Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. This is an award given by a television network. There is no coverage much less GNG coverage of the topic of the article which is the award. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as suggested seems fine, I don't see sourcing that isn't primary now used as sourcing in the article. I can't find much in my searches, but I don't speak the local language so I'm not sure what would be a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated as there is nothing here to assert notability. The four WP:RS are too little to establish notability.
The NTY source is difficult to read through a paywall and do not seem to focus heavily on the team to establish notability. sailsporttalk only focuses on one of the sailors with a tiny part on the team. Both sources in sail-world only talks about the team's performance in the series. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for taking the time to review this page. I agree and take your point regarding this page relying heavily on WP:PRIMARY and currently only having two WP:RS. This risks the page failing to meet notability standard based on Wikipedia:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability). However, there exists plenty of notable and reliable secondary sources that would address the concern regarding WP:GNG. I am advocating that this page is not deleted but rather has a template appended giving editors opportunity and time to remedy the concerns raised and improve the article. Proposing addition of template
Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. Google news yields 2 possible third party sources but they are routine coverage of retiring and missing out on a season. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination on J2009j's behalf as they had some technical issues. I am neutral and just re-filing this.
"I believe this article does not meet any notability criteria. There is 1 barely reliable billboard article that can be considered a real source. All the articles are interviews, press, releases, and on some random sites. I do not understand how it was even accepted in the first place.
For example, there are sources like 4 "Ryan Trey Songs, Albums, Reviews, Bio & More |..." AllMusic. Retrieved July 29, 2024. or P, Milca (August 25, 2018). "Ryan Trey Previews "August" Album With "Mutual Butterflies"". HotNewHipHop. Retrieved July 29, 2024., or sources 8, 2, 3 - those are all interviews, or press releases. Those are not national magazines, but some sites with news online. Then most of the sources from 13- to 24 are literally interviews on online news sites. All, except an article on Billboard. So why are those considered "reliable" sources? " StarMississippi01:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I generally prefer not to engage in AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussions, as my focus is on improving and creating articles for notable subjects. However, I feel compelled to address the nomination of this article. Nominating an article simply because an editor's draft was rejected seems unwarranted. The sources cited, such as the one from BET, provide significant coverage and should not be dismissed as mere interviews.[1] These sources, along with others, clearly demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I believe the article is well-supported and merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Afro📢Talk!07:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's totally fine. It happens to all of us at one time or another. I tried to fix it but realized it would just be easier to delete and nominate on your behalf. StarMississippi01:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2,3 and 19 are directly about this individual and have been identified as RS by CiteHighlighter. I think we have more than enough with what's given. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3 is a review, which is a paragraph long personal opinion.
Source 2 is an interview, and interview cannot be used as a reliable source.
Nominated as there is nothing here to assert notability, despite the WP:RS. Now, this is my accessment of sources, ignoring all WP:PRIMARY as they do not count for notability.
One by Sail Canada concerns about the team captain winning about an award and his role in the team
One by Scuttlebutt Sailing News is about the team advertising for a new captain as that captain has been released from his contract
Two by CTV news and another by CBC News is about the event in Halifax, less about the team
Keep Thank you for taking the time to review this page. I agree and take your point regarding this page relying heavily on WP:PRIMARY and currently only having four WP:RS. This risks the page failing to meet notability standard based on Wikipedia:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability). However, there exists plenty of notable and reliable secondary sources that would address the concern regarding WP:GNG. I am advocating that this page is not deleted but rather has a template appended giving editors opportunity and time to remedy the concerns raised and improve the article.
Non-notable former congressional candidate. Given the coverage cited on this page, it's clear that Kulkarni received more media attention than your average congressional candidate, but I don't think a few articles in national outlets is enough. Plus, in the 4 years since his last congressional run, Kulkarni seems to have received zero media coverage. The fact that his media attention completely dried up the moment he was no longer running shows that he isn't notable and that people probably won't be searching for him in 10 years. This article was previously nominated for deletion in May, but that discussion was closed as "no consensus" after only 1 editor participated. That editor voted keep--but they seem to have a personal connection to Kulkarni, judging by the fact that they uploaded the photo of him on the page and tagged it as "own work." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. As it has already had another AFD, Soft Deletion is not an option. Hopefully, we'll see more editors participating in the coming week. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per article, Director of UX Research for Google, but no further claims of notability. Two sources are linked from the article, the first appears to be a small interview in a highly specialized publication, the second is a personal blog of one of Huffaker's colleagues. His Google scholar profile indicates one paper with 1,000+ citations and a handful around 500, not sure I would classify this as highly influential. Can't find many other sources while doing WP:BEFORE. Doesn't seem to be notable by WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, or WP:GNG. Bestagon ⬡ 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This person's publications seem to be in the realm of sociology, and I'm thinking this is not a high citation field - would like to hear other's views on that. The article is a stub that does not really focus on their academic impact - it needs fleshing out in that regard if it's to stay. Qflib (talk)
Keep. His research (at least that done before working at Google) is highly cited. It would take digging through the citing works to understand the impact. That's a big job. For the biographical information, the difficulty is that I found only one short and undated bio paragraph attached to a talk he gave - which can't be considered independent. So I think Keep based on his publications, but the bio information will remain very, very thin for now. Lamona (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: interesting. A scholar with over a thousand cites should be notable, but there are only two cites in the stub. Not sure what to do. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and of those sources one is a blog and the other is an interview with the subject, not about him but about some of his perspectives on data science. I really don't think we have an RS about the subject himself. Bestagon ⬡ 15:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True that there aren't good independent sources about him. I believe that is often the case with academics and researchers. For those I see links to their page at the university they work for, and maybe a CV. I did see references to him speaking at conferences. I'll see what I can add. Lamona (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review article I added quite a bit. It still may strike folks as a bit thin, but I think it meets NACADEMIC at this point. Lamona (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I contested the PROD because there are enough sources and potential sources for a much fuller article. WP:NOTNEO indicates that exceptions are for a neologism that receives significant coverage in multiple sources. Major coverage is included in New York Magazine and publications at Dartmouth, Penn State, University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, Bucknell, and Syracuse. The coverage in college magazines and newspapers represents diverse locations and dates. Frackets are also mentioned in and sourced to a scholarly journal (Qualitative Sociology), two books (one by the editors of Seventeen magazine), Philadelphia Magazine, and CNET. Inclusion of the term's relationship to a company and literary inclusions suggest a potential for expansion beyond a dictionary entry. Its inclusion in an academic study gives credibility to the term beyond a neologism. Rublamb (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I appreciate Rublamb's efforts to add sources and expand the article. Below are some initial thoughts on the sources and external links added:
The Cut: Qualifies as WP:SIGCOV in an independent, reliable source.
Dartmouth Jack-O-Lantern 1 and 2 and the Bucknellian, either obvious Onion-style satire or self-disclosed as satire.
The Crimson (Harvard), 34 St (Penn), Onward State (Penn State), Vanderbilt Hustler, Phillymag churnalism from Daily Pennsylvanian (Penn), Her Campus (Drexel chapter; this article is primarily based on an Urban Dictionary definition), JERK Magazine (Syracuse), The Tab (Penn State), University Girl SU (Syracuse). Some of these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, some are unreliably sourced (i.e. to Urban Dictionary), and the more substantive items read as opinion-style articles rather than factual reporting. Under WP:RSSM, "They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available." This is a case by case situation and I don't think there's anything I would consider reliable WP:SIGCOV here.
Thanks for reviewing the sources and potential sources. I have removed Odyssey as a source; good catch. However, disagree with some of your analysis.
You seem to dismiss college newspapers as a reliable source or as having significant coverage. In fact, college newspapers are reliable, and given the universities involved, represent significant circulation. If there was just one article in one campus newspaper, you would have a point. But, as demonstrated by the various publications, the topic has significant coverage in a geographically diverse group of campus publications. Yes, the majority of the articles are features rather than news articles, but that is to be expected with fashion and culture topics. Note that the satirical publications are listed in external links and are not sources for the article.
Tab and Her Campus are publications written by college students but are not affiliated with a specific campus. Thus, these to qualify as non-campus sources.
Mears and Mooney mention the topic three times in their article, covering the origin and social importance of the fracket. The point is not whether this is trivial or significant coverage but that the term is being discussed in a scholarly article about campus life. This recognition of the term fracket by academics shows that it has moved beyond an Urban Dictionary term or neologism. This also demonstrates coverage in non-university publications.
I agree that the mentions in the two books (DiSorbo and Applebaum and Shoket et al.) and the novel are not significant coverage. Rather, these demonstrate coverage by mainstream publishing houses, ie. non-university publications, showing that the term has moved beyond a campus neologism, which is one of your main reasons for this AfD.
While we can't use the Urban Dictonary as a source for Wikipedia because it is user-generated content, there is nothing wrong with using a source that discusses the Urban Dictionary's definition. That is, in fact, the very definition of a secondary source.
Delete. Sourcing is inadequate for an entire mainspace article on this topic. Redirect to coat as a second option, and possibly merge over into a sentence or two. Svampesky (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response: If we go with redirect (which would be more beneficial to users and is also my second choice), another option would be Fraternities and sororities#Glossary as the term is already included there. I guess we need to decide if this fall under fraternity culture or clothing? I think the former, give the term's orgin. Rublamb (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was surprised to learn of this term, but am convinced it has generated enough usage and secondary sources to pass the notability test. Jax MN (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there are sources like ScienceDirect that use the concept of a matrix field, I do not see how the term itself is notable in the general mathematical community (and even searching for "matrix field" (with quotes) on Google mostly returns results that have nothing to do with the meaning used in this article). So, I agree with the talk page comments. GTrang (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the term were only used in mathematics, I'd suggest redirecting it to matrix ring. But a lot of the uses (maybe the majority) are in physics, where matrix field theory is a subject. XOR'easter (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per WP:TNT. There are potential sources on the matrix representation of fields, such as Wardlaw's "Matrix representation of finite fields" (Math. Mag. 1994), but I think the article would need different content at a different title, so we might as well just delete the one we have regardless. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I also concur that these things actually appear in mathematics (for instance commutative subfields of matrix division algebras are somewhat important in the theory of semisimple algebraic groups) but i don't think the terminology "matrix field" is standard. jraimbau (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matrix theory (physics) where matrix field theory is discussed. There are two kinds of matrix fields--a type of structure in abstract algebra and a class of quantum field theories associated with string theory. The math version has possibilities, but notability is unclear and this article does not do a good job of covering the topic. Matrix fields are a topic in physics, e.g., here is a book on the subject. I suggest a redirect to the physics topic. If the math version is ever rewritten, the redirect could turn into hatnotes or a DAB page. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as some editors are arguing for Deletion while others are suggesting that a Redirect might be more appropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO; no WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Sources in the article are entirely primary sources. Plus, GPTZero gives this page a 100% likelihood of being AI-generated (and the author was blocked for using text from LLMs). Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to say these lists are exactly what I was looking for when I started researching the Eureka Rebellion though. There has already been complaints about the length of the main Eureka Rebellion article. We were told a few years back to start creating new sub articles and then link them to the main article instead. I see the Alamo article has two associated lists. Most of the List of Alamo defenders don't seem to have their own biographical entries either. I reckon some of these stories about the more minor officials will help our readers with the big picture. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to keep the article and limit new additions to people who already have their own wikipedia article. However, most of what I know about lists on wikipedia comes from studying other wikipedia lists. And I've seen many lists where not even five per cent of the people on it are hyperlinked. Robbiegibbons (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Most of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. Almost all of the people in the list lack notability for a Wikipedia article. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Alamo has a much higher significance, and a good proportion of those defenders do have articles. A list of every defender, absent defender and non-combatant caught in the middle is too much. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I grant you that the Alamo might have more significance to our American readers. But in Australian terms the Eureka Stockade is definitely folkloric. I've seen Wikipedia lists where some of the people wouldn't meet the general notability criteria to qualify for a biographical entry of their own. Some of those names on the List of Alamo defenders do have their own Wikipedia articles. But I just picked about a dozen people from the Alamo list at random and searched Wikipedia for them and nothing else came up. I don't know about the rest of you. But what I'm hoping to do here is help Wikipedia take over from Eurekapedia. And Eurekapedia has a list of Eureka Stockade defenders. Robbiegibbons (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robbiegibbons I leave it up to others as to whether or not there will be a list. The Alamo is different in that we honestly don't know, and may never know, who all was there. All the time, we find new evidence of someone, and also pull someone we listed in error (Talk:List of Alamo defenders). The entire Texas revolution was about slavery. The constitution of Mexico outlawed slavery, but the white slave owners who moved to Texas, brought their slaves with them. Good luck, and keep doing the good work you do. — Maile (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Eureka Rebellion is a bona fide part of Australian folklore. The article on the rebel war flag the Eureka Flag says the design pattern was a rival to the official Australian national flag twenty years ago before the Eureka Flag started to appear on bumper stickers with racial slogans. And that's the other point I would make. The people at Ballarat Heritage Services are always adding to the body of knowledge as well. If we decide to keep these lists then you can rest assured that as detailed as they are. They're not as detailed as they're going to be. I always hoped the Wikipedia Eureka Rebellion series itself would spur some more research. As good as www.eurekapedia.org is. I want to be given the opportunity to see if wikipedia can do even better. If we can get every article in the series up to good article status then BHS might be willing to donate some or all of their image library to wikimedia. The list of Eureka Stockade defenders is vastly more informative than the one on the Alamo defenders if the truth be known. Some of those obituaries of the Eureka rebels contain some pretty interesting stuff. If the list is going to stand then I do have about ten more sources with additional details that I could cite. Robbiegibbons (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary content fork lacking notability for a standalone list. None of the names in the list are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 21:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Regarding GNG, there is nothing near even 1 GNG reference. Regarding SNG assessment, most know for placing in the Top 10 at Miss Colombia 2022 and appointed to represent Columbia at the 2024 Miss Charm competition. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of WP:ORG notability. All sources I can find are primary or written by non-independent publications. Notability is not inherited from other organizations it is affiliated with. CFA💬20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. There appears to be no substantial reliable sources to warrant the meeting of notability for a separate article for CWI (2019). The matters related to the implosion/split can be adequately documented on the article for CWI (1974) which does at present appear to meet notability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDICT, specifically the section WP:WORDISSUBJECT. This article contains nothing but definitions. There is no particular definition or concept that is the subject of the article, even a broad concept. It is original research, citing example usage to justify it's claims about term meaning, which have not been made anywhere else. Apart from dictionary entries, I don't see sources exploring any of the concepts mentioned here or saying anything meaningful about them beyond their definition. What content is there for us to write an article about? Daask (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the Sultanate is likely notable, this award is not. The sourcing does not support any notability. The Sultante of Sulu: Notes From the Past and Present Times report is from an employee of the Sultanate; the El Sultanato de Sulú y la Real y Hachemita Orden de la Perla source is from someone receiving the Grand Cordon of this award; the Memorandum and Succession sources are not about this award, or even mention it; the Notable Members of the Order and Heraldry sources are self-published from the award; and the American Institute of Polish Culture source is a one-mention blurb about someone who received the award. In all, it's puffery/promo masquerading as a notable subject from the org itself, employees, recipients, or just mere mentions. Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references that are presently used in the article mention him once at most. toweli (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from dying in World War I, this player does not seem to rise to WP:NCRICKET. I already removed some information about his brother and his mother, as they lacked sources. The article is looking pretty bare at this point. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: Found a book describing him as a "first class cricketeer" [2] but it's barely a few paragraphs. This is also a brief mention [3]. Just don't have enough on this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final Wicket: Test and First Class Cricketers Killed in the Great War (which I have) goes into great detail on him. Wisden has an obituary on him in its 1918 edition, which also goes into a good degree of detail. I'd imagine there's coverage in newspapers from the time too, The Times certainly mentions him following his death. AA (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all fine and I appreciate the additional resources added, but, does that still make him a "notable" player in the eyes of WP:NCRICKET? I'm hardly knowledgeable of cricket, does
"he represented Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and also Middlesex in two first-class matches in 1912."
NCRICKET goes on to say "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." Playing for Middlesex in first-class cricket counts as "the highest domestic level", so it depends on whether he has "sufficient coverage". Going by what AA has written, he probably does. JH (talk page) 08:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined toward keep here, although the very worst case situation would be a redirect to List of Middlesex County Cricket Club players with a note added to include the reference detail. There's a Wisden obituary with some detail and I would be surprised if there weren't other obituaries - Eton, The Times etc.... Given his family and status this seems very, very likely - I'd suggest that with any war death that a significant BEFORE should really take place as there's often a scad load of detail out there and as a person he would appear to me to be clearly notable in terms of the sorts of things we'd look for. The book that is referred to above is usually a detailed source as well, and Sandford also appears to mention him in his The Final Over: The Cricketers of Summer 1914 - there's story about him uncovering a diamond worth £1 million in Kashmir. No idea where that came from, but there's clearly coverage out there about the chap and he seems notable to me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources are cited and I was unable to find any with a Google search. I was also unable, with a Google search, to find an entry in a reliable dictionary. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented in the last AfD - which was only a few months ago. Looking myself this does seem to be a very common and well known idea even outside of actual believer circles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Planets in astrology or another befitting article, per nom. A cursory search on Google Scholar did not bring up any reasonably reliable sources on the topic. The unimpressive Google Scholar and Google search results leads me to believe that this is not a significant enough topic to be a standalone article. ArkHyena (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All sources appear to be first-party - this looks like it could be self-promotional and non-notable to me. It seems to be German-origin software, and I tried looking at the Deutsch Wiki version of the article to see if it was any better, but it seems to be in roughly the same state. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, this article describes a sophisticated and maturing content management system that is a free and open-source potential competitor to expensive and proprietary systems. I've added some more information from the French-language site. — Objectivesea (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find gethub and other download links. Change logs used now for sourcing aren't a RS, nor is much of anything else used in the article. Easy delete. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to comment on the sources mentioned above? There's an extensive wealth of educational materials specifically for Contao listed under "Further reading". Yes, the article has yet to incorporate them, but they all seem like RSes to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article, I believe, fails standards immensely. There is no inclusion criteria for this list, for a start, and with a franchise as large as Pokémon, it's unclear what makes the cut. Should releases of games be included? Release dates for consoles that host these games? When merchandising and crossovers are announced or released? Should anniversaries be commemorated? Should associated companies that are relevant have important fixtures included? I could go on, but this timeline is very indiscriminate in what it includes, and thus is very unhelpful to readers, as there is no clear idea of what is actually important to the franchise's history, whether it be in terms of release information or otherwise. Additionally, this timeline only covers major dates, and no actual historical background. This information is covered at the main Pokémon article already in far greater depth, with notable releases and developments covered there. There are already several infoboxes with release schedules for important subgroups as well that can be used at other articles with far greater aid to readability. Given all relevant info is covered at the parent article, and this list itself is incredibly unwieldy and impossible to properly organize/categorize in any context, this list feels incredibly unhelpful and redundant to readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator pointed out, it's not clear what the inclusion criteria here are. There's an entry for "Tenth anniversary of the Pokémon anime". Okay, should anniversaries for everything else also be included? Which ones? Fives and tens? This list is largely pointless; we already have articles for the games and for Pokémon as a franchise. Cortador (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing clear inclusion criteria here, timeline can mean many things including game releases, anime or manga releases, store openings, etc. It falls under indiscriminate lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup; second choice merge as there's at least potential here. (Canvassing disclaimer: Saw this due to the nominator mentioning it on Discord.) Yes, there are some bad items on this list like anniversaries of unclear notability - just remove them? And yes, stronger inclusion criteria would also be nice. But none of these are reasons to delete. Having a clean, "bullet point version" of the main article that is strictly chronological rather than prose hopping between different media types can be a useful thing. The nominator seems to mention this when saying "covered in far greater depth in the main article" - well yes, that's the point, this is a clean links-only version that's easier to find stuff in, "Greater depth" isn't always desired. This article seems like a great start toward making such a resource. I dunno, in more "serious" topics, it's not uncommon to have both a simple table of Governors of Province X and the same info in more depth in "History of Province X" in prose. That's... fine. Both the list article and the prose article are useful; I'd say that this timeline is far less "unwieldly". SnowFire (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I removed the anniversaries of unclear importance. And I again want to emphasize that I'm not saying the timeline is perfect, it's far from it, but that many of the complaints above sound like reasons to delete any timeline, e.g. "impossible to properly organize/categorize in any context" - the organization is the date it happened. That's it. There is no categorization other than again by date. That's how timelines work, and IMO that can be useful sometimes. SnowFire (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main concerns are less so improvement, but that there are several large-scale problems that are difficult to resolve. I can definitely agree it may be decently useful in most other contexts, but Pokémon is such a wide franchise as to where determining what is actually useful to audiences is downright impossible because of how much goes on with it. It's easy enough to clean out anniversaries, but how do you choose what to include? If you choose to include important dates in development, then it just overlaps with the main Pokemon article in a worse context even more than it already is. If you choose to focus on game releases, then List of Pokémon video games covers that. If you focus on the anime, Pokémon (TV series) already has its own navigational boxes. If you focus on meshing them together, then that's just two lists randomly smushed together that have no real need being tacked on to each other when they're better covered separately. If you want to include more occasions, then what do you choose? Real world events? How do you determine which are notable enough to cover? Do you cover every single tournament and site pop-up? If you expand the scope to far, then it just becomes a list of everything vaguely Pokemon related that's occurred, which just falls under Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, as there's no real rhyme or reason to these all being in this timeline together that benefits the reader because these subjects are all so wildly random and not very substantial to the series' overall development. There's so many moving variables, and if you were to include everything, it would just be a more unwieldy version of the multiple easier to use lists. It's not like a lot of timelines where their information is valuable in the context of a timeline, as we have several other versions of this around the website already that are infinitely more readable and usable and have less problems with inclusion criteria, while being infinitely more helpful in terms of their navigational use and educational use. This list is just largely unnecessary and impractical, hence my argument for deletion here.
I will note on the canvassing concern- I had asked about this list in the Discord earlier today to get another opinion before I took any action on it, which was a discussion entirely unrelated to this AfD. I took care in not acknowledging or linking to this AfD after the fact in order to prevent potential problems, and if there were further actions to take beside that, then that's a mistake on my part, and I'll seek to improve on that in the future. Either way, it's very much not my intention to canvass, and if I did so unintentionally, then I do apologize. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I wasn't accusing you of the "bad" form of canvassing. Rather I always state this if the only reason I know about an AFD is via Discord to avoid complaints if a bunch of people who don't normally vote on a topic suddenly show up for unclear reasons - it makes the reason more clear. I suppose we might need a new term for "canvassing" (negative, accusatory) and "canvassing" (neutral, factual report to put off-wiki influence "on the record"), but it's the second meaning.
Anyway, for a topic like "Timeline of Pokemon", I'd say that the answer is yes to all of the above? Sure, include media, video games, business, and culture together here. In fact, it's what gives this timeline more reason to exist separate from things like the List of Pokémon video games article. If I was very hardcore on the topic and trying to make it featured-quality, then I'd start with the very best published sources on it, see if they include tables or timelines, see what they think is relevant to include, and then try to tie them together - e.g. things that appear in multiple sources are more likely to be "relevant" enough to include. It can be tough, but it's no different than the discretion editors exercise in every other article. Even many lists have to struggle with the same issue - take a games list, what about an obscure flip phone mobile game? A now-unplayable web Flash game? Cameos? Fan-games but big and popular ones? The answer is, as usual, to reflect the sources. This article definitely needs work to draw from "Pokemon histories" rather than individual links, but it could exist, which is why at worst it should be redirected & merged while waiting on such published, strong sources to clarify the inclusion criteria. SnowFire (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is the fact there aren't many sources showing a whole chronological timeline like this to verify this information. I found plenty of in-depth sources, but those only covered the early days of the franchise's history. Beyond that, there aren't many overarching sources to look for to characterize what should or should not be included, and many lists and sources I could find that were chronological either lacked dates, were only covering a small sample pool (Such as the main series games exclusively) or both. I'm afraid this approach just doesn't really work here. Without sources to verify it, it's entirely up to editors to decide what is "relevant," which is something that can't really be decided effectively per my above rationale. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Tagged by others for this since February. I preferred to pass this one, and do give orgs like this some slack but don't see how I could pass this while doing the NPP job properly. Has not even a fraction of even 1 GNG reference. Of the 8 references, 5 are themselves including one of their board member's linked-in page. Two of the other three are announcements of an event, and one was an announcement of their appointment of their CEO. Could not find anything better in a search. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first three sources in the current version of the article are about her sister Mary Anne (or Anne) Hadden, a librarian, not about Ellen Hadden who is the subject of this article. Additionally, one of these sources an Arcadia Press "Images of America" book. Several discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard resulted in mixed opinions on the reliability of these picture books on local communities whose primary audience is likely either locals or tourists. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is a stub that needs to be expanded. Please scroll to the page bottom and see the Library associations of the United States navbox. You will see this one listed along with all the other States. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After having looked at what's in them, I feel quite a few of them fail to meet WP:NORG, nor would they quite quality as WP:NONPROFIT given they're individual local association. Kind of like local business alliances. Graywalls (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Library Association#National outreach, most likely, due to failure to meet WP:NORG. The California Library Association is a chapter of the American Library Association (see discussion of chapter status here), and that means WP:BRANCH applies here. The key policy: "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." There's lots of news coverage with WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the California Library Association, but precious little WP:SIGCOV, and none that I can find in sources from outside California. To answer Maile's comment above, just because a user has created articles on every library association and put them into a navbox does not meet they are notable. Some may be, and some may not be. Redirecting to the parent org is a good AtD for those that don't pass WP:BRANCH. Moreover, the nomination does not meet any of the conditions for a WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repost + cross-wiki spam, WP:PAID (recently created same pages in different wikis). Was deleted "Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Doesn't look significant. Suspicious but the IP and one user are trying to delete the db-repost template. Кронас (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: VentureBeat and other funding announcements... Nothing currently in sources in the article we can use. This is the best I could find [7] and it's a contributor post, so not a RS. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsements in modern politics is just people saying "I'll vote for X in the next elections!", and nothing more. This is like having a list "List of Star Trek fans", just in a political topic instead of pop culture. To detail it further:
Endorsements are not part of the electoral process, nor are they required in any way. People endorsing candidates do not have to go through a special process to do so, they are not selected (anyone being interviewed by the press may endorse a candidate if he wants), and may un-endorse candidates (and even endorse the opposing candidate) at any point.
Endorsers are not bound to their endorsements other than in their credibility. Someone may endorse candidate X, but if candidate Y wins, nothing stops him from suddenly becoming a vocal supporter of Y. And of course, as the vote is secret, people may vote someone different than the one they endorsed, and nobody would ever know it.
Endorsements do not have value in themselves. One man, one vote. When voting hours are over and we start counting, the vote of Elon Mush or Noam Chomsky have the same value than that of the regular Joe crossing the street.
Endorsements may still be relevant elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as in "Political positions of X" articles or sections, but a list of people that endorsed someone? That sounds a lot like trivia. Cambalachero (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the two users above, and we have already had a similar discussion recently. I see that this is a more principal discussion, but would recycle my arguments from the aforementioned discussion that these lists are of public interest, they are limited to consist of people of note (or certainly meant to be), and it has been common practice for a long time to have information like this on wikipedia and, when the lists become too long for the "mother pages", pages like these are the logical result. Alexander Bonaparte Caesar (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. We had this exact discussion two weeks ago. This is a massively useful article type that only Wikipedia is really good at. And obviously the Trump and Harris ones are quite topical.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG and N are certainly not in question, though because he didn't get beyond Iowa, the DeSantis article is likely a viable candidate for deletion, but the rest are sourced well and proper. Nate•(chatter)23:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close Kamala Harris' page already had a deletion discussion. As per Wikipedia:Deletion and deletionism: "It is considered bad form to nominate an article for deletion multiple times within a short span of time, particularly if there was not a close decision." Flames675 (talk)
No reliable source confirms this flag's existence; James Minahan has absolutely no sources cited in any of his books for this flag (and others). The Flag Bulletin (#023) Vol.6 No.4 on page 134 says that "its flag, if any, is unknown". NorthTension (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412T16:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Newswires, gov't websites and other PR websites, are about what's used in the article, nothing we can use for notability. I can only find funding announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No demonstration of meeting notability per GNG. Have never won or held any notable elected position. At best a tenuous link to a single councillor who served a single term on a low-level local government council, which even CWI themselves acknowledge didn't actually run on behalf of Militant Left ([8],[9]). No Reliable Sources appear present to justify any noteworthiness.
Merge and redirect to Committee for a Workers' International (2019). As an WP:ATD. (Subject org, effectively a "branch" of CWI formerly known as "CWI Ireland", hasn't been seen sufficient coverage in independent sources. To the extent that stand-alone notability is not established. What coverage there has been seems to be mostly in sources associated with CWI and/or other CWI "branches". In Enlgand, Scotland, etc. Even establishing basic facts (about the orgs formation/etc) necessitates reliance on primary sources. Which is far from ideal. The subject here, the Irish org, could easily be covered WP:WITHIN article on larger/parent org. With an appropriate redirect. Per WP:ATD-R.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Nothing approaching even 1 GNG source. 4 of the sources are just covering the same 1 item (continuing to invest in Ukraine). North8000 (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. Nothing anywhere near even 1 GNG reference. One is just a personnel list and 4 are covering the same item...announcement of appointment as acting head of Uttar Pradesh police. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this music festival meets WP:GNG. There is no sourcing on the page, and the only sources I can find on Google are self-published and promotional websites, along with WP:NOTRSMUSIC sources like Setlist.fm and random blogs. All I can find that comes anywhere close to notability is that popular Canadian artists performed at the festival, but just because multiple performers on the bill charted and went platinum does not mean this festival inherits notability. With no independent notability presented whatsoever, fails WP:NMUSIC. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unnecessary WP:CFORK of teams that never was independently notable and existed solely to the short-lived series, serving to only the most ardent fans per WP:FANCRUFT as a Wikiproject taskforce was active for it. Worthy of Fandom maybe (nothing wrong with it for those who ask) but then the series has been long gone 13 years ago. WP:BEFORE search don’t turn out much other than announcements, if they still exist. Other than routine maintenances, article do not appear to be updated after 2010, indicating their significance are pretty thin.
Also fail WP:SIGCOV as sources, if there is any or are WP:PRIMARY, focuses too heavily on the series; If not, are announcment of driver signings or focuses on the driver. Like the series, nothing about it is notable either other than the teams operating them. Insufficiently notable WP:GNG to help either. All of those above are also nominated for this same reason. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated them all at once as they all have the same issues with barely any encyclopaedic values. In this case, I withdraw this nomination so I can renominate them individually. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:58, 15 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.
I don't know what to make of this article. Most of the sources available are marginal or sponsored or self, including for the firm, and the most reliable sources are only about disciplinary action against the attorney by the North Carolina Bar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: LibStar: I'm no expert on speedway, so there might be something I'm missing, but could you explain your assessment that all the sources here are primary ones? A book like Who's Who of World Speedway and so on. /Julle (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's bunch of brief mentions in older Finnish newspapers (accessed via National Archives of Finland's digital archive):
Helsingin Sanomat, 9 May 1975 - mentioned a few times in standard post-event coverage together with other participants.
Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 22 January 1978 - elected as the chair of the Salpausselkä Motor Club, given some awards. Very short piece.
Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 30 August 1976 - event coverage, wins bronze in Turku.
Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 19 September 1974 - briefly mentioned as the "best driver in the series".
I didn't survey all the hits, but the best appears to be a profile/interview in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on 1 September 1977 (link, requires a researcher account), a bit more than a quarter of a (broadsheet) page in size. Interestingly, it also features a (very cropped) image of an English language news story titled "Markku provides bright spot" by Ken Gaunt, apparently from either Speedway Mail or Leicester Mercury, both of which we are told have featured him.
Based on the coverage I have access to, I'm personally rather ambivalent. That said, if someone can actually find the English language coverage mentioned in the Finnish papers and verify they are of reasonable depth, I suspect this would lean towards keep for me. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the additional Finnish sources and the lack of explaination as to why Who's Who of World Speedway would count a as a primary source, I'm leaning towards keep. /Julle (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who's who of world speedway appears to be written by rider Ivan Mauger, as a rider he has a direct connection to the sport and may even know personally many of the riders covered in his book. From WP:PSTS: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.LibStar (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice if the nominator responded to the question posed to them about sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart: in this case, subject had the album titled Dzanja Lalemba that was the bestseller 14 years ago countrywide. Subject is also the pioneer of Malawi Contemporary Music and one of the country's notable musician [10]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-soldier-set-for-stage-reunion/.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is sourced entirely to the company website, press releases, old timetables, the Aeroroutes.com/Routesonline.com blogs, and run-of-the-mill news reports based on company announcements and press-releases. The website and other company publications are clearly not independent of the topic, nor are articles based on company statements/press-releases since they are written entirely using material from the airline. The fact that the sourcing here is also a total WP:REFBOMB only points to the degree to which this is original research in primary sources, synthesising them to produce this list.
WP:NLIST is failed because there is not a single, independent, reliable, 3rd-party source here giving significant coverage to the subject of Lion Air Group's destinations as a group. At best what we have here are, again, articles based on press-releases and company statements, without fact-checking. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Single ref in About section; Visa program established in 2001 and then shut down in 2004, receiving little WP:SIGCOV. Cursory Google search appears that it was revived later under PCI DSS, but nothing that would pass WP:GNG for this specific program. SmittenGalaxy|talk!08:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Editor: Please don't delete this page. It's an important reference to a set of security guidelines that are still often referenced. Informing people that it's been superceeded by another security rule (PCI) is really valuable. Please do not remove it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.159.90 (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback on the article about the "West Bengal Centralised Admission Portal. I believe the portal plays a significant role in modernizing the admission process for government colleges in West Bengal. It ensures greater transparency, accessibility, and efficiency for thousands of students annually. Additionally, the portal has received considerable recognition from government and media sources, highlighting its transformative impact on the state's education system. I will enhance the article with additional citations and details to better reflect its importance.
Tagged with dubious notability for 9 years. I could not find enough reviews to justify an article for this album, only one. It's not really an ESG album, it was a collaborative album. Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it has no encyclopedic value. It is a common occurrence and this particular case did not force any policy or social change. Though the event attracted wide coverage, it was not sustained. At best, if there is relevant article related to this topic it should be merged with it. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is confusing because it is about a group of political parties under same or similar name. Its infobox says it was established by Ayub Khan in 1962. But Khan didn’t establish Pakistan Muslim League. He established Convention Muslim League. Pakistan Muslim League is the name of another political party existed from 1947 to 1958. By naming this Pakistan Muslim League, we are creating confusion because the article is about a group of political parties. In that sense, there is no need for the existance of this article. we can merge it into related articles, or we can merge it to List of Muslim League breakaway groups because this article, talks about parties under same/similar name, actually came from Pakistan Muslim League and we already have an article about it (Muslim League (1947–1958)). This article has only three sources. And the page gives us an idea that it is an single political party. It looks like WP:OR and it would be best to merge it into Muslim League (1947–1958) or List of Muslim League breakaway groups or redirect it to Muslim League. Mehedi Abedin08:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a content dispute issue. But I considered other options. However, looks like there is few to merge because List of Muslim League breakaway groups and other Muslim League related articles already covered all these information of the article. Also the article reflects WP:OR as it wrongly represents the party. That's why I directly nominated it for deletion discussion. Mehedi Abedin09:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A conflict of interest is not a valid reason for deletion. While some cited sources are about the company, the article also cites multiple good sources that discuss the subject in detail, for example AW Architektur & Wohnen (footnote 1), Die Welt (footnote 4), or Handelsblatt (footnote 12). Also, I think that the article meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Meise has receieved well-known awards, which the article demonstrates. --88.20.56.144 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2 and 5 talks about part of the station's history and programming. Source 3, 6 and 7 talk about part of its programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the reliable sources indicated (except Source 4, which is just a blog). ASTIG😎🙃13:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfair and unjust to apply WP:NCORP for radio/TV stations. Broadcast companies and organizations do go under the said guideline, not the stations they own and/or operate. Since WP:BCAST has been long ditched as a guideline, WP:GNG should at most apply for broadcast stations. My keep stands. ASTIG😎🙃10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to trade up to better sources. Aside from some being pre-internet, I'm shocked they don't exist for an FM radio station in a metro area this large. Nothing here contributes to the GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. There is disagreement here over whether sources are sufficient to establish GNG. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources aren't very good at all, mostly blogs -- and even then, those are very light on actual focus on the station -- and when you have to fatten up an article with what basically amounts to a press announcement for ticket sales, you know you're either dealing with thin or incomplete sourcing. A search doesn't reveal much more in the way of actual, significant coverage of this radio station outside of passing mentions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Subject has single mention in all sources cited. Merging it with the parent company article Quest Broadcasting will also amount to nothing becuae this very article does not provide any valuable infortaion so the best option is to delete it. Ednabrenze (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Would seem to fail WP:PROF cleanly, if not for their distinguished chair at the University of Vienna. Even so, I haven't been able to find a single scrap of secondary coverage, so that shouldn't be enough to save them. That they have no German Wikipedia article despite a good portion of their work being in German suggests I'm not missing anything across the language divide either. As an aside, the article appears to have been written all but exclusively by the subject themselves. Remsense ‥ 诉06:43, 15 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.
Delete or redirect to List of world championships medalists in powerlifting (men). No significant coverage of Boughalem. Anyone who competes in powerlifting (local to international) can be included to All Powerlifting and Open Powerlifting, the cited websites.
Comments/Question Competing at the Olympics is no longer sufficient to show WP notability, especially when you're badly beaten in the opening round (54-21). A bronze medal at the European championships doesn't meet any SNG and his semi-final bout was stopped in the second round of the fight (where he lost to someone who lost in the second round of the Olympics). The coverage of his bronze medal was just coverage of the results of the Lithuanian boxers in the event. His short listing in the Lithuanian Sports Encyclopedia is more of a database entry than an article. Being a crime victim doesn't make him WP notable, either. Since he fails WP:NOLY and WP:NBOX, he needs to meet WP:GNG. I don't read Lithuanian, but I can use Google translate. Can someone please point me to the coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG? Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We have a difference of opinion on the quality of the sourcing. Do we have any boxing fans that can weigh in? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:NBIO - while it does have a piece of significant coverage, the InfoWorld article, the others are just announcements and primary source interviews without substantive discussion. It does not pass WP:NARTIST either due to the fact he was just a co-developer or director of most games he made. When the article was first made it also failed NBIO and does not seem to have remedied that situation. There are a lot of minor mentions, but a lack of SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, still fails the If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. as most of them are primary and just trivial Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you add this Ars Technica article, combined with PC Gamer and Boston Globe articles, I do think GuildCafe/GamerDNA passes WP:NCORP, so I will not be nominating it for deletion. Though I can't say the same for its creator yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the Ars article heavily quotes Radoff, so I think WP:ATD would be feasible again. Not going by guidelines briefly, GamerDNA appeared to exist from 2006 to 2011(?), while Radoff had a career from 1992 to now. IgelRM (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there an ATD being suggested somewhere here in this discussion? Please identify a suggested target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a shortlived (2007-09) magazine, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media. The only notability claim on offer here is that it existed, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- the magazine would have to be shown to have received third-party coverage about it in sources other than itself to pass WP:GNG, but the only "reference" here is its own self-published content about itself rather than independent validation of its significance. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we see more participation in this discussion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All referencing appears to be from Oxford, UK-specific remembrance group publications. Cooper served honorably, and died, for an incredibly honorable cause but Wikipedia is not a memorial. GPL93 (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added four citations from books that mention him. (Most sources refer to him under his stage name "Edward Burke".) Nvss132 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most are quick mentions and don't appear to go in-depth on the subject. I'm not sure that's enough to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful at this point. "Fails GNG" is not specific enough. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep three times Champion of Italy and has ridden in the highest possible league of speedway in Britain (equivalent to the football Premier league). Pyeongchang (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Right now, no consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per my last message, this page will continue to expand, to provinces, states, etc. still in progress, list can be waiting, or you kindly can contribute thx. Applaused (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the list talks about cities. Except for Singapore which is its own case. I think this topic is note worthy. I recommend changing the name of the article to List of ASEAN cities by minimum wage. If you have countries, subdivisions and cities togethor, you will get an enormous list. I think you should start with cities and then build from that. If it is kept and reliable sources are used. I am in favour of keeping article. O.maximov (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors. If you can offer your opinion on this article, please cast a "vote" on what should happen to it (and why). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song has been the primary subject of multiple independent published works; the article itself already has three, and a quick Google search yields at least four more. As the primary concern here is notability, and the article's subject passes a WP:BEFORE check, it's not suitable for deletion.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. What does the nominator have to say about these new sources brought up here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I am convinced the article could be improved by the additional sources found above that are from different outlets, although they are pretty repetitive in terms of content, and if it wasn't the band's first new song in five years, this song probably wouldn't be notable or very relevant. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. Hotel attacks are not a common incident in Somalia just as school shootings are not in the United States, despite what is suggested from news coverage. An attack in which 25+ people are killed is not WP:ROUTINE and there was international news coverage of the attack in global RS including FT, NYT, CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, etc. More than enough coverage to establish WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH, and WP:GNG for WP:NEVENT. Longhornsg (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of an Indian civil servant fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. There is no WP:SIGCOV of the individual in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Sourcing is limited to WP:ROUTINE coverage and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that refer to him in the context of his former role while covering other subjects. (For example, the awards he is purported to have received were granted to the Jammu and Kashmir government and accepted by Mehta on its behalf.) There is no other WP:SIGCOV in sources considered reliable under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. (A note on page history: Following draftification during new page review, this page was returned to mainspace with no meaningful changes by a COI SPA editor.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to get more feedback. And if this is Soft Deleted, it will be immediately restored. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No, I shouldn't have, because there is a non-zero chance that someone in the AfD will manage to pull up sources that I couldn't find. Hence why I take most things to AfD instead of PROD or merge proposals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The review notes: "The reasoned reflection on Howard contained in Faultlines is also a strength, and contrasts with the increasingly shrill discourse that otherwise characterises debates about Howard and his legacy. Interestingly, the moderate and reasoned tones of the Megalogenis critique contrast with the message of some of Bill Leak's cartoons in the book. Faultlines is a political book, notwithstanding its occasional personal reflections. And it is useful and timely, arriving when there is a hint that the Howard era might be coming to an end and that a new generation of leaders (including some generation W people, no doubt) will emerge to take up the cudgels to further modernise Australia."
The review notes: "Such insights, along with the numerous references throughout the book to "senior" party sources, lend Faultlines an insider-flavoured account familiar to the journalistic mode of commentary (one would not expect anything less from Megalogenis, a respected senior feature writer and former Canberra press gallery journalist from The Australian). But Faultlines does contain some flaws. The argument that Generation W holds more progressive social values and is pro-republic, republic and refugees, for instance, seems amiss, even according to Megalogenis's own account. ... Another contentious part of Megalogenis's thesis concerns his argument about the nascent political power of Generation W."
The review notes: "Megalogenis is interested in where the country is headed, "beyond the fog of politics". He's unafraid to talk of race in a way you could imagine a Greek-Australian whose boyhood was spent in inner-city Melbourne schools during the 1970s, might be. "Debate will resume when Howard departs," he states. On matters relating to the complexities facing women in their professions and as mothers, Megalogenis is a must."
The review notes: "Given access to previously unpublished census data, as well as leaked polling information from the major political parties, Megalogenis has applied his own economic and political skills and insights to present a revealing if not always flattering portrait of contemporary Australia. In Faultlines: Race, Work and the Politics of Changing Australia (Scribe, $30rrp, out now), Megal-ogenis says the realities of Australian life are different to the 'truths' being fed to us by politicians and the media."
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.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly,. are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is entirely sourced either to the company website or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability - indeed one is actually a link to what appears to be a review of the film Cars 3.
The overwhelming majority of destinations listed here are listed as "Terminated" so this list is also un-necessary, and already adequately covered by the sentence "Cubana operates flights to over 20 destinations in Cuba, Europe, the Caribbean, North, Central and South America" in the main article. To the extent that there is any encyclopaedic interest in Cubana's previous destinations, this is already covered by the page History of Cubana de Aviación. This page is therefore entirely redundant. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said in other deletion discussions regarding airline destinations, in the case of mass removal of these articles I will quit Wikipedia for good. I have neither the time nor the will to discuss this over and over again.--JetstreamerTalk21:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. As the flag carrier of Cuba, Cubana de Aviación certainly has a unique history, and it is entirely appropriate to discuss the development of its route network over time, which people have done in the parent article. What I cannot support is a list of every single city this airline has flown to since it was established almost a century ago. I see no need for us to document that at one point in its existence Cubana flew to some random destination that appears in its 1949 timetable. Such a list falls outside the scope of our encyclopedia.
Moreover discussions about what lists to include on Airport articles are pretty irrelevant to an article that is not an Airport article, and a no-consensus close cannot be used to assert a consensus in favour of any particular outcome. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article includes the statement: "Frankfurt is currently a terminated destination for the airline". This appears to be based on a comparison of primary sources (a listing of destinations in the 1996 World Airline Directory - a sort of Yellow Pages for airlines, and a listing of destinations in a drop-down menu on the Cubana website from 2010). How is this kind of synthesis of primary sources to reach a conclusion that neither states not original research?
The reality is, this isn't a defensible statement, because there's a number of different explanations as to why an airline might have had a destination listed in a directory in 1996 but not be offering that service in 2010. These include an error in the original listing, the Frankfurt service being planned but never actually started, and the Frankfurt service still operating in 2010 but not being listed by mistake. Moreover since no date is given for the list, the implication is that this service is still not being offered now, when in reality we only know that it wasn't being offered in 2010 - and in reality Cubana are selling flights from Frankfurt on their website right now.
This kind of original research/verifiability problem is present throughout this corpus of articles. Indeed, the article under discussion is largely made up of services listed as "terminated" based on identically-flawed reasoning. FOARP (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No actual reviews found, just interviews and press release type material from niche horror publications, which aren't even reviews. The best source is this, which while including an interview is preceded by several paragraphs of evaluative seemingly independent material, so I would count it. However, there is nothing else. Could add to List of A Nightmare on Elm Street media and redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Very week, the Bloody Disgusting source is a RS per Project Horror, and I've found this [15], which seems ok. No book reviews I can find, but two articles about the book. That's about all I can pull up. I'm happy to revisit if others can find better sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the article you linked is what I mentioned in my nom, hahaha - yes, that source is fine, wish there was more like it. My issue with the Bloody Disgusting source is that it was prior to its release and doesn't really say much useful about it, simply quoting the author and saying the book would come out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a very highly cited academic book. In any case I was not able to find anything on the book itself or any of its editions; my effort was confounded by the amount of citations that say nothing about it, but I did try, and came up empty PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NBOOK. It is briefly covered in a listing in an issue of Issues in Law & Medicine, but not significantly, and there is an actual review in Booklist available on ProQuest, but that is only one and NBOOK needs two. It is part of the Opposing Viewpoints series, which is notable from my searches. Redirect there? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be an earlier book with the same name [16], as shown, from 1989. The book is widely cited [17], [18], [19], [20], could it be covered by an academic notability criteria? Being mentioned in at least three sources from different years implies some critical notice. Oaktree b (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:TEXTBOOKS, which suggests that academic book notability is less restrictive than other books (which I agree with), however that is applied inconsistently in practice and I am not sure if that precludes having more than one review. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit confusing since it appears this book has been republished multiple times (same series, same publisher), with a different editor each time. Ex. Reviews for 1995 edited by Wekesser, Carol or 1989 edited by Bernards, Neal. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!07:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any sources on this short story collection. The only non-primary source I found that mentions it is a passing mention in a booklist review of another work by Drake and non-sigcov in this bibliography. Redirect to author David Drake? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any reviews of this book/collection of stories in Gnewspapers from the period, nor do I find any elsewhere... I don't think a redirect would help, it doesn't seem to be a well-known work by this author. I don't see notability and the lack of sources doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]