this article, but I'm focused on deleting it. So, what do you think? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This type of article is known as a broad-concept article and they can often be hard to write without looking like dictionary definitions. Theoretically there probably should be another broad-concept article at Quality, but there isn't. Since this is such a common term, I don't see how this wouldn't meet GNG. CFA💬04:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article defines or gives examples of 1) the concept (information), 2) its different values (share/give/pay), 3) how it is relayed (discovered/shared), 4) its mechanic (ludeme/cheat), 5) its format (straight/cryptic/riddles/contradictions) 6) its etymology. All of this can eventually be expanded and more concrete exemples can be added. "clue" may seem to be a simple concept, but the article shows there are many aspects to it that may not seem obvious at first glance. Writing something that is obvious (or "dull") is because what is obvious to one reader may be a valuable insight to another. As stated in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Major_differences, Wiktionary entries are about words themselves, while Wikipedia entries are articles about what words denote. This article falls into the latter category. --Bensin (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Definitions ("contain nothing more than a definition") – No. The article also contains use, value, form, and examples. It also has a well sourced section on context clues.
2) Dictionary entries – No. "Encyclopedia articles are about [...] a concept", which is the case here.
3) Usage, slang, or idiom guides – No. "Clue" is not a slang term.
It fails (1) since it's nothing more than a couple of definitions, with the rest being WP:OR. Where are the sources on clues as a concept? If there were even a single one there, I might think differently. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is more than definitions, as I listed in my previous response. Yes, I have had difficulties finding sources for clues in games, possibly because most of it is common knowledge. I'll try and find some. Is there a particular statement that you believe to be untrue? However, the section about context clues is well sourced. --Bensin (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the sources being other dictionary entries tells you what you need to know.
The article also contains use, value, form, and examples those things are very typical of what you'd find in a dictionary, the corresponding wikitionary entry has all of those things. in fact usage guides are specifcally mentioned in point #3 that Bensin quoted above as being characteristic of a dictionary entry.
It also has a well sourced section on context clues that is just another dictionary definition of a related term - having two dictionary definitions doesn't mean the article fails NOTDICTIONARY any less. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources for context clues are dictionary entries. Those sources are articles that support the facts in the article.
Can you quote the part of the wikitionary entry that contains how clues (not the word clue) are used, their value, or their form? The wikipedia article is about what the word denotes, not about the word itself. --Bensin (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't seem to be a broad-concept article, so much as a WP:CHIMERA article instead. I'm looking at the examples given at WP:BCA, and I just don't see this coming even close to any of them. Take the example of "particle" there (in physics). There's a core concept that all particles share that can be written about encyclopedically, as a broad topic. But the only thing that's common here is "a clue is something which hints at further knowledge". That's it, and that's merely a DICDEF, which isn't suitable for an entry here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: AFDs are not a vote count and I see arguments on both sides of whether or not this article meets WP:DICTIONARY or not and how that might impact whether to Keep or Delete this article. At least, that's how I judge the totatlity of this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These changes have been made since the article was nominated for deletion. In short: 9 sources have been added, sturcture has improved with sections, three new sections have been added: "Context clues", "Clue words", and "See also". --Bensin (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (Uncertain, considering a redirect to Inference or similar instead) - The historian and semiotician Carlo Ginzburg refers to "conjectural disciplines",[1] comparing the use of clues for making conjectures to the use of symptoms for making diagnoses. (Although, this type of theorizing seems more appropriate to include in Forensic science or Conjecture.) Dascal and Weizman (who appear to be some kind of philosophy-adjacent linguists?) proposed "a model of contextual information required for the interpretation of speaker's meaning in written texts. We have further differentiated between context when used for the determination of utterance meaning and speaker's meaning (- as a clue) and for the detection of gaps and mismatch (- as a cue)."[2] Literary historian Franco Moretti writes of clues as a literary device and a historical trend in detective fiction (e.g. [3], where he cites historians, literary critics, philosophers, and psychologists all writing about clues!). All of the above are at least moderately cited. All of this is to say: trivially, the concept of a clue meets WP:GNG (and I think is clearly distinct from something like evidence). Should all of the above conceptual work be discussed on a page called Clue (information)? I'm a little skeptical of that. But I think it serves readers better to keep the article for the moment. WP:CHIMERA seems to suggest we create e.g. Clues in detective fiction, Epistemology of conjecture, and Context clue as separate articles, all linked from Clue.
A tangential comment: the disambiguation page Hint links to Clue (information) as the first entry. In education, there's a huge body of work on hints (what makes a good hint, how to create good hints, when and how to give hints, etc.) I don't think that "hints" as a concept should live on a page called "clue", so it should probably be a mission for a future editor to create Hint (education). Suriname0 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even in its improved form, this article is not much more than a definition with subsections of several different concepts that don't really have that much in common besides their all fitting under the extremely loose overarching definition of a "clue". This would be like having an article for Object where the philosophical definition, the notion as used in programming, and an astronomical object are all subsections under a lead which gives the dictionary definition. The stuff Suriname0 talks about seems interesting but probably deserves its own article separate from this. ― novov(tc)05:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Clues, Myths and the Historical Method. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1989. ISBN0-8018-4388-X.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus, can participants reexamine the article after improvements to it? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added three sources to this article, as it had previously been unsourced for 19 years, but I don't think any are helpful for notability. The first merely says that the book was published and what it was about, the second is a book that cites the book and summarizes its arguments, and the third is a review from a British politician's personal website which would be useful however owing to its self published nature is probably not countable for notability. Nothing that actually discusses the book, not enough for WP:NBOOK.
No sources are mentioned about the crossed square cupola. It is merely an exhibition and the problem of arranging images had already been discussed in WT:WPM. Also, many related articles on those tables, I suppose, does not have any sources. That being said, I think they could possibly be deleted together in here, but sadly this is for one article only. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Cupola (geometry) § Star-cupolae. Part of an infinite family of such shapes with no evidence of independent individual notability. If it had occurred to me to initiate deletion proceedings on this I would have tried WP:BLAR first, but apparently that was already tried unsuccessfully ten years ago. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I won't cast an actual !vote because I found this AfD through an off-wiki discussion but... really, notability? The references in the article include extensive coverage from several major news organizations. A GNG pass with flying colors from what I can see. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not meet the WP:NTEAM or WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The only sources in the article are primary and a cursory search didn't reveal anything that would establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from a quick glance at Google books there are various mentions of this battle. Notability is not temporary, so if it was notable at the time it is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. AfD is not the place to raise quality concerns. --Soman (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I am a frequent recipient of harassment and targeting by an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster-[14] who created more than a dozen burner accounts in just the past year solely to target me. His socks most recently targeted my AFDs and PRODs- [15] and [16] and [17] and [18]. The most recent examples are this- in which his IP/proxy removed my PROD on the article Katoch-Sikh war, 2 admins have stated that this was almost certainly HB block evading- [19] + [20]. He has also employed meat puppetry to target AFDs and PRODs. Note that this IP also created a draft for Katoch-Sikh war, the same page HB's sock targeted, very heavily indicating sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at play here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry what, It upon their own determination rather He isSockpuppet or intruder but definitely non of your expedition but suspiciously why did you creating pointless arguments you don't have any right to blast decretory statement on someone else you might face some serious consequences for such speculation @Southasianhistorian8MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In addition to very obviously being HB's sock/meatpuppet, you can see the IP and the account are clearly operated by the same person since they both submitted their drafts (Battle of Rori Sahib, Battle of Ambala, and Katoch Sikh war) minutes apart from each other-[23] + [24]. At the very very least, these votes should be accorded zero weight and obviously proves my point of a sock/meat campaign to target AFDs/reinstate articles which aggrandize their religion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you but how regressively your oppressing other on behalf of their religion with propagating your pathetic statement you need to be calm down sir for our bothMasterofRepulse (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion in hopes of more participation. Please focus on the article, its sources and whether or not notability is established. Stop making accusations about other editors, it doesn't help whatever argument you are making. If you suspect sockpuppetry, head to SPI, don't bring it up here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Low quality article about a non notable event with limited coverage within sources + the third ref does not contain a link to a book whose content can be verified. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the sources (you can search within the third and see the lone sentence mentioning Bajrur) none call this the "Battle of Bajrur". It appears to have been a military action that doesn't even warrant a full paragraph's mention in any of the sources. The sourcing doesn't seem to be there for calling it a named battle, or retaining a Wikipedia article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]