Weak delete: Some coverage [1], others around being the youngest candidate and an LGBTQ individual, both of which are fine, but I don't see quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm somewhat surprised by this nomination. The article has six independent sources that deal with the subject at some depth. Why would that not be enough for GNG? Schwede6601:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some coverage cited here, but I don't think it's enough to satisfy GNG. There are thousands of people who meet the definition of being the youngest person to run for a specific office in a specific city, they aren't all going to be notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note The Finnish WP article doesn't look too bad, but notability is still vague. Translation of relevant (sourced) bits: [...] The games are particularly popular in China and the United States, with Finland being a marginal market.[1] The games have voice control in dozens of languages.[2] BeiZ was founded in China in 2010.[3] The company was acquired by Finnish ownership two years later.[4] At the time, entertainment game makers such as Rovio, Supercell, Remedy, Bugbear and Fingersoft were considered the cornerstones of the Finnish game industry.[5][2] Lola Panda educational games have been successful internationally, especially in China, without the publicity of the more well-known game houses.[6] Lola Panda teaches children under school age to learn various skills.[6] – sgeurekat•c09:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an unnecessary and redundant collection of matches that Liverpool have played in international competition. An article outlining the club's record in Europe already exists, we do not need a list of every single match. Considering also that the reader can learn what happened in those matches from the equivalent season articles AND from seasonal competition pages. I understand having smaller lists for clubs that don't usually play in Europe. For example, Burnley's article contains only a few matches, each of which are especially notable. But like most big English clubs, Liverpool play in Europe almost every single season; making most matches almost as notable as any domestic match. A discussion to delete this list reached no consensus just over two years ago now; but I truely believe redundant lists like this have no place on Wikipedia. Idiosincrático (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Due to the club's relevance worldwide, I don't see any problems with a list of international matches existing. This is complementary information and can be easily verified. Svartner (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Liverpool F.C. in international football, I don't know why we need two separate articles, there is plenty of room in the main one to house the list. You say in your nomination, unnecessary and redundant collection of matches I completely disagree with that, further more, the information in the main article clearly shows it's not redundant and appears to be historically necessary. You haven't even posted any policy based argument in your nomination either. Govvy (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an absolutely valid WP:SPLIT. Most teams will list all of their European matches on their "X team in Europe" page, so deleting this would basically mean that the most followed clubs wouldn't be able to have information about the matches they've played. I don't support a merge, either - the parent article is almost 100Kb as it stands. SportingFlyerT·C15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge. The proposed merge target is already long, already has a bunch of tables in it, and it's a FA. People who want this information can easily just click through to this article; it's not going to become some kind of weird content fork. There's no reason to merge this. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no not merge. The featured article Liverpool F.C. in international football covers this topic adequately and in an encyclopedic way, but a list of every match played ever is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As such, a merge would not improve the encylopedic value of that FA, but just bloat it with unencyclopedic content. This is an encyclopedia, not a football fandom site. If this table is added to the FA article then it will leave that article at risk of not meeting the FA criteria by having a clear WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all a violation of NOTDIRECTORY, every club has these and they're exactly what you'd find in the back of old footballing encyclopaedias. It makes no sense to delete this only because it's large enough to have its own page. SportingFlyerT·C14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you think it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY? This isn't a directory. That would be if it emulated the yellow pages, or listed upcoming TV broadcasting, or something. These are historical events. -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, just because other articles violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTSTATS too, that does not mean this article should too. An entire list of hundreds of matches is a clear violation of these both, as it's entirely a stats article for every result which violates Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. We're not a database mirror or fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was leaning towards delete, especially as I nominated this list for deletion the first time around. But after reading SportingFlyer's reasoning above I think this list should be kept. He's right, these statistics are what you'd find in the back of old football encyclopedias. Indeed, they're in the back of many of my Liverpool books. I don't think the list should be merged with the main article, as it will be far too big then. A separate list is a better solution. NapHit (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. The first AFD was closed as "No consensus" and right now, that looks how the 2nd AFD might close as well. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a club has appeared in Europe, the list of their European matches exist somewhere, whether on the club page, the club in European football page, or in Liverpool's case, a validly split page dedicated to the topic. I don't understand how other users are coming to the logical fallacy that this is a directory. SportingFlyerT·C20:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Joseph2302: you should type into google is an encyclopaedia a database Wikipedia itself is certainly a database, where as the policy what wikipedia is not, saying it's not a database is really false to itself. Wikipedia at times is a joke in a way, I always wonder if it will last as it always asking for lots of donations! :/ Regardless and back to topic, there are millions of articles on wikipedia that are collective data. Regardless in cell form as numbers, matches of football, baseball, Ice hockey, NFL, it's full of it. You can't single this one out. Nope, you'd be deleting every page on wikipedia if you want to go that route. Govvy (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Every single team that has played in Europe has one of these tables somewhere. Liverpool's is just the one that's been WP:SPLIT. SportingFlyerT·C22:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun: I can't see how you can apply NOSTATS as a delete argument. The stats are explained in Liverpool F.C. in international football, therefore WP:NOSTATS is technically an invalid delete argument as clearly stated by the fact on NOSTATS it says. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. So they are explained in the previous article. As for NOTDIRECTORY, that's kind of a grey area really, are you considering the list of matches a directory? The question it asks on that topic Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. Liverpool football club is certainly a notable topic, so is Liverpool football club in Europe, how about their games, there are many in the list that are highly notable. The main problem with the list is that each row needs a source. So again, how much thought did you put towards wanting to delete the article?? Regards Govvy (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So it is a magazine which has existed, published between 2003 and 2010. It was acquired by Forma (sv:Forma Publishing Group) in 2010 and merged with Leva to LevaPS!, which in turn folded in 2012, according to sv:Leva!. It's not a hoax (now that the vandalism about being the best-selling magazine in Sweden has been reverted, anyway) but I'm not entirely convinced we'll find the sources to build a good article. Would be very happy if someone would succeed though. /Julle (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling to find sources that discuss Grapevine in depth. Per the article's own description, it was "a [d]isk magazine for the Commodore Amiga published by the [d]emo scene group LSD." (my bold emphasis added). A publication by none other than those involved in the demoscene would have a high bar to clear in order to count as notable. Predictably, the few sources I can dig up refer to it passingly, and some old Amiga magazines did look at Grapevine, but from what I saw, they were reviewing the disk magazine's issues, not writing about its importance or influence in the Amiga community. The only thing that can save this article is if others happen to find more information about Grapevine, and in depth, which I could not. FreeMediaKid$23:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP: N. The Krill article is routine coverage, and the rest of the sources are closely affiliated with Userware or aren't reliable. This was dePRODed without any sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain how the most relevant online sources related to software development, such as InfoQ, Visual Studio Magazine, InfoWorld, and SD Times, could be close to Userware? Can you please tell me what you would expect as a source? If I add all the articles written about OpenSilver in the past years, will it increase the relevance according to you? The complete functional source of the framework is on GitHub, with visible contributions from tens of developers and requests from tens of people (I assume representatives of various organizations and individuals who use the framework) for improvements noted under the GitHub issues. OpenSilver is a relevant solution for many organizations trying to find a solution for their Microsoft Silverlight (already discontinued technology) legacy solutions, and it's free and open source. How is it not worth being part of Wikipedia when some of the most relevant online magazines write about its development and growth over the years? Vasbu (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any credentials for David Ramel when I first nominated the article. I took a second look, and it appears he's been writing about technology for awhile at this point. I'll consider him a reliable source then. I'll withdraw if you come forth with another source to establish notability, because notability generally requires multiple sources. On the other hand, the number of contributors and pull requests has not, is not, and will never be a metric for notability. Please keep the discussion about sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Visual Studio Magazine and David Ramel, please find the following list of sources:
InfoQ - It has been one of the most relevant online sources for software development topics since 2006. InfoQ team started following OpenSilver in 2020 and covered several releases of OpenSilver (I assume whenever they identified interest according to their editorial strategy). The writers covering OpenSilver topics are Edin Kapic, a Microsoft MVP based in Barcelona, Spain, and Arthur Casals, an AI Researcher with a Ph.D.
InfoWorld - It is one of the trusted sources of information related to open-source, application development, cloud computing, and other IT-related topics. InfoWorld has also covered OpenSilver, with a few news articles from the past 3-4 years. The OpenSilver-related articles are written by Paul Krill, an editor with 30+ years of experience in InfoWorld Media Group. InfoWorld is a part of the Foundry umbrella along with CIO, CSO, Computer World, Mac World, PC World, and others. They explicitly say they don't accept contributing articles to collect visits and publicity.
I Programmer was founded by Mike James, an editor-in-chief and author of books. I Programmer published a series of articles about OpenSilver in the past years. Besides Mike James other authors covered the articles related to OpenSilver including Alex Denham and Kay Ewbank.
Kurt Shintaku's blog - Kurt Shintaku is a Client Technology Lead at Microsoft, working for about 30 years in the corporation. He found an interest in OpenSilver in the early days when OpenSilver was beta. He recognized OpenSilver as a suitable solution for owners of Microsoft Silverlight-based solutions when Microsoft announced the end of support.
Root.cz - In 2021 Petr Krčmář was writing about OpenSilver, recognizing a potential solution in it for those who have custom developed applications based on MS Silverlight.
Spider's Web Portal - The Polish online magazine Spider's Web published an article about OpenSilver written by Hubert Thaler - an software engineer and manager with 25+ years experience in the domain. He wrote 1000+ articles for the portal.
Le Monde Informatique - One of the leading IT news websites in France. It covers software development, IT infrastructure, cybersecurity, and digital transformation. The site is known for its in-depth articles and industry analysis. They re-published the article by Paul Krill, originally written and published on InfoWorld. Jean Elyan (respected journalist with 25+ years of experience working for companies such as IDG Communications) adopted the French version of the article.
Keep - OpenSilver is the defacto open-source successor to Microsoft's Silverlight framework. [8], [9]. It has independent coverage in notable industry publications including Visual Studio Magazine and InfoWorld. GobsPint (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably this magazine was popular among the few users who clung onto the Amiga, but the OS had been dead for five years when Amiga Active was launched, and I found no evidence as to why the magazine is notable. Simply put, this article does not pass notability muster and is a permastub. FreeMediaKid$22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note AmigaOS 3.5 was released in October 1999 (the same month the magazine was introduced), so at least this part of the AfD nomination is not entirely true (there were few updates even before that - eg. new Installer utility and support for drives bigger than 4 GB). The article in question mentions a connection to former CU Amiga staff, maybe a simple redirect to our Commodore User article may be the best course of action here (the article subject is mentioned there and I may be able to find a proper source for this information). Pavlor (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my ignorance. Having fiddled with Amiga Forever for months now and uploaded dozens of Amiga-related items to the Internet Archive, I should have known better. I would have come across as less hyperbolic with language like, "The Amiga was long past its prime by 1999," and I have heard of AmigaOS 4 (it amazes me to know how such a formerly popular OS as the Amiga would receive continued support long after its original manufacturer had folded, and that was 30 years ago). FreeMediaKid$23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could find very little through a Google search; no WP:SIGCOV, only passing mentions. Reference on the article's page is a dead link, and an external link is from a primary source (via Wayback Machine) that doesn't look as though it has been updated since about 2008. Doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. ExRat (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I found this article about Svendsen in Sydsvenskan that discusses his career at length. However, this is the only piece of significant coverage that I could find. If more sources were found of this quality I would support keeping the article, but as it stands there is not enough coverage to meet general notability. Uffda608 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The text in Politikken is an article. It was published in connection with Svendsen's 70th birthday; thus the "biographical" style. /FredrikT (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: This [10] from 1979 but Google only gives me a snippet view due to copyright. He taught in Sweden for a while, there is some coverage there, [11] With those listed above, we have just barely enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage identified by Julie and others in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - Eye raising nomination, but that aside, I think this is close. There is a lot of fancruft references, interviews, general announcements, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, etc. And, winning an award or appearing on a television show does not give inherent notability (I think the Indian Telly Awards individual categories may not meet notability either). However, there are at least two references that are bylined and not just routine announcements here and here. I'll reserve a !vote at the moment in hopes someone can point out coverage that isn't routine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: most coverage is about the TV show Big Boss [12], I wouldn't call it extensive coverage. This is a RS, but what's used in the article are all marginal reliability sources per Cite Highlighter, so I'm not sure we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The user who has nominated the page for deletion is a new account created solely to ensure the page is deleted. The previous two nominations have also been a result of fandom war. As for the notability, it has been established the last 2 times as well. She has done 2 lead roles, one major reality, show, numerous music videos, a web series in post production, notable award nominations and wins. [FYI, Indian Telly Awards and Indian Television Academy Awards are two of the most notable ITV Awards regardless of whether the pages are well updated on Wikipedia or not.] The actress has sufficient coverage, apart from all her work and has more on the way. Hasty deletion to fulfill online fan wars makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.32.83 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your contibutions which is only this comment and anyone can say that you are the account created to this comment only. Columbidae5 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is looking like fan made article who is doing undo removed content. Neutral point of view is also missing in the article. It looks like promotional content. Columbidae5 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable personality. Filmography with different credits. Nominations and wins in terms of two known awards. Additionally, this seems to be another potential attempt by online supporters of other actors. The previous deletion discussion of this page was quite similar and was started by a fan of another ITV actress. This seems to be yet another example of social media hate propaganda. OCDD (talk)
Keep as she is a notable actress and model who has gained significant recognition for her role in the popular television series "Udaariyaan," contributing to her widespread popularity. Additionally, her career achievements and public interest make her a relevant figure in the entertainment industry --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. The IBTimes article about them discontinuing a product is seemingly the only reliable, secondary source in the article right now. A cursory search hasn't turned up more coverage. Brandon (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable award show sourced mainly to the parent company Bollywood Hungama. Sources I find are all unreliable or just verification of winners. Would redirect but we know how that goes so suggesting a redirect as an WP:ATD here in case full deletion is not in order. CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bollywood Hungama. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no independent and reliable sources for the event itself on the web, Google News, Google Books, Yandex etc. Since there is a lack of independent, reliable sources with SIGCOV, the article fails WP:GNG and the supplementary essay WP:NAWARDS. However, a redirect could be made to Bollywood Hungama and a brief mention could be added there for the award. The Night Watch(talk)15:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the subject of this article has been in question since 2010. The Lithuanian throne he is the third pretender to only existed for 8 months and was gone long before he was born. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the article must improve by adding more reliable sources to establish notability. The historical and genealogical context justifies its presence after several improvements.Yakov-kobi (talk) 23:47, 01 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree - the genealogical and historical context is that his grandfather was elected controversially as King of Lithuania for all of 7 months and in that time he was never even in Lithuania. Wikipedia is not for hosting genelogical entries that do not support the readers understanding of a notable topic. Given the King of Lithuania topic played out long before Karl's birth I fail to see how this article can help with that.
Keep according to the reference from the arcticle he owns a huge junk of land (3598 acres), [1] the Greshornish Forestry estate.Axisstroke (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the size of the land ownership, in this case > 1000 ha, that is a considerable piece of land and hence it is notable. Moreover if it is a notable estate it is notable. Axisstroke (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it depend on the size of the land ownership though? Do any policies exist that say land ownership is grounds for notability? If it were notable then it would be talked about in reliable sources and not just in a land ownership registry. This land in particular is a forest in a remote part of Scotland. The estate isn't notable, I can't find any sources that say much about it. There's this site that talks about a forest walk between Greshornish and Waternish https://www.visit-waternish.co.uk/greshornish-to-waternish-forests-walk/ and there is Greshornish House which is a hotel but I don't find these very compelling for the argument that the estate itself is notable and that by extension Karl would be. D1551D3N7 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A poster on the Wikipedia subreddit surfaced this as This page has very purple prose and this person doesn't exist. It's a fake name used by chinese artists that massproduce oil paintings that appeal to people who don't know much about art and are psyched to have a real oil painting. The sources seem sus. The prose is very sus. I look forward to being proven wrong and finding out this is a Very Important Artist but my gut says otherwise. jengod (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward delete. I've been looking into this too, I get no results for him (or his birth name) on various 20th century newspaper databases. The sources cited are art auction related and Worthopedia seems like it might be user generated content. All three references have wording similar to the Wikipedia article, suggesting there's some plagiarism going on here possibly although it's unclear in which direction. For example "His life can be described in a few words: a big passion for painting and art and a great love for Paris" appears in both Wikipedia and the Worthopedia reference. Not sure what's going on exactly but it does not make this source seem credible. I will keep tabs on this to see if anyone can find better sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only results I've been able to find have been of very low quality, and the sources the article itself uses are of dubious quality (as has been noted). No idea about claims of non-existence, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reputable biographical sources. If anyone does have citations that would meet standards I'd be swayed, but as it stands the article has too many issues and too little grounding for it to be worth keeping. Occo5903 (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking into the previous AfD, as well as the largest contribution here, it seems like this is possibly a real entity. However, this does not seem to pass WP:N, since there are barely any 3rd party sources referring to this artist. In addition, his website (Wayback link) seems to refer to "Antonio De Vity" as a *studio* name, which is supported in the plain text, as the "born Umberto Marone" statement. ChunyangD (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rather odd situation in which there seems to be quite a lot of citogenesis involved, to the extent that I'm not sure to what extent this is a real person or not. If this person -- again, if he existed -- were notable, I'd expect it wouldn't be such a struggle to figure this out. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cited sources are garbage. The Victoria Gallery & Museum has one of his works, but that only proves that he existed, not that anything written here in this article is true. Perhaps it is only a studio name as ChunyangD suggests. Gamaliel (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Probably not enough coverage... I find this [13] and a bunch of articles in Hello! about celebrity gossip, but nothing to use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR indeed, with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions, as Gödel2200 explained.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Update: at least 3 (see page).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Update; 6 (PLEASE see 1st Afd, where other productions and sources are mentioned...and that was closed as a clear and fair Keep)....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)09:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a tough one because while she does have a fair amount of credits, she herself has no significant third-party coverage despite being in the business for three decades, which is evident by her article having no content since the beginning, literally consisting of two sentences and a filmography. She is merely a byproduct in content focusing on Death in Paradise, and "meet the cast"–type articles do not meet SIGCOV. 💥Casualty• Hop along. •08:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to find any significant coverage of the subject, that would indicate that either WP:BIOWP:CORP or WP:CREATIVE are met. The sources cited in the article are either unreliable ([14][15]), contain only very brief mentions ([16][17]) or were written by the subject: [18]. My own searches have only turned up more of the same, e.g. [19]SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mentions of "Harlette de Falaise" are almost exclusively to Herleva, who was known by this name. Mentions in references cited in the Harlette article appear to be to a brand rather than a person. This is confirmed by a search at Companies House – Harlette is a limited company, not a person.[20] This article appears to be a work of promotional fiction. Robminchin (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other comments. I started looking into this after the recent unsourced additions; I also found that the existing sources referred to the company rather than a person, and am unable to find anything about her from reliable sources.
Naomi McGill appears to be the owner of various Harlette companies, and indeed old revisions such as this one list Naomi McGill as if it's an alternative name for the article's subject.
I wondered if the page had been hijacked from being about the fashion brand itself but it appears it's always been like this. Ligaturama (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons mentioned above. I would also like to thank Robminchin for pointing out that this is promotional fiction, because I tried to look for sources (as well as looked at the sources added in the recent COI-editing spurt), and found no reliable sources other than the historical figure, which is not the subject. Harlette, in the modern sense, appears to be some sort of business pseudonym, as the Arab News source (citation 4) has no mention of a Harlette whatsoever, but it does mention a "Nayomi", which is a similar name to the Naomi McGill mentioned in the Sunday People sources, as well as the Parliament submissions that the COI editing keeps trying to add. Even then, the real person, Naomi McGill, appears to not have the credentials she claims. The COI editing claims about Harlette having a PhD in Space Telecommunications from Kings College London (which are attempted to be proved by the Parliament submissions) are also bunk, as the university doesn't appear to offer - or to have ever offered - any sort of degree with the name "Space Telecommunications." Therefore, this shouldn't be a BLP at all - this article, for all intents and purposes, is a hoax. There is no Harlette de Falaise, as the article purports.
Even if there was an attempt to remove the fabricated parts of this article, and make it just about the real person, Naomi McGill, there aren't any reliable secondary sources that prove notability as a BLP. There are only short promotional blurbs from various news outlets, such as the PR Newswire piece. Therefore, I support deleting this article.--Panian51321:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but make the article about the company or brand, rather than the person. I think the references establish notability for the company or brand. Eastmain (talk • contribs)22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I attempted a cleanup of this article in September last year, it struck me as promotional/non-notable then but I erred on the side of leaving to improve. Thanks for the good work and nomination. Jdcooper (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Populated & legally recognized places presumed to be notable; don't see any reason this should be not legally recognized given the significant number of people who (from the photo) appear to be living in it. Article is mostly original research but contains useful information. If you really want proof it exists this discusses a wildfire happening there. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Added 2 archived references to the above article – Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan website showing population of Osakai per 2017 Census of Pakistan plus Dawn newspaper reference given above by Mrfoogles. Meets WP:GEOLAND now...Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little to indicate that the subject is notable. The subject heads a 25,000-member union and has held a string of minor government-related positions. There is no independent RS coverage on which to build an article about the subject. thena (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage in media about this union person; sourcing used now is largely about lawsuits that mention this person. I'm not seeing notability. Head of the union perhaps could be notable, chairman of the elevator safety board isn't. We don't have sourcing to confirm notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge: This covers him, but not significantly, given it's more interested in other things. This I cannot access. There are several sources, mostly dead links and bad ones, on the Illinois Elevator Safety Board, discussing the organization giving $10,000 to a politician who appointed him somewhere, but that can be merged.
The really strange thing, though, is that he appears to have possibly won a World Peace Prize? See [worldpeaceprizewashington.org/journals/ here]. But the formatting is terrible, it's unclear how official or important the website is, and it doesn't actually say whether he won it or not, besides the fact that the biography in there appears to be written by him, thereby not providing significant coverage.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Apart from the numerical majority of "delete" comments (5:2) there is the more important fact that deleters have given a number of policy compliant reasons, whereas both the keepers have just relied on OTHERSTUFF. JBW (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:SALAT. This list is distinguished from other lists such as List of Generation Z slang by the cultural dominance of the baby boomers. It's impossible to imagine this list ever being complete because its scope is not constrained to a particular decade or subculture. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg16:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article is comparable to the Glossary of Texas A&M University terms or the aforementioned List of Generation Z Slang and does have a clear scope (being years Boomers have been alive) and can be attributed to multiple subcultures. I find the argument that "it's impossible to imagine this list ever being complete" weak because if someone takes the time to develop it, they will finish it due to the existence of numerous reliable sources Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:Other stuff exists, where the existence of other similar articles is not a justification for the existence of this one. Moreover, this is not a glossary. The entry at wikt:glossary defines one as "A list of difficult words or specialized terms used in a particular book or document, or in a particular domain of knowledge, with their definitions; a list of glosses (explanatory annotations)." This is merely a list of slang words claimed to be used by old people. Besides the inclusion criteria issues I alluded to above, that's what a slang dictionary is, with the only exception being restriction to a vague timeframe or something. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is too bad; BuzzFeed and BusinessInsider listicles (or "descriptions" that say the terms pre-date 1960). If there were better sourcing, I would support a re-factoring to be about "slang from the second half of the 20th century". Walsh90210 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walsh90201. These sources are very bad, BusinessInsider and Buzzfeed are just mediocre listicles, not reliable or useful sources. One is titled "20th-century slang terms", not terms used by Boomers specifically. Just because a term was coined or was used in the '60s doesn't make it "Boomer slang". Calling Flip-flops "thongs" is still in use by many. Searching for "submarine races" does give some results that corroborates the definition, but it doesn't appear to have been widely used. A quick search for "slurg" has zero sources that this was a even real term besides some articles about "50s slang", which would mean it's not "Boomer slang". "Skinny" is also still in use; if it was first used in WWII, what exactly makes it "Boomer slang"? Just a vague, awful list here that I don't think can be salvaged. Reywas92Talk14:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have the appropriately N terms already in the categories Category:1950s slang and Category:1960s slang; not only do we usually not classify trends under 'media names' for generations to begin with, we wouldn't do it under derisive nicknames either (Baby Boomer slang would be much more appropriate here). Nate•(chatter)23:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While I'm sure this list seemed like a good idea when it was started in 2015, it is no longer practical to keep it updated. According to Wikidata, there are about 1000 non-binary people with Wikipedia articles. This list only includes about 200 of them (including some that probably don't belong, like Prince). The number of notable non-binary people is growing at a rapid rate and I think this information is better handled via Wikidata and categories (the same as we handle other genders). By only listing a small fraction, we are giving the false impression that there are a much smaller number of notable non-binary people than there really are. If you disagree, please elaborate on how you think this list can be realistically kept up-to-date into the future. Nosferattus (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: Seems reasonable to handle the same as other gender identities. Is it possible to redirect to Category:Non-binary people (even though it's out of the article namespace)? The downside would be that there's no central list: categories organize things as trees, and it's impossible to view an actual list of all the people. But that may be inevitable. If wikidata gives a list view, maybe it's possible to link to wikidata somehow? Mrfoogles (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under that same logic, there are a lot of lists that should then be deleted. There are plenty of lists on Wikipedia that I would consider to meet the logic laid out in your standards, such as the ones other users have already mentioned.
And, yes, we have category listings but those are really a difference of formatting. One is a list on a singular page and the other is a directory that leads to a list. See, Lists of Women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_women) which leads to several sub lists with a formatting that exactly matches the list whose deletion is being proposed. Annabelledempsey97 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We maintain a list of the 1,025 Pokémon, so why not the roughly 900 pages in Category:Non-binary people? That's a large but not intractable number of entries, and not even close to the largest stand-alone list on Wikipedia (I've personally touched List of women authors which includes over 8000 entries). Updating the article to include all current English Wikipedia biography subjects in that cat (excluding the dozen which are fictional, like Toad) is a perfectly feasible task for a motivated volunteer with a spreadsheet. There is no deadline. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's helpful at all, I got an LLM to spit out a SPARQL query, which retrieves the relevant data for whatever set of article subjects are correctly tagged as being non-binary humans in Wikidata (875, at time of writing). –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoxySaunders: That's a good start, although there are also 46 gender identities in Wikidata that are subclasses of non-binary. Plus we need references for all of them (or at least the living ones, which is most of them). Nosferattus (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Zero references to establish notability. After searching, found other people of same name, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific person. PROD removed 27 June 2024; PROD reverted 27 October 2022; PROD on 27 October 2022; Created on 27 August 2014. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!15:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Azerbajani article gives 1 reference: "Tamxil Ziyəddinoğlu, "Hafiz Baxış-80". Bütöv Azərbaycan qəzeti, №36(168), 17-23 oktyabr 2012-ci il." This appears to be an article in a reasonable news source. I can't find it but I think he may have significant coverage. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. None of the reference links work. The airlines never commenced operations. This has been tagged for notability since 2011.
Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Digi.noarticle, but it consists of telling what one of the organizers said. Other than that, I was only able to find mentions and short descriptions, such as "The two pure demo parties in Norway are Solskogen, which is organised in July every year, and Kindergarden, which is held in November. Kindergarden can boast that it is the world's oldest demo party that is still organised."
Redirect: All the sources are self-published or that Digi.no article which is pretty much just an event announcement. Could not find anything on google for it either. Probably sufficient to put "Amiga-focused demoparty which began in a kindergarden in YEAR and ended in YEAR, reaching 200 attendees in YEAR". Mrfoogles (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a shortage of independent reliable sources on the page about the topic which show that the standards of inclusion per the WP:GNG. There’s nothing much I can find otherwise. JMWt (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as an ATD we could redirect to Wimbledon Championships where much of the content is replicated. My difficulty is that this could be misleading (Wimbledon is a place outside of the tennis championship) and it seems an unlikely search term. JMWt (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a lot here and this was a very popular radio broadcast. I listened to it in the evening for years and years. Perhaps it should be an all-encompassing article on Wimbledon on the radio? Now it's handled by "Wimbledon Radio." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sufficient independent references although the article probably needs to be reduced in length to remove some of the unsourced material which is more than a decade out of date. Rillington (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources 2&3 in the article seem to meet the WP:GNG with multiple paragraphs of independent coverage in each, combined with [[24]] I think there is enough to meet the notability guidelines. Some cleanup is needed but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Could not find any reliable coverage of the book. Only sources here are Goodreads (see WP:GOODREADS) and an article about the film. Nothing of value to save here. I say redirect to the film's page where more info about the novel could be added as I'm sure it is at least mentioned in some detail in articles about the film. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Dinis Lopes never played in a professional league match and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. After many searches, I was able to find some routine coverage but no WP:SIGCOV. Sapo was probably the best source but it only really confirms that he signed a two-year contract and that he used to play for Pedras Rubras. Record is basically the same as Sapo above. Mais Futebol has a transfer announcement, this time about him signing for Salgueiros, but it contains no significant coverage. Lastly, Labor is another transfer announcement with only minimal coverage of Lopes. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)12:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: significant coverage does not appear to exist and fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Both portuguese and english sources have been searched for Mrfoogles (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it lacks sufficient verifiable sources to establish notability, making it difficult to confirm the significance of his contributions or achievements. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources do not seem to be findable and the current article is only sourced to databases, and also doesn't really say anything. Oddly enough, there's an identically named man on the portuguese Wikipedia who is entirely unrelated here. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pedrinho Rodrigues never participated in a professional league match and seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC as far as I can tell. I've searched his common name and full name, including in conjunction with clubs that he played for, and can find nothing other than database sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)12:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep also : Not sure why there are profiles, but there appear to be Il Sole 24 Ore covering his return from America, il Fatto Quotidiano covering Italy 2030, what appears to be a book review I'm not sure of the independence of. Along with another book review, these are the only independent reliable sources the book has. Given a couple news stories about him and a number of sources on his books, it seems reasonable to write a short article. He seems to be notable for maybe the Italy 2030 project and his popular books?
Given the large number of sources, I wonder if it's possible to show they pass Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? That would pretty much resolve this debate, because this article would obviously contain the books. And given he has his own news sources, it seems reasonable to also discuss him.
Does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG,) not an important school in Malaysia, and no reliable and independent sources cited or significant coverage. N niyaz (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines ; most of the secondary sources cited are paid materials by Multimedia University (see WP:SPIP.) N niyaz (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I cited most of the secondary sources in the article. I would like to ask the nominator for deletion N niyaz, is it possible to list some of the secondary sources that you claimed are paid materials by Asia Pacific University? KjjjKjjj (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay @KjjjKjjj I made a little mistake there, what I meant was Multimedia University. Also the school receives no significant coverage and most of the sources are just mentions. Unfortunately what's best is to make it a redirect.
@KjjjKjjj You could already tell by the topic and style of the writing that it is a press release/paid article. Trying to find a paid article disclaimer in the sources is just stupid. N niyaz (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a novel theory that has seen close to zero uptake in the field so far. I can only find a single reference to the concept and/or paper [41], and that is a passing mention in an unreviewed preprint. This is not at all surprising because the paper was only published a month ago. Someone is trying to use WP as a publicizing platform here. There is as yet no notability basis for this topic. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an hypothesis by one author and it has not gained any consensus by the scientific community. The two papers are primary sources and should not be used alone. Graham Beards (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One guy's idea with no discernible influence (in other words, not even noteworthy as an idea people have taken the trouble to explicitly reject). Not what Wikipedia is for. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Work by a single author. Independent of whether the 2024 work is going to end up as notable, to date there is no evidence that it is. The second 2019 paper has been cited 9 times and is already in Living systems and Life, perhaps others. Move anything useful to one of those. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately used anything useful to not make a judgement here about the validity of the work. I see that you have removed the 2nd paper from those pages -- it was there when I voted. I must abstain on what useful aspects go into other pages as it is well into my incompetence. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [42] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDistortion22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. No chart activity or notable label work, the usual namedropping of famous artists in attempt to establish notability, and promotional-sounding sources. Never mind the horribly written article with all proper names in lowercase. 💥Casualty• Hop along. •09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see how his music comfort you made itself notable before raising the artist to prominence, promotionally raising a music to stream 20m views on YouTube. The sources sounds advertorial —announcement of new album/release. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!01:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable chef. All sources in the article are primary and the only credible source which is a BBC report mentions the subject in passing. Before search did not yield anything useful. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Business person not eligible for an article. Media sources used in the article are from blogs which are unreliable. A before search brought press statements issued by their business entities with passing mention of them. others found are interviews written in news article formats which extensively quoted their onw words Ednabrenze (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an Iranian ballistic missile. The article is clearly written from a fan or someone with a pecuniary or otherwise disallowed interest in the matter, which violates WP:NPOV. Alongside this, the article relies on Persian sources, which would challenge WP:MOS. These sources are biased and the majority are from Iranian state-sponsored news sources and agencies, and the author had designed it this way. The article also has a large amount of grammatical and otherwise errors. I would have liked for the article to remain with a NPOV and grammatically correct form, however at this point I believe that it is too far gone. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article's tone is a little odd, but it's okay to like missiles. Also, googling the subject immediately gives a number of reliable sources, which are also in English:
Current article may be bad but if it's bad enough to delete the article can honestly just be blanked and restarted as a stub. Maybe delete everything cited to state-sponsored news, condense the rest, and leave it at that? Mrfoogles (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are plenty of sources. It’s daft to object to Iranian sources about an Iranian missile. Deletion is not cleanup so if the tone and language need to be improved, anyone can go ahead and improve them. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Available sources appear to be primary documentation, press releases, or copies of this article. It doesn't seem significant enough to pass WP:NSOFT. Ligaturama (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NMUSIC. His only claim to fame is attached to Eminem, and that was 27 years ago. No notable discography or chart activity, and the titles of the citations in the article don't even mention the subject, but other rappers. 💥Casualty• Hop along. •20:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMUSIC. WP:NMUSIC states "Musicians ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Otherwize clearly meets 3 of the criteria: #1, #7, and #9.
1. He has been featured in multiple documentaries (Where We're From and Freestyle: The Art of Rhyme), books (The Come Up, The Way I Am, King Khule, Born a Villain), and articles (HipHopDX, etc.). His prominence in the documentaries have nothing to do with Eminem, so they are not inherited notability.
7. In Where We're From, Otherwize is cited as the most prominent battle rapper in his region (LA) during this era. That has nothing to do with Eminem, so it's not inherited notability.
9. Otherwize won 1st Place and 3rd Place in major national music competitions (Rap Olympics '97 and Scribble Jam '99). Granted, one of those was defeating Eminem, but the other one was not, and they are still placings in national music competitions regardless of who he defeated. So this is not inherited notability.
He is also part of a notable crew called Project Blowed, which is also a subject of documentaries (This is the Life and Hip-Hop Evolution). He featured on the important Los Angeles underground albums Beneath the Surface and Cater to the DJ. Hierarchitectitiptitoploftical (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blues Brothers. Doing a search, there is some newspaper coverage but I didn't find enought to convince me that the subject meets GNG. I'll add a source or two so there will be some cited content. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several reviews on ProQuest: One in Library Journal (ProQuest ID 196790216), one in Choice magazine (PQ 225716546), possibly reviewed (I can't see if it's an actual review or just saying This Book Was Published, but it says it was a review) in College & Research Libraries News (PQ 203713400), full review in the New York Review of Science Fiction (PQ 2152382677). And that was just a light search on ProQuest, I would guess a few more if I was more thorough, but this is enough for GNG and NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG: I don't see this as a matter requiring AfD. You could just simply move "Sul Ross State University Lobos" over the redirect "Sul Ross State Lobos". BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I completely agree with this recommendation and approach (I created this article, now a redirect, in the first place). ElKevbo (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a crypto entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs of companies are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to establish that they pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own company's press releases and his own self-created YouTube videos and a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and one more is an unreliable source crypto-news forum. And what's left for reliable sources is one Forbes article that just briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite and one Forbes article that completely fails to contain even a glancing namecheck of Peter Wall at all, and instead is just here to tangentially verify stray facts about a company without providing any evidence that any of those facts have anything in particular to do with Peter Wall. As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative for tech entrepreneurs, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I complete understand your reservations about Peter Wall, and it was never my intention to sound like a Linkedin profile. Maybe I did not do due negligence when sourcing my references but the entire of the article was becuase he is a notable man both in Canadian media and in bitcoin. Can I nominate that we move the article to a draft while I source for other sources which do exist on the individual concerned and am sure when you searched online you will find that Peter Wall is extensively covered. LynnEditor.Nam (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: current sourcing is Canada C3 Coast to Coast describing him as a team member (non-independent), a coworking space review mentioning his company but not him, two sources by him (non-independent), and two sources mentioning him joining and leaving as CEO without saying much about (providing significant coverage of) him, one short source about an IPO not mentioning him, and the bitcoin mining rush source which includes a quote from him and says basically nothing else. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as suggested: nominator is being unnecessarily harsh by calling it "not a free linkedin alternative" but I cannot find sources googling that are not associated with him, by him, or coverage that does not go into detail of him being in various positions.
Per Wikipedia:Notability, significant coverage (at least a paragraph specifically talking about him and who he is) from at least two reliable, independent (not affiliated with, employing, employed by, working together with him) sources is necessary for an article so that it can be written sufficiently independently and in-depth. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This isn't a notable person. This is about the best [44] and it's a PR item. A video journalist is just a "grunt behind the camera", to be blunt, and isn't notable. He's reported on things that happened, which is what videographers do. The crypto connection isn't helping notability. There is a real estate person in Vancouver that has coverage (with the same name), but it's not this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. PamD09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. PamD15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I was the nominator for the first creation and my review still stands. No coverage since that time can be considered reliable enough to show notability. Based on the willingness to push this down Wikipedia's throat, would recommend SALTING or we will likely wind right back here in a few months. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Written like an advertisement, no references cited, no indication of notability. These are long-standing issues (5+ years) with no attempts made by other editors to fix. Ultimately, this could probably be deleted and merged into Monarch Pass. GSK (talk • edits) 04:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book notes: "Monarch Pass, c. 1936. People have been skiing the mountains surrounding the valley of Monarch Mountain since 1914. Monarch's first unofficial winter season was in 1936, when James Kane and the Salida Winter Sports Club brought a Chevy truck engine up Monarch Pass highway. Other skiers instrumental in the initial opening of the area were Thor Groswold, Sven Wiik, and Charlie Vail. By 1939, the club applied to the US Forest Service for a permit to cut trails, construct a lodge, and erect a lift. The first run cut at Monarch was Gunbarrel, an expert trail with a 30 percent slope. During the first official ski season of 1939–1940, season passes cost $1. Rope tow revenues netted over $50, with 25¢ day tickets. Ownership of the resort changed multiple times, with each change resulting in additional lifts, more terrain, and a base lodge. Stability returned to Monarch in the 1990s after a turbulent decade throughout the 1980s when the area filed for bankruptcy. In 2006, the Mirkwood Basin opened to skiers and riders willing to hike."
The review notes: "Monarch is rare in the ski-resort world, running on 100 percent natural snow (about 350 inches annually) leading to the resort’s motto “We don’t make snow. Mother Nature does.” The resort’s base elevation of nearly 11,000 feet helps keep the snow fluffy and frequent. And most of the more difficult trails remain un-groomed, providing a true backcountry feel with the ease of chairlift access. And for anyone looking for more than a backcountry feel, there are 130 acres of hike-to terrain."
The review notes: "I first discovered Monarch Mountain in the winter of 1995. I was on my annual pilgrimage from the Front Range to Crested Butte for its ski-for-free weekend when we pulled our old Subaru Outback, bottoming out under five ski buddies and gear, off U.S. Highway 50 into the area's dirt parking lot for a pee break. ... Somewhere between cheap lift tickets, nine inches of fresh pow, nonexistent lift lines, and steep shots like Gunbarrel and High Anxiety that filled back in after every lap, I fell in love with Monarch Mountain. We ended the day in the Sidewinder Saloon, Monarch's only bar, for an après-ski scene that embodied all of the comfort and camaraderie a down-home, slopeside watering hole should. Though I didn't realize it then, that chance stop sold me on the beauty of Monarch and reminded me why I love skiing. Fast-forward 16 years, and nothing much has changed at Monarch. It now sports a terrain park and new steep lines and tree runs that came with the 130-acre expansion into Mirkwood Basin, but those improvements only built upon the fundamentals: deep snow, few crowds, and an unpretentious group of hardcore skiers and beginners alike."
The article notes: "For this special occasion, deep-winter getaway, a retro theme seemed apropos, with “most snow” and “funky factor” used as criteria for mountain selection. Monarch Mountain, circa 1939, which has been getting hammered by storms all season, won out. Modest in vertical rise — just 1,162 feet of elevation gain between its 10,790-foot base and the 11,952-foot peak – Monarch packs a lot of punch and fall-line skiing into an area slightly larger than Aspen Mountain. At the start of an early January storm that would drop 35 inches in less than 24 hours, we set out from Aspen for a deceptively long drive given Monarch’s close-as-the-crow-flies location (like Crested Butte) in the central Rockies."
The article notes: "Monarch ski area is busy. Pass sales more than doubled in the past three seasons. Skiers have flocked to the Chaffee County ski area, with visitation reaching more than 210,000 in 2022-23, up from 140,000 when Bob Nicolls led his investment group to buy the 800-acre ski area in 2002. "
The article notes: "This project has been years in the making. PowderMonarch LLC, which owns Monarch Mountain ski area, filed its application for the expansion on Oct. 6, 2021. Monarch is also one of the oldest ski areas in the state, having first opened to the public in 1939, according to the Forest Service’s environmental assessment of the project."
The article notes: "The ski area had built itself on grit. Locals in 1936 formed a sports club on the mountain, powering a shoddy rope tow with a six-cylinder truck engine. The pass was finished over the next few years, spelling greater access and higher popularity. ... All the while, Monarch has resisted the industry trend of glitz and conglomeration. Possibly on deck for the future: a terrain expansion on the mountain’s backside, along with another lift."
The article notes: "Monarch Mountain has come a long way from a one-run wonder to the 75-year-old beauty it is today. When Monarch opened in 1939, it was constructed by Works Project Administration workers and featured a 500-foot rope tow driven by a gear box from an old oil derrick. Today, Monarch features six chair lifts and 54 runs plus nearly 1,000 acres of back country skiing opportunities."
LeBlanc, Pam (March 2021). "Colorado Ski Gems". Austin Travels Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
The article notes: "I’ve always bypassed Monarch, assuming it didn’t have enough terrain to keep me interested. I was wrong. The cozy, 800-acre ski area doesn’t have any on-mountain lodging. The closest is the no-frills Monarch Mountain Lodge a few miles away, where you can get a room for about $100 and a free shuttle to the ski resort. Nearby, you can explore restaurants and shops in town, swim laps at the Salida Hot Springs Aquatic Center downtown, or detour over to Mount Princeton Hot Springs Resort after a day of skiing and plop yourself into a pool of steamy water right along a riverbank. Monarch Mountain officially opened as a ski area in 1939, but its off-the-beaten path location means it’s less crowded."
The article notes: "For more than 80 years, this central Colorado ski area along the Continental Divide has drawn powderhounds. Its fairly modest size — 800 acres and a 1,100-foot vertical drop — is counterbalanced by 350 inches of average annual snowfall that can stay untracked for several days past a storm, plus guided snowcat skiing on 1,600 additional acres of advanced terrain. Experts also love the hike-to, backcountry-style runs in Mirkwood Basin. Recent required thinning of pine-beetle-stricken trees has opened up more gladed skiing across the mountain. (Denver-based Meier Skis sells custom Monarch models using some of that harvested wood.) Many guests opt to stay in the artsy, riverside town of Salida, 20 miles east."
Keep per Cunard's fine research. Sadly we have many articles needing editing improvement for 5+ or even 10+ years, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable.--Milowent • hasspoken15:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG, before you nominate articles for deletion, you really should search in the native language of the topic. As you're the one making the proposal, I'd argue the burden of proof is on you to follow through with it. With machine translation it's really not that hard, as you only need a high-level understanding of what each source says. Almost every day I see deletion nominations like these.
Weak delete – I am not an expert at Korean sources and cannot quite tell you which of these sources are reliable right now, but this is what I'm finding:
sisaprime.co.kr, listed entry that is given ridiculously high praise (Google Translate gives me Kakao Webtoon, which has created major action/martial arts/fantasy masterpieces that will leave a lasting mark in webtoon history, such as .. Red Storm. Segye.com might be a copy, extremely similar text)
I currently have no idea which of these are reliable, but sourcing is fairly weak either way. If someone can find better sources I haven't found yet, I'd be happy to see them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Coverage in a newspaper from Uganda [45], doesn't appear to be a "pay to publish" article, I suppose Ugandans watch South Korean online manga-type stories? Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Observer.ug article is a coverage of a different comic. Red Storm is only mentioned. The second source is just a single-sentence announcement. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the NCORP sourcing criteria as most of the sources are routine announcements, trade publications or brief mentions. S0091 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would help to add to the Arsenal season, however that would negate any redirect to Club Atlético Independiente the other team in it. Maybe adding a sponsorship section on Zenith Data Systems with a snippet there? I am still not sure of a redirect. But there are sources, a few on the article, one Guardian source in the external link. Maybe some other sources out there. It could be possible for some basic GNG pass here. Not sure know. Guess I am running at an abstain vote here. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Doesn't merit a redirect. GiantSnowman19:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The awards are verifiable especially those from NIRA, the Authority Domain Registry in Nigeria. The information on the awards is stated on NIRA website as per https://www.nira.org.ng and that has a lot of weight. 4555hhm (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.
Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix₵02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There are no sources establishing WP:N. The definition is based on a 2016 blog entry apparently by the main contributor to the article. The rest of the sources appear to discuss the Ogg and MP3 codecs, their history and merits - but not the topic of the article (the link for the last source that might have contained some information does not work, but the site does not appear to be a good WP:RS). The article was WP:BLARed in January of the 2016, but restored per the Articlefy (without prejudice) result of an RfD WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_31#Oggcast. The article was WP:PRODded in January 2012, so going the AfD route. Викидим (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article lacked notability at the time of creation and the passage of time has only made that more clear. Brandon (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no non-blog available sources other than things used for original research; even if the term was notable it could easily and more appropriately be under OGG. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This feels like more of a snobby and complex WP:HOWTO about how to listen to non-notable podcasts made that way on purpose because of a bizarre hate of an industry standard file format, and only one of them has a bluelink (and moved onto acceptance of MP3 long ago). I'm not saying Ogg is a bad format at all, just that this is a niche that nobody for a high-quality open audio format is searching for (people talking about the format they're listening to when MP3 serves that purpose just fine and plays on anything). Nate•(chatter)20:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mention me on reply; thanks!) 01:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
