The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete a promotional article that seems to be native advertising created by a now blocked sockpuppet of a suspected undisclosed paid editor. There is a lack of non-promotional coverage in reliable sources so
WP:GNG is not passed in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
00:09, 28 August 2020 (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.
Wikipedia politics spans thousands of years. Not only was Bernie never nominated, there doesn't seem to be many unusual controversies, aside from a couple coverage disputes. Compared to human history as a whole, his campaign just wasn't that controversial. Many voters simply disagreed with his ideas.
Atdevel (
talk)
23:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, or Merge with
Bernie Sanders, and/or
2016 campaign, and/or
2020 campaign. While the nominator's rationale is vague and a bit difficult to parse, this monstrosity has been a blatant
WP:NPOVWP:POVFORK from the very beginning. The entire concept of the article is laughable, and the topic has received no sustaining coverage since Sanders lost the primary. I think the article would've been deleted ages ago if it weren't for the IP and SPA activity in prior discussions.
KidAdtalk23:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
KEEP A rather large number people participated earlier this year in an AFD for this. Nothing has changed. Reliable sources give significant coverage to this, so it passes the general notability guidelines, just as it did the previous times it went to AFD.
DreamFocus02:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Reliable sources give significant coverage to this. A two-part rebuttal:
(1) Many many things gets significant coverage in a presidential election. If a campaign screams "the media is biased", it will often get reported by someone. Every election also has meta pieces about "media coverage" and "media bias" mentioning many candidates. For example, the best sources in this article are academic books and reports which cover media coverage in general and mention many presidential candidates.
(2) There is not significant coverage about this subject beyond what could easily be covered in one paragraph in the
Bernie Sanders bio and 2-3 paragraphs in the
Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign and
Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign pages. The high-quality sourcing in this article is primarily about media coverage in general during the 2016 campaign, with sources covering Sanders as much as they cover Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich, and far less than they cover Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The only reason why a specific Sanders page was created was because "the media is against Sanders" became a popular refrain among Sanders supporters and his campaign, which conservatives then latched onto to justify their own hatred of the media and/or to sow discord among Democrats. On the basis of "significant coverage", similar articles could be created for Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, and Gary Johnson because those candidates all made similar claims about media bias which were covered by reliable sources. There are probably more high-quality RS that cover Rubio and Cruz's grievances during the 2016 campaign. None of these politicians merit a unique "Media coverage of X" article because their grievances can easily be covered in 1-2 paragraphs in larger general articles, just as the Sanders campaign's can.
Snooganssnoogans (
talk)
02:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NPOV and
WP:VERIFIABILITY, the same reasons I gave when nominating this article for deletion in January: Bernie Sanders is still the only BLP with an entire page devoted to media coverage of the subject. While the media's coverage of Sanders may be notable, I doubt he is the only person in the world for whom this is the case. This article was started as a
WP:POVFORK asserting that the media is biased against Sanders. While the title was changed from "Media bias against Bernie Sanders", the content has not reflected this change. It is still a list of assertions from pundits alleging bias against Sanders with limited rebuttal and remarkably little verifiable fact. Some of this content could be merged into his page and pages for his presidential campaigns, but the article as it stands is far from encyclopedic, and my attempts to make constructive edits have been repeatedly rebuffed to the point where I have stopped editing the page. --
WMSR (
talk)
02:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I firmly reject the premise of the nomination. This is a notable subject. That said, in the previous AfD, I advocated for the removal of this version of the article because it was politically hijacked by
WP:AGENDA people to turn it into the dismissive article it currently is. If you read the article, only one side is being presented. It is so non-sensical to repeatedly say "there is nothing to see here folks" when the details and depth of the allegations they are defending against are not presented. You "doth protest too much, methinks" We should have a proper article about the Bernie Blackout. I always advocate for retention of valid content, however I do not like wikipedia hosting incorrect information. This version of the article removed a large amount of content that previously told the story. It is now incomplete, distorted and thus incorrect information.
Trackinfo (
talk)
05:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge with
Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election or a similar article. Per
WP:NOT: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. US presidential elections get enormous, saturation-volume media coverage and even minor details would be sufficient to pass the
GNG, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on them. Taking a longer view I don't think Bernie Sanders is going to be nearly significant enough to justify this kind of treatment. While he's an influential figure now, he's also a US Senator known for unsuccessfully seeking the Democratic presidential nomination twice, and I don't think he will be widely remembered, say, fifty years from now. Imagine how people would feel about an article on, say,
Media coverage of George McGovern. I also think it's significant that this article consists almost entirely of statements some person or group has made about media coverage of Bernie Sanders, referenced to the place where those statements were made. The coverage apparently doesn't allow building a narrative, as opposed to a series of isolated quotes. Hut 8.507:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep If only because I see little reason to delete and it is still kind of topical, maybe after the election if things quiet down, could do a merge.
Selfstudier (
talk)
12:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The first source is composed from opinion quotes. All the others are about Bernie's view of the media, not about media coverage of him.
Atdevel (
talk)
20:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
No, the articles outline how Sanders has been covered in the media and include comments about the coverage by Sanders supporters, journalists and media observers. There is general agreement on the facts presented, and differing opinions on the reasons.
TFD (
talk)
21:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Had it just been a talking point during the 2020 campaign, it would have been one thing, but it was the same during the 2016 campaign too. There are ample sources discussing the Bernie Blackout phenomena (
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5]) and even a full-length documentary (
[6]). The topic is unquestionably notable.
ImTheIP (
talk)
21:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
An article for the documentary would make sense, but this would be very different from the current article. Relative historical significance should be taken into account in assessing importance, and Bernie didn't even get the nomination once, which simply increases the chance for being president.
Atdevel (
talk)
23:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: He was a major part of the 2020 primaries and nature / bias in media coverage of the various candidates has been a significant topic //
Timothy :: talk00:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge to
Sarah Zucker. Zucker is an artist who makes lots of
animated gifs. The "consultancy" is a joke. She's not advertising anything. If the creator has a CoI, they're astonishingly uninformed about the subject. The more likely explanation is that they attended an edit-a-thon in 2016 and tried to make an article about something they were interested in, but have not stuck around long enough to learn how to do it properly.
Vexations (
talk)
22:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Sarah Zucker, it's already mentioned there and there is nothing of substance to merge. I'm not really sure if Zucker is notable either but she appears to be more notable than her company, so this seems fine for now.
Spicy (
talk)
02:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Lacks notability. Can’t find a lot of reliable sources to corroborate much of the information within the article, source supporting his death is relatively weak. Doesn’t look like much of his filmography is notable either.
Rusted AutoParts20:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets
WP:AUTHOR which states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Some of the movies such as Ed Wood are pretty well known. Altough, this article lacks proper references and needs lot's of work.
Expertwikiguy (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
08:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete For somebody recently-deceased, you'd expect to be able to find obituaries to source and improve the article, but I can't find anything of the sort. If we can't fix up the article, we shouldn't have it.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Nothing that passes GNG, BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. He co-wrote The Unofficial NFL Players Handbook, it's humor, but I still thought it would pass something in
WP:NSPORT, but I couldn't find anything. //
Timothy :: talk07:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator's statement: Non notable activist/detective, fails
WP:GNG. All of references are misleading/unrelated. No mention of the person nowhere in references. I did google search with "Mittir Masi" & "মিত্তির মাসি" but unable to find one single source (while searching, please don't confuse with
Mitin Masi (মিতিন মাসি)).
আফতাবুজ্জামান (
talk)
20:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Mittir Masi is a planned baseless article to troll a non-notable female of Facebook. This article has almost cloned the name of a genuine article
Mitin Masi. First, three citations nothing related to either this article or article
Mitin Masi. Citation 4th, 5th and 6th are for article
Mitin Masi and 7th citation are not related for both the articles. So there is not a single citation for this article. This article is created by a new user. I came to know abt this article after receiving complaints from a journalist who read Wikipedia. It's a serious issue after my complain Bengali Wikipedia deleted this article. Hope you too will take genuine action to the editor and for the article. Some site publishes Wikipedia articles like
this and they hv started defaming that person providing the reference of Wikipedia. This is a serious planned offence to the woman. How come without a single verified citation for this person this article remain for more than a week? Pls take action to those editors and block those ip if IP address is used, I am afraid if media take this issue moral of an editor like us will be down. ---
Sumita Roy Dutta (
talk)
10:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: The content has descriptions and language more suitable for a comic book character and not an actual person. This is in line with the above remarks by bnwiki editors (which I'm not) suspecting a bogus biography and possibly not in good faith. Note that the only other page on this subject was
deleted from the Bengali WP. The statements in the
Wikidata item provide only the English WP page as references. --
Deborahjay (
talk)
11:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Once again, per every deletion policy and guideline, "Fails to establish notability" is not a valid reason to nominate articles (especially multiple articles) for deletion. You should be aware of
WP:DELREASON by now.
Per
WP:ARTN, "Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."
Per
WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or
citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."
Per
WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
Per
WP:GNG, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."
Verifiability means that sources need to be connected with the article. If you can find adequate sources you can add them to the article. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, so we show no deference to past editors and follow sourcing, not inividual whims.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Negative. Nothing in
WP:Verifiability overrides deletion nomination policy. If you believe or can establish that an article truly fails
WP:GNG, then you have a basis for a nomination. "There aren't enough sources in the article to establish WP:GNG" doesn't cut it, particularly when it comes to filing multiple nominations. Darkknight214918:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep; as per discussions above, I feel the nominator needs to come back here and demonstrate lack of notability. In the absence of same, Keep. --
Whiteguru (
talk)
11:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep The nominator does not say if they completed a Before search for sources before nominating for deletion. They may have done so, but judging from the deletion rationale it seems they did not. I agree that this article should be kept, at least for now.
Rhino131 (
talk)
16:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
At this point, I feel like a detective. What a con job this article has been for more than a decade now! Please bear with me as I enumerate all the evidence gathered and the problems with this fluff-fest. Why 3rd nomination, you ask? Well, in the
first one in 2009, the subject's self-published music albums were mistakenly believed to be independent, and from what i see "significant coverage" was misapplied to the one event of him auctioning his future earnings on ebay to raise funds. The
2nd nom in 2017 was by a drive-by user, so was a procedural speedy keep. Now. I've dug around enough. Here's the problem with this article: it wholly fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO!
Then there's the fact that the article has only ever been edited by
the subject, sockpuppets, and Single Purpose Accounts, and most recently
User:Musiceditor123, another SPA ( and as it appears a
self-confessed associate to boot!), who has been at it since 2010 and has only added promotional junk like
this,
this and
this about startups/philanthropy/awards; uploaded the subject's images or created articles about his song/album (now deleted).
Every single link I can find on Shayan Italia is promotional and PR-fed (yes, including that The Hindu entertainment section link). Most are about his millions of views of Youtube video of the Indian National Anthem, which are all promos/campaigns/interviews copied from this
press release. It was a well-orchestrated, publicity campaign by the digital agency BC Web Wise (see PR) coinciding with India's i-Day. All of it fails MUSICBIO 1#ii (Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising). The other 'notable' bit about the eBay auction was back in 2009, as mentioned in the Guardian. It is trivial fluff - a whacky story about a crazy-sounding online event in pre-social media world. Both these are instances of
WP:ONEEVENT. There have been no albums released since the article was created, no major songs, no music of any note for someone whose alleged notability is of a singer. The ones cited in first nom were self-published by the company FM Publishing (now shut), whose directors are Italia (yes, he) and family.
See liquidation report. The subject fails every criterion under WP:MUSICBIO.
I'm taking the liberty of notifying all who were involved in the previous noms (barring sockpuppets) to re-examine the new evidence and sources (if they are keen, that is):
Hekerui,
L0b0t,
EdJohnston,
Michig,
Drmies,
Abecedare,
Bongomatic,
Serial Number 54129,
SoWhy. Have done so because this is a serious and a very long (unadressed?) case of possible Paid Editing and heavy COI, and such an article makes a travesty of Wikipedia!
Concluding request: If anyone is voting Keep, could you please not just say "many articles exist about him" and, instead, provide exact links to stories you found to be independent, in-depth, non-PR. Also, if anyone thinks I've misstepped anywhere, I'd be glad to be corrected. Thanks! Best regards,
MaysinFourty (
talk)
18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Those people that were pinged--I'm in good company, but
User:EdJohnston was there as well (and Bongo...I miss you). I voted "delete" a long time ago, and I had reasons for it--lack of sourcing, or lack of proper sourcing to generate notability. I see no reason to change my mind, but my old friend Hekerui probably sees no reason to change theirs. That Musiceditor might well be a sock, but it's kind of a useless question given how old the other account is; for our purposes, though,
this edit alone was enough to block them as a "SPAM ONLY" account, and that's what I placed.
Drmies (
talk)
20:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: I have revisited my 'delete' vote in the original 2009 AfD and have the same opinion now. It seems there was a rumor that he had released 'Deliverance' on Universal, a major label. Further study gives no evidence that Universal made such a release. A check for
'Shayan Italia' on discogs.com suggests he has one album, 'Deliverance', released by FM Publishing Limited in 2006 and a few singles and EPs. That firm only ever released records by him, and was
liquidated in 2015, as pointed out above by the nominator. Two of the stockholders were surnamed 'Italia'. So we would probably conclude that his records were self-published.
EdJohnston (
talk)
13:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment FWIW re: the Universal label. Many self-promoting music acts claim an impressive sounding affiliation with Universal for simply being a customer of their distribution services. It's not the same as being signed and paid by a major label to be part of their galaxy of recording artists; it's just the opposite--a service available from a major Music conglomerate to any music label that is willing to let Universal distribute their product for a percent of sales, and dutifully entered in their database as "available" from Universal (which duped an earlier AfD editor into thinking this artist was releasing on a major label.) The reason why you can't find Shayan Italia among lists of Universal recording artists is because the actual label is FM Publishing, which is his own company. It is not a major label.
ShelbyMarion (
talk)
15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Johnston. I admit my earlier "keep" !vote was probably based, asymmetrically, on the
WP:OBVIOUSSOCK rather than the article itself. I have lived; but more importantly, I have learned.
——Serial 08:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
——Serial08:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. I sniffed around again and continue not to find any evidence of meeting the applicable guidelines. In the search, was disappointed that his version of Power of Love was the super-cheezeball song rather than the medium-cheezeball one from Back to the Future. Bongomatic08:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC) p.s.
hi doc!reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The responses suggest that the subject still doesn't satisfy GNG despite there being a lot of interviews and some other coverage. Wouldn't be against recreation if notability could be established. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(
talk •
contribs)13:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
There are at least three problems with this
biography of a living person. First, a Google search finds that Farid Yazdani is an Iranian-Canadian actor who uses social media and has an extensive on-line presence. It says over and over again that he is a Canadian actor or an Iranian-Canadian actor. That is more or less what it says. We knew that. Second, there was already a deletion discussion,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Yazdani, and it concluded that he did not satisfy
acting notability or
general notability. He still doesn't. None of the roles listed in this draft since 2017 are major roles. Third, this article appears to be an
autobiography, the submission of which is discouraged.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I would like to know how Farid being an Iranian-canadian actor or a Canadian actor is grounds for termination. Upon googling his imdb and instagram page - there is nothing mentioned about him being Iranian. There is mention of him on numerous American and Canadian Television series. To address the
acting notability or
general notability disclaim, Farid was highlighted in red on many other wikipedia pages such as the
Suits Season 5 under recurring cast (2.2), The
Odd Squad wiki page, under villains (2.2.3) as well as the
S.I.N. Theory page under cast. To me, it seems important enough for him to be listed on many other verified wikipedia pages. Third - CBC has just released a press package stating that he has been recently cast as a series supporting on a new series titled: Feudal. [1] I can predict that show will made into a wiki page as well. Farid is also verified on Facebook [2]. Don't know how much more is needed before "credibility" is high enough
170.10.244.114 (
talk)
01:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Notability is not about how many Wikipedia pages link (or redlink) to someone, especially since this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and articles wildly vary in quality and how much necessary or unnecessary information they include, so that's not really a valid argument here. It's about how many third party reliable sources cover a person or subject as more than a side mention. The Iranian-Canadian bit I think is either saying the article is missing information or that a quick Google search didn't bring up sources that confirmed notability, not that his nationality is an issue. His Facebook page and whether or not it's verified isn't really relevant to the points raised in this discussion. -
Purplewowies (
talk)
16:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Further, the article (created 16:42, 27 August 2020 UTC (
link to first revision)) was not redlinked on Odd Squad until approximately an hour before its creation (15:56 to 15:58, 27 August 2020 UTC (
diff)) and was not redlinked at all on Suits recently (link was added 16:47, 27 August 2020 UTC (
diff), five minutes after this article's creation). Both of these new linkings were added by the article's creator. I'll bite that S.I.N. Theory was redlinked--it was
added back in 2013 by what appears to be
a different account of Yazdani's. -
Purplewowies (
talk)
17:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete: Some part of me thinks it's possible he meets notability but I'm leaning the other way strongly enough to vote toward deletion. -
Purplewowies (
talk)
16:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I would like to again point out there are many articles and interviews of Farid Yazdani online [3] - which I think validates his credibility. I think it's a weak delete request indeed and it should stay. As soon as Feudal is released, a wikipedia page will once again be made and I have a feeling it will stay. I'm just creating the page on his behalf to get ahead of the media push. I don't think the points are valid enough as he is a supporting lead on a new
CBC TV series - which in alone should be enough credibility as it addresses the claim that he hasn't played in a "major role". [4]
Speaking about himself in Q&A interviews doesn't demonstrate notability — we require sources in which other people are writing or speaking about him in the third person. And even if you're going for "notable because he's had acting roles", that test isn't passed just because roles are listed — it's passed only when one or more of his roles have made him the subject of enough
reliable source third party journalistic coverage about him in real media to pass
WP:GNG, and no number of roles exempts a person from having to have coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Furthermore to the point of Facebook, it is relevant as grounds for
acting notability states in section 2 that the entertainer "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Upon searching Facebook, I believe his page has a modest 16,000+ followers.
170.10.244.114 (
talk)
23:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The number of followers a person does or doesn't have on a social networking platform has absolutely nothing to do with our notability criteria for people in any occupation, and actors are not automatically notable just because it's possible to verify that acting roles were had — the notability test for an actor requires things like notable acting awards, and/or media coverage that is substantively about him and his performances, which is not the same thing as merely having his name passingly mentioned in casting announcements, or appearing on the cover of a magazine that doesn't have a feature piece about him inside the issue, or speaking about himself in the first person in a Q&A interview on a local newscast. Obviously no prejudice against recreation at a later date if Feudal either gets him more substantial coverage or scores him a Canadian Screen Award nomination — but nothing that's already stated in the article today is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than this — we're looking for journalism, not photographs or press releases or social networking posts.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Do video interviews count toward press? I feel like they should be worth just as much if not more than print. For print, the page has already sourced an article that is strictly about him and his work [5]. I can also source at least 3 interviews on CP24 which is one of Toronto's largest, if not largest news outlet.
No, interviews don't count in any format, because they represent the subject talking about himself in the first person — but to count toward getting him over GNG, a source has to represent other people talking or writing about his importance and impact in the third person. You're allowed to sparingly use interviews for additional verification of facts after he's already been shown to clear GNG on proper journalism — for instance, if it happens to be in an interview that a person confirms their exact birthdate or their ethnic background, or comes out as LGBTQ or whatever, then you can use the interview to source that fact — but the interviews are not GNG-making coverage in and of themselves, if the article doesn't contain a sufficient number of third party sources written in the third person. Notability is not a thing people get to give themselves by talking about themselves self-promotionally — it's a thing other people have to anoint them with by externally and objectively assessing and analyzing the significance of their work, such as by writing content about it in newspapers and magazines and books.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentFarid also won a Canadian Comedy award for Day Players [9], to add to the request for notable awards. He is seen talking about it in 2 of the interviews. I've answered every single request that has been made regarding what needs to be seen. The proof is sourced and reliable. Ive seen weaker wiki pages about other actors with less sourcing. Seems like a prejudice at this point and a weak delete request. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
170.10.244.114 (
talk)
14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Every award that exists is not always an automatic notability clincher — awards support notability only to the extent that said award gets media coverage. If you want to make a person notable for winning an award, you cannot source that award win to the award's own self-published website about itself; it has to be sourced to journalistic reportage about the award ceremony in order to establish that the award is a notable one in the first place. Notability is not simply a matter of counting the number of footnotes an article has in it — there are a lot of websites out there that are not reliable or notability-supporting sources, so notability is about evaluating the quality of the sources rather than just their number. It is entirely possible for a person with more footnotes to be less notable than a person with fewer footnotes, because the quality of the sources is much more important than how many footnotes there are or aren't.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Sources don't support notability, just routine coverage. The Boston Globe reported they planted a victory garden on March 27, 1943, Lt. Thackery was in charge of bayonet drills after Lt. Hume was finished with PT (August 23, 1944, North Adams Transcript), but apparently someone was not happy with how it was going with Col. Patrick J. O'Brian's training methods because he was in trouble for it on Aug 8, 1944, (The Berkshire Eagle). Since the article says it only existed until November 1943, I'd say the article sources are not the best. //
Timothy :: talk17:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources of this job role. There is a
Wired article but it is tagged Partner Content so I think may be paid. There is a
Forbes post but it is at forbes.com/sites/, which is mentioned as potentially not reliable at
WP:RSVETTING.
Tacyarg (
talk)
17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: There are sources for notability.
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10], Winer, Russell S. "A Framework for Customer Relationship Management." California Management Review 43, no. 4 (2001): 89-105. I'd say all these lesser known "chief" positions could be combined into one article, but that's another discussion. //
Timothy :: talk17:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I can't find any sources for notability. It's mentioned in a few spots, but its barely a mention. There domain is for sale, not a good sign. I'd say merge into UML but there are no sources. //
Timothy :: talk17:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I was initially going to vote in favor of deleting the article, but it seems that the movie is part of a duology, the
second of which sold ₺40 million in Turkey. The first movie was also released on a national scale for almost 14 weeks according to the data given by
Box Office Turkey. Overall, I would say that the series is notable and the page on the first movie can remain as well. Keivan.fTalk23:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Neutral I originally tagged this as non-notable, years ago. The article has been improved recently and a sequel has been filmed, released and got more at the box office.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
03:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: no evidence of anything approaching notability per
WP:NBAND. I could be persuaded to change my vote to merge/redirect to
Julian Lawrence, one of its founders: but, given that there's only a fleeting mention of it on his page, I'm not convinced it even warrants this.
~dom Kaos~ (
talk)
17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment the first two sources are both interviews, which are specifically precluded under
WP:NBAND - except for ... publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves. This just leave the nine-line review in the monthly(?) round-up of Scram magazine, which I'm not convinced is enough to demonstrate SigCov.
~dom Kaos~ (
talk)
07:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I wasn't able to find anything either. I do want to say that I am a bit in awe of what the director was willing to do to raise funding.
Taking part in medical trials so the film can get made? That's hardcore. I wish that more coverage existed, but unfortunately there just isn't enough out there other than a couple of local sources and some tabloid mentions in the Mirror.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。)03:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. It's clear that a straight-up delete isn't happening, and that's really all AFD needs to decide. If people want to do a merge/redirect, that conversation can continue on the talk pages. --
RoySmith(talk)21:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Soft delete or redirect or possibly keep. If kept the content fork with
Arduino must be resolved, attributions properly given possibly content copied from
Arduino. A soft delete appropriate as the IDE may become
WP:DUE in the
Arduino article (it isn't currently) and because its a different sort of entity in its own category and a sustainable article in its own right is I believe possibly. Using a redirect (to section with with possibilies and categories) isn't really necessary for locating the main article from search but it is useful for categories. Choices are really about how the content fork is handled.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
09:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There is plenty of sourcing to have a large Arduino article along with a large Arduino IDE article. "Arduino" by itself is a word referring to the open source movement, the board, the IDE, the foundation etc. Many articles have been written on using the software (i.e. the Arduino IDE). Regarding naming, Arduino (software) might be an alternative to the current naming.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd expect Arduino (software) to refer to software that runs on the Arduino. The
Integrated Development Environment (IDE) is not part of that but runs on a separate host (AFAIK). Thus I contend it would be in inappropriate to rename the current article to Arduino (software). I am minded it would be possible to reframe the article into Arduino (software) and have the IDE has a section in that, but that is not where we are at. In all events if !voting keep please identify who will be taking responsibility for resolving the content fork (I should have made it clear I am not volunteering to do that). Thankyou.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm OK with Arduino (software). That's what the IDE has
always been called by the "official" developers. You are correct that the IDE runs on a separate host; it produces RISC processor code that runs on
tiny processors, which is not in itself anything specific to "Arduino" (except for the bootloader, I guess.)
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
21:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I'll accept that. But unless someone indicates they plan to expand the current article and resolve the content fork it would be better closed as a redirect or perhaps even a soft delete.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
03:57, 4 September 2020 (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.
Promotional article and unreliable sources, mostly press releases. Even the claim "to be the world's largest MIDI sequencer by some musical technologists" is a circular reference from the company's own press release. No claim of notability.
Nreatian (
talk)
16:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per nominator's rationale. I am convinced that this topic is not notable enough for Wikipedia. I will move it to draftspace. -
Coriannakox (
talk)
18:09, 28 August 2020 (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.
Blatant promotional article. No references to attest for notability. First two references are actually links to an online shop selling his art.
Nearlyevil665 (
talk)
16:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Upon further inspection I've noticed that the creator of this article also uploaded the subject's
picture, the description of which reads "I took this picture of Robert Dayton". There has been no COI or paid editing disclosure by the author of the article - it was directly pushed into the mainspace. So unless someone who states they had taken a picture of someone in what appears to be a bedroom as not having a COI, then we are dealing with a violation of
WP:COI and possibly undisclosed paid editing.
Nearlyevil665 (
talk)
17:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete GNG fail. I removed several sources that did not mention the subject. A search found next to nothing. As an aside, I do not think this is paid editing; it looks like run of the mill self promotion.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
17:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I am the author of this page. This is the first page I've ever created, and is definitely not paid editing! I'm currently in the process of editing text for neutrality and also to add additional citations. This person is an important figure in the Canadian underground scene and deserves a wikipage. --
PoussinChevre (
talk)
17:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Could you explain your connection to the subject given that you have stated
here that you took a photograph of him in what appears to be a private residence?
Nearlyevil665 (
talk)
17:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
PoussinChevre: Wikipedia is entirely based on reliable sources written by others in above-ground reputable publications. We can have articles on people from the "underground scene", but they need to have been noticed extensively in the above-ground scene.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
17:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I know the subject because we're from the same town - I felt he was a worthwhile subject for my first wiki page. However, I see now that I published too early - hopefully my edits will pass muster!--
PoussinChevre (
talk)
18:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
::@
PoussinChevre: Taking credit for a photograph made in what appears to be the subject's bedchambers suggests more than simply "being from the same town". While it is perfectly fine to write about subjects you are connected to, you are strongly encouraged to go through
Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation and allowing third-party review instead of publishing new articles directly. More info is available on
WP:COI.
Nearlyevil665 (
talk)
18:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Ah! This is very helpful - thank you. Am I still able to submit edits for reevaluation or should I just pack it in and head over to Articles for creation?--
PoussinChevre (
talk)
18:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
My first instinct is to suggest to post all strong and meaningful references that you believe suggest notability of the subject straight here as a comment, but I will let more experienced users suggest the best course of action.
Nearlyevil665 (
talk)
18:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I have not been able to find enough to support our notability requirements for WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. There is one article that is an interview and therefore a primary source which does not count towards SIgCOV in RS, and another article that is a human interest story, rather than a critical review or analysis of his work.
Netherzone (
talk)
23:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Per
WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and
WP:MANYLINKS because the article has 253 items linking to it (in all namesapaces) and 220 of those are from articles. Also, the content of the article is included on a non-media-wiki wiki with the statement "This article's content derived from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (See original source)," found at this
Infogalatic article. I noticed that the nominator tagged the article with the "advert" template (I agree that it reads like a research paper, but I have found no promotional material within the article), and 3 minutes later made this deletion request. The article definitely needs extensive cleanup for tone, but this can't happen if the article is deleted. I feel like applying the "research paper" template and giving contributors time to make the edits would be far more appropriate. I also noticed that the creator of the article wasn't notified about the deletion nomination, so I will be doing that shortly. Thanks,
KnowledgeablePersona (
talk)
07:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Without looking at any other issues yet, I'll say that it's only 211 links once redirects and non-mainspace are eliminated, and most of those are from a navbox template. A search for insource:"Post–Turing machine" in mainspace reveals 29 matches (this matches hyphens too), some of which are simply "See also"-type links, so it's really a much more modest total than you're claiming. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Turing machine. This doesn't seem to be a term that's in use (at best I found some lecture notes; Google Scholar gives zero). The history of the Turing machine is somewhat convoluted, including improvements from Post, which seems to be the gist of what's here, so maybe it's a
WP:POVFORK in order to try to include Post's name in what's typically just called a "Turing machine" to give him more credit. But what's here is overly technical and goes well into
WP:OR territory. In any case, what's here cannot stay. I wouldn't really be opposed to a delete either, but in case there's anything in here worth saving/merging, I wouldn't mind skipping that part. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
16:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep but trim down. Much of the examples section is unreferenced. There seems to be a fair number of references to this work and some people have used this model for their work.
Turing machine is already enough and trying to merge it in there would lose some of the history. It does seem to get mentioned quite a bit for example a recent monograph
Computability Theory, Karl-Heinz Zimmermann. --
Salix alba (
talk):
16:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I searched in JSTOR and MIT Journals and found things I think are sources, I'm not sure how common the name is, but there are sources that connect Post and Turing. Until someone who is a lot smarter than myself says it should be deleted, I think there is enough sourcing for it to remain. //
Timothy :: talk17:36, 30 August 2020 (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.
A massive list of random examples of the last things fictional characters have said. Most of the examples are unsourced, and those that are sourced are only using the pieces of fiction themselves. There is no actual sourcing being used at all to discuss the concept as a whole, and I'm not finding any that talk about the concept in any kind of set that would allow this to pass
WP:LISTN. This is also FILLED with
WP:OR. While the overall concept of
Last words in general may be notable, this list is completely
WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - The main article seems to have the same issues, but this variation is even more indiscriminate due to the infinite nature of fictional characters. If the main list is going to exist, it can handle the few actually notable fictional last words.
TTN (
talk)
20:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This is even more arbitrary than I first thought. I thought this would be last words in a book or other work. Nope, this is the last words attributed to fictional characters. This really has so much Tolkien that it seems like it is a manifestation of Tolkienfruft. There is no reason to have such a thing as a list.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - I looked at
the very first revision, and it contained only one entry I could defend, "Rosebud", from Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane is generally placed on practically everyone's list of most important films. And it revolves around Kane's mysterious dying utterance - "Rosebud". "Rosebud" is widely quoted, in other contexts, like Rosebud (The Simpsons). Scholars write theses about "Rosebud"[16],
[17],
[18],
[19],
[20].
Shakespeare has Julius Caesar say, "
et tu Brutus?" - also an iconic phrase, subject to scholarly attention. The phrase is so widely used people may use the phrase who have never heard of Shakespeare, or read Julius Caesar.
I'd support a list last words that was free of fancruft, and only included phrases that were the subject of scholarly attention. I'd also support a list of last words where the word or phrase had entered our shared cultural heritage to the extent it was used without an explicit reference to its original context.
Hal 9000's death scene, in 2001, is also very memorable, very unusual. It too would be something scholars write theses about.
Although I'm iffy about its existence, the five or ten really important quotes should just go in
List of last words. It seems this was split out only due to the overwhelming "this quote is important" nonsense prevalent throughout this list.
TTN (
talk)
23:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
If we were able to limit this just to the entries that had enough notability to have their own articles, then I would probably be fine to keep it as a navigational list. But, I do agree with TTN that when its that limited, then there is no real reason for it to be split off from the main
List of last words article. Though, that article is in just as bad of a shape as this one was before your revision.
Rorshacma (
talk)
01:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I think applying the same inclusion criteria of only blue links (both full articles and sections of main articles directly covering said quotes) to the main list and merging them both would be a fine outcome. It feels like the main list really should be reformatted into an article about last words. I'd have to imagine there is commentary on the concept itself in terms of of actual documentation of last words as something of cultural importance. But just removing the bloat is a good enough first step.
TTN (
talk) 01:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
TTN (
talk)
01:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Something akin to
the older article structure would suffice if the same inclusion criteria is applied to the main list. I assume that would cut the current list down by 80-95% and then both sections can be built up from there.
TTN (
talk)
01:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete With the trimmed article, there will be very few quotations that are both last words and so notable they need their own article, and such a fragment of a list is hardly worthwhile. And no, there should not be a separate article on "Rosebud":
Citizen Kane covers analysis of how that fits into the film well (or the theses should be used to improve that page or a section within it, to avoid duplication). Surely academic discussion of
HAL 9000's last words would fit within that article rather than separately! Perhaps there should instead be a list that goes with
Category:Quotations from film more broadly but even then film/fiction quotations so rarely need to be discussed separately from their articles that listing only those with their own articles is not a great endeavor though, and many in the category that do are song or film titles too.
AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes links to a number of article sections, usually the better way to present them. Otherwise put the best back into
List of last words (none of which have separate articles – naturally!). Perhaps there's a way to establish inclusion criteria to this, but having articles isn't it.
Reywas92Talk08:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Reywas92 I very strongly disagree with your comment "...but even then film/fiction quotations so rarely need to be discussed separately from their articles that listing only those with their own articles is not a great endeavor..."
Iconic phrases enter English's cultural lexicon all the time, and a significant fraction of those iconic phrases continue to be used, and understood, long after many English speakers no longer know the original context where they were coined.
Just the other day I watched a YouTube video on USAAF bombers. It explained that while the gunners in the (smaller) Luftwaffe bombers gun positions were surrounded by 60 round drum magazines, the machine guns gunners used in big USAAF bombers were loaded, on the ground with a continuous belt of ammunition 27 feet long. The narrator explained that the common idiom "the whole nine yards" often used to expending one's entire resources, all at once, was coined referring to firing all the bullets allocated for an entire mission in one long continous burst. I've heard that phrase used my entire life. I did not know its derivation. As I wrote above, phrases like "Rosebud", or "Et tu, Brute?" are routinely used by people who have no idea of their original context.
I feel very strongly it is a grave disservice to readers to send them to a larger article when what they are really interested in is the meaning of a phrase. Doing so represents a danger that someone will feel that the explanation of the phrase is off-topic, and trim it from the larger article, without realizing the chaos this will cause.
Back in 2007, when I was a newbie, and hadn't really encountered anyone with an incurable urge to merge, I started an article on the phrase "
There's a sucker born every minute". Before I started this article I knew what lots of people thought everyone else knew - that the phrase was coined by
P.T. Barnum. When researching the phrase I found that Barnum's biographers all agreed that he did not coin the phrase, that none of the people who really knew him well believed he coined the phrase.
At the AFD I found a surprising number of participants thought the phrase should redirect to Barnum's article, in spite of all the RS who said he didn't coin the phrase.
As I said, I had never really encountered contributors who wanted to merge things, merely for the sake of merging before. So I spent a couple of hours studying the results of google searches for where the phrase was used.
What did I find? About a third of the writers who used the phrase, would lazily say "As PT Barnum once said 'There's a sucker born every minute'". Another third of the writers who used the phrase, (generally the better writers) would say the phrase was frequently attributed to Barnum, without claiming Barnum actually coined it. But it was the final third I thought was the most significant. The phrase had a life of its own, and a third of the writers who used never mentioned PT Barnum, at all.
More than a billion people learned English as a second language, and are likely to be confused by cliched phrases like "There's a sucker born every minute" or "like tears in rain". If they click on a link to the phrase, they really deserve to go to an article on the phrase. If the mergists had succeeded in cramming everything about the phrase routinely but incorrectly attributed to Barnum into the Barnum article we could have very seriously eroded readers confidence in the wikipedia. If the phrase was changed to a redirect to
P.T. Barnum#famous sayings, and some innocent contributor changed that to
P.T. Barnum#famous utterances that would result in everyone who wanted to know what the phrase meant suddenly finding themselves at the top of the P.T. Barnum article. That would be very jarring. They could be forgiven for thinking that the wikipedia would suddenly send people to random pages. How would they know there was a connection between some 19th century circus owner and a phrase they wanted explained?
So, I very strongly disagree with your general premise that iconic phrases, that have a life of their own, that measure up to GNG, should be shoehorned into larger articles. In particular, I am pretty confident that "Rosebud" is regularly used and understood to signify a mystery, by people who are unfamiliar with Citizen Kane.
Geo Swan (
talk)
13:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Who the heck says Et tu Brute without knowing it was used by Caesar? Who the heck uses Rosebud wihout knowing Citizen Kane? That really baffles me, I have certainly never seen that word used by itself without some sort of reference to the film. You're sure building a straw man with Barnum there! That phrase really is known and used outside of the him as a circus leader and I would not suggest keeping it with his biography with the actual original irrelevant to him. But I simply fail to see how you expect to build a list of last words in fiction with an inclusion criterion of having their own article when the vast, vast majority of such movie quotes are tied to their movie alone. Examples of last words in fiction that have meanings or significant content disconnected from the film context and which should have their content split apart are few and far between. Sure, if it's an independent phrase, absolutely create a separate article, but there's not enough of them to maintain this list.
Reywas92Talk19:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
List of last words. There are more famous fictional last lines than just "Rosebud":
A Tale of Two Cities: "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."
Lots of entries in that list may be documentable, but are totally uninteresting
Lots of entries in that list may be documentable, but lack the context that would make them worth covering. Consider the entry for
George V:
"God damn you!"[31][177][note 41]
— George V, king of the United Kingdom (20 January 1936), to a nurse giving him a sedative
Cursing the nurse giving him an injection is a lot more interesting when one knows that is generally accepted that his family and doctor "hurried on" the death of the very ill King with an overdose. The King was not looking for a hotshot, so this may have been, well, murder.
I know merges of articles on related topics seems so natural to some people that they are mystified when asked to explain them. I don't see it. I don't see why the merge makes sense. I think my rewrite is policy compliant. And I think
List of last words is a mess, would require a lot of work to fix.
Geo Swan (
talk)
02:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd say the discussion here could likely be used as a consensus to TNT that article. Combining both stubs and working to define proper inclusion criteria while also trying to set up some kind of structure for actual discussion on the significance of last words in both real life and fiction would likely be the best course of action for both lists.
TTN (
talk)
02:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - How is this encyclopedic? Why does it exist? Is there a single article from a reliable secondary source devoted to this topic that isn't a clickbait list? Do even the biggest of film buffs care? Darkknight214910:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable subject with dubious claims such as being 'one of the most famous wine producers in Italy', which is backed by a single source (in Arabic, for whatever reason that might be). Quite possibly an article created initially as a promotional piece for the subject's family wine business.
Nearlyevil665 (
talk)
16:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
KeepNearlyevil665 i didnt write that (he is one of the most famous wine producers in Italy) some one else edit the article. i wrote (He is the son of the owner of an alcohol factory in Montalcino, Italy). and his family is
Gaetani there is article about this family. and in the article there are sources in italy. and in wikidata i found the family tree of this family and this person.
Amrahlawymasry (
talk)
22:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. As the guidelines at
WP:NOTINHERITED make clear, being part of a notable family is not enough to justify a Wikipedia page. For this page to remain, it would be necessary to show that Luca Gaetani Lovatelli has had significant coverage as an individual person.
~dom Kaos~ (
talk)
08:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - All of the articles in Italian (and one link is dead) are death/suicide notices, or articles about about his death. There do not seem to be any articles about him while he was alive. I tried some other newspapers as well and got nada.
Lamona (
talk)
19:34, 31 August 2020 (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.
Completely unreferenced
WP:BLP of a writer and musician with no strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC or
WP:AUTHOR. For both endeavours, the claims here are that his work exists -- but Wikipedia is not simply looking for verification of existence so much as properly sourced evidence of importance, such as important literary or music awards, journalistic coverage about his career and/or independent critical analysis of his work's creative or cultural significance. But the closest thing to "referencing" here is a linkfarm of external links to directory entries and the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, which are
primary sources and not support for notability. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better references than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:57, 27 August 2020 (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.
UPE article where article creator is now blocked, created for an organization that doesn’t possess
WP:CORPDEPTH nor satisfy
WP:CORP at all as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search did show
this &
this but both are not sufficient to satisfy
WP:CORP. Celestina00715:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Indeed. Looking at all the sources that were chosen to include in the article, many of them share content with each other as well as with other sources. I can find the same cited content appearing under the byline of Opeyemi Kehinde on the Daily Trust site, Ugo Onwuaso on the Nigeria Communications Week site, AwesomeCon on Brand Communications, Raheem Akingbolu on This Day Live, and gnadmin on Good News Nigeria. Some of the sources consist of content replicated on other sites under the byline BHM, which is the marketing company behind this operation. All of this, in addition to the clear PR feel of all these pieces, demonstrates that the sources are all PR-generated material, not independent, reliable sources.
Largoplazo (
talk)
16:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article does not meet
WP:GNG for
WP:N.
WP:NBUILDING states "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." From
WP:BEFORE, the subject does not have
WP:SIGCOV to meet this guideline. References in the article are not
WP:IS. //
Timothy :: talk16:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge important contents (esp. completion date of the building) to
Chinabankand redirect. Add section on the former and current headquarters of the bank at the
mother article which might serve as a guide for those who might want to upload photos of those buildings to Wikimedia sites (Commons doesn't allow photos of modern or post-November 1972 buildings from the Philippines where the copyright law has no-
FoP provision). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge It seems like there should be more coverage of such an historic building, but there isn't much readily accessible online, except on the bank's website. So Merge into
Chinabank per above.
MB01:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable academic department at a college. Searches show almost no coverage other than from the college itself. The article is basically an unreferenced ad for the department.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk)
01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Note significant text lifted
from here. I leave it for someone else to judge whether it's G12. It's currently G11 ish but I haven't had time to look for sources to see if content issues can be fixed.
StarM02:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about a band, not
reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC. The notability claims here are that they won a minor award for independent music that doesn't pass NMUSIC #8 (which requires major awards on the order of Grammys or Junos, not just any music award that exists), and that they've been played and profiled on internet and college radio (but NMUSIC specifically requires national radio networks like
CBC Music, and deprecates internet and college radio as not carrying of musical notability at all.) The content, further, is largely not referenced to reliable or notability-making media coverage, but to
blogs and primary sources and YouTube videos and the internet/college radio streams -- the closest thing to a strong source here is three different citations to one obscure music magazine which would be fine if the other sources around it were better, but isn't widely circulated enough to singlehandedly get a topic over GNG all by itself if it's the only acceptable source on offer. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have more and better media coverage than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. They've presumably garnered a bit of interest in order to have been given the radio coverage mentioned in the article, but not enough to pass
WP:NMUSICIAN. The fact that their music is self-released after four years (whether by choice or because of a lack of interest from commercial labels) is problematic.
~dom Kaos~ (
talk)
16:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a UPE article where article creator is now blocked, for a subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails to satisfy
WP:GNG,
WP:BIO,
WP:BASIC &
WP:ANYBIO. A before search reveals nothing concrete to substantiate or prove notability Celestina00715:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I cannot fully evaluate Azerbaijani sources, but since she's based in Turkey (at least that's what the article claims) I tried to look up for Turkish sources and I couldn't find any. It seems that she doesn't have a notable career to begin with. Keivan.fTalk22:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I concur with one of the voters above that there might be an issue with Turkish, Azerbaijani, and English spellings of this woman's name. In English I can find nothing on her band; and as a model she is only present in the typical social media promotions and modeling industry directories. It turns out that she is also known as Nigar Alptekin, and her husband is mixed up in a scandal involving Trump crony Michael Flynn. This article:
[21] mentions her briefly as the wife while also explaining that she has gained very little notice as a model or musician (third paragraph from the bottom). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)01:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I found the following sources in Turkish (only from major publishers):
[22],
[23],
[24],
[25],
[26],
[27],
[28], but these sources are mostly about her going on vacation at X city or becoming a mother, not about her career or anything. In Azerbaijani I found
this article about multiple famous Azerbaijani women where she is also included. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^07:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I stumbled across this article by chance while trying to find out when the studio Genetic Anomalies was disestablished by
THQ. I added some details from
the source that connects the two topics, but unfortunately could not find anything else on Shubert.
The source linked above and
this one are the only ones in the article. Both include only some routine coverage of Play140 and name some very basic points:
Unfortunately, there seems to be no source for the middle name, the birth date, or any other claim made in the article. Most content was unsourced since the article's
creation in 2009.
WP:GNG does, therefore, not seem to be met and the article should be deleted. Per
WP:XY, possible redirect targets are Acrophobia and Chron X, but neither is better than the other.
IceWelder [
✉]
15:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect per previous speakers' argument about lack of coverage in RSs. Prefer targeting Acrophobia as the game that she seems to have been the most tied to (original creator vs "designed later sets" for Chron X).--
AlexandraIDV07:53, 1 September 2020 (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.
Propose redirecting to
Natural-born-citizen clause#Kamala Harris. You should really see the talk page of the article for context, but I'll try to sum up as best I can: this is a
WP:FRINGE legal theory (/ conspiracy theory) best dealt with in the context of the constitutional clause involved. A standalone article shows
WP:RECENTISM and
WP:UNDUE coverage of the fringe theory.
Finally, I do not see
any need to merge anything from this article. Coverage at my proposed section is proportional and adequately searched. I'm only not proposing outright deletion since the title will remain a helpful search term for readers.
BDD (
talk)
15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge There is no ongoing coverage. Right-wing lawyers have long argued that the Citizenship Clause of the U.S. constitution does not apply some or all children of aliens in the U.S. The theory predates Harris and in fact was the official U.S. government position for the first thirty years after the clause was enacted. There is no need to duplicate coverage of this theory in an article about Harris.
TFD (
talk)
17:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge For
John C. Eastman, this may be his greatest claim to fame. It certainly bears mentioning in the article on
Donald Trump's racial views. However, I don't think it has much of a place merging into Kamala's page, personally; it's not factual, and it does not reflect her, unless we wish to simply note further how much of a natural born citizen she is. "Birtherism" about Barack Obama was a massive and entirely unsubstantiated phenomenon, but it must have a page because of how major it was. Even among more fringe Republicans and Trump supporters, I don't believe these Harris theories have any hold. I support merging it into John C. Eastman's page, or maybe into Kamala's, but not keeping the page.
PickleG13 (
talk)
18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
How would this be "racial views". Wouldn't that be more like Trump's legal view / citizenship views / constitutional views ? The issue is whether Trump thinks a fetus inherently owed SANGUINIS regardless of where they are born, still being owed supplemental SOLI by the US. That is purely an issue of nationality, not race, and would also apply to a "white" child with jus-soli citizenship rights from England or Norway or Russia who is born in the US.
64.228.90.251 (
talk)
22:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect as proposed - the target section already covers this in as much detail as Wikipedia needs to, and with appropriate context to related instances of the same conspiracy theory.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
19:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect as proposed This is not a genuine controversy, just the fringe views of a publicity-seeking hack in Newsweek. Does not deserve a standalone article.,
P-K3 (
talk)
20:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't know who would actually search this up on own. Makes way more sense to have a subsection in her article; maybe add a sentence on her article saying someone said it, but its wrong? ping me when responding, gràcies!
TheKalootalk23:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, with no redirect as this is not a likely search term. The basis of the article is Eastman's debunked op-ed in Newsweek that received almost no significant support, even by consevative legal scholars. No serious legal pursuit of the claims have been made in the courts. As such, giving the idea this amount of attention is
undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. As to notability, there were several sources devoted to debunking, but the coverage was so brief that
WP:NOTNEWS applies here.
Sjakkalle(Check!)07:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment on "not a valid search term": since this page was created on 14 August, it has had an average of 1,000 page views per day, with a peak over 4,000 and gradually trailing off. The threshold we commonly use in
redirects for discussion for determining if a title is useful as a search term is one or two daily page views. This title is clearly useful as a search term; arguments to the contrary are wrong by three
orders of magnitude, and I'll also remind everyone that
notability is not temporary. The only really valid discussion here is whether this should be a standalone article, or to which article this title should redirect.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
12:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I largely agree, which is why I favor redirecting (though I would not be opposed to deletion as a second choice), but page views for an active article and page views for a redirect is very much apples-to-oranges. I expect those numbers to plummet regardless of this discussion's outcome, though probably not as low as 1-2 per day. --
BDD (
talk)
14:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Everything and anyone can have tons of conspiracis pushed on them these days, I see nothing here that's not run of the mill.
★Trekker (
talk)
18:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep it is undergoing a rename discussion as the issue of whether or not she is a "natural born citizen" is an object of discussion (media posed it to president, president commented, media reacted to president's comment) regardless or whether or not we choose to focus on the media's calling it a "conspiracy theory" to discuss whether or not one would be a
jus soli 'natural born citizen' of the United States if you are born with
jus sanguinis citizenship of Jamaica via your father. A much bigger deal is clearly being made of this than that silly thing with Ted Cruz, she's a VP candidate so it deserves it's own article just like Obama's does. It just really needs a rename because there aren't any actual notable "conspiracy theories" like with that "he wasn't even born in Hawaii, they faked the birth cert" silliness done with Obama. There is no notable "faked birth cert, she wasn't born in California" stuff with Kamala (despite what media misusing 'conspiracy' leads people to assume) but rather what seems to be whether "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in
Fourteenth Amendment excludes who already inheriting jus sanguinis citizenship from a parent (you touch your parents' DNA prior to touching the soil) or if being subject to another nation's jurisdiction first would prevent it from applying. The
Wong Kim Ark case seems to keep coming up. I don't fully understand the "but Kamala's parents weren't permanent residents when she was born" thing because I don't think WKA's parents were permanent residents either, weren't they just here on whatever the equivalent of a work visa was in 1898? Also nobody seems to be bringing up the precedent for that in circuit court with
Look Tin Eli in 1884 or "Ex parte Chin King and Ex parte Chan San Hee" in 1888. Of course the omission of 1873's
Slaughterhouse Cases supreme court case is even more glaring.
64.228.90.251 (
talk)
20:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
comment I don't agree with Maile's trying to axe a disambig page, as there are certainly non-Obama uses of the term even if his is still the most prominent topic. Certainly not as a means of presupposing the deletion of this Kamala Harris birtherism article. The only reason not to have birtherism (disambiguation) is if
birtherism itself expands from a redirect into that disambig, instead of being an Obama conspiracy redirect. Our and the media's lumping the Kamala objections in with Obama's ("conspiracy") seems racist because there hasn't been any "Kamala wasn't born in California" whispers like there were "Barack wasn't born in Hawaii" ones. That's why the Obama memes deserve to be called CTs while the Harris memes do not. There are entirely different forms of "birther" arguments for the two: BO was "was he born here?" whereas KH is "does 14th amendment apply to those who are already inherently subjects of Jamaica?" I would say the reason the Kamala objection needs an article while McCain's objection does not is because it's already gotten far more exposure than McCain's dilemma ever did throughout his entire campaign.
64.228.90.251 (
talk)
22:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The article is, in fact, not undergoing a rename discussion. I waited for the RM to close before nominating. --
BDD (
talk)
15:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: this argument seems misconceived. This is no a "conspiracy theory", an example of "fringe nuttery" or "racism". It is just a conservative legal argument.--
Jack Upland (
talk)
02:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This poorly sourced article is a rambling essay about nothing much. It disguises its banality in a bewildering fog of
marketing buzzwords. Most of the sources are blogs and/or seem unrelated. Although I can find hits for the phrase "digital strategy" it is difficult to determine if they are related because this article is so vague and confusing and, frequently, so are those hits.
ReykYO!14:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The topic "digital strategy" and associated "digital transformation" are notable topics with many books and articles devoted to them. However, the article is very badly written, with synthesis and original research throughout. I rarely recommend deletion based on article quality, but this is an instance where it is warranted. Because this is a notable topic, I have no prejudice to re-creating a better written and better sourced version of the article. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}17:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An extinct mall turned into a private office complex. The article does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.
WP:BEFORE revealed advertising,
WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. //
Timothy :: talk03:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. (I've also brought this article closer to where I'd have it now if I'd made this for DYK this year, not 2015, with additional citations and references.) While this particular center falls below the suggested gross leasable area threshold, I believe the property has enough notable media coverage (some of which I've been able to add in the new citations), and I believe it passes GNG because of its claim to being the first enclosed and carpeted center in the US (I don't buy it, but...), presence of the largest suburban JCPenney for its time, and association with Google (which makes it a favorite of news articles talking about mall reuse). The latter is particularly unusual for a mall.
Raymie (
t •
c)
04:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Reply:This is an article about a mall. How is a mall that becomes an office complex still a mall? It might be relevant to an article about mall reuse, but this is an article about Mayfield Mall, not an office complex. But in either case none of the sources in the article demonstrate notability for a mall or an office complex. They are just routine news articles. Nothing that supports
WP:GNG or
WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish. notability."
" How is a mall that becomes an office complex still a mall?" Because things stop being notable once they no longer exist, right? The sourcing is about the mall and the office complex that replaced it, indicating it as a noteworthy conversion that merits discussion. Knock this off right now, you're clearly
disrupting just to make a point and doubling down when it's clear that you're not getting your way. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentThe sources above and in the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable. //
Timothy :: talk02:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Has every mall been turned into offices for Google? That's an absolutely unique and notable ending for a mall.
WP:ROUTINE does not apply to buildings. Badgering editors when it's clear the tide is turned against you is completely useless. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)14:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Even without the reuse by Google, the article establishes sufficient notability for the mall. Given how it ended, it's easily notable. The nominator in their nomination and subsequent replies seems to argue that a) notability is affected by a thing going away, which is plainly wrong; and b) that we should assume that any outcome that leads to "every mall will be notable" is a sign that we've made a mistake. I grew up in in the mid to late period of the Mall Era. Malls were central to the business and cultural life of American cities. If it turns out that ANY 500,000+ sqft. American malls, current or former, don't seem notable for our purposes, then it's likely that our guidelines and processes are wrong, not that the malls aren't notable enough.
Vadder (
talk)
18:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.
WP:BEFORE revealed advertising,
WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. //
Timothy :: talk03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Seems to be a development that was significant to the city and attracted sustained coverage over time. According to the LA Times (1990), the plaza contributed 15% of Hawthorne's sales tax revenue. Significant coverage includes:
Keep per coverage above and already in article, sourcing is more than sufficient. Also further asserted in use of the former building in several movie and TV shows. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)03:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment The above are all routine news coverage that any mall would receive; it does not demonstrate notability.
WP:NBUILD says that ""Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Nothing above touches on historic, social, or architectural importance (and significant coverage means addressing the subject directly and in depth). Economic significance is refuted by the fact that it is a dead mall. If someone disagrees, please state which sources show historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. //
Timothy :: talk03:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
TimothyBlue: You really don't think that "used in a ton of movies and TV shows" is "historical or social importance", nor the fact that a structure in a major city has been sitting abandoned for 21 years? Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)03:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Reply: No I don't. Being a movie set for several movies is not historic (especially in Los Angeles) and what social importance does being a movie set for a few days have? What social impact did being a movie set have? Being an abandoned property for 21 years is not notable, if anything it shows how unnotable the mall is. //
Timothy :: talk04:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Reply: Don't be sarcastic, I gave you an honest reply. Guidelines are not just random arbitrary statements, there is a purpose to them. I see this as wheat and chaff. If we have 2000 articles for American malls (don't know the actual number), but only 200 are genuinely noteworthy, the 200 (10%) will be obscured by the other 1800 (90%). Removing non-notable malls, helps the visibility of notable ones. If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls. I believe this is what
WP:NBUILD is going for when it says "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance".
Is there some historical importance, such as the malls that were the first of their kind? I'm thinking here of the same way department stores are viewed, every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers, those have a history that is interesting and notable.
Social, a small/average mall in an urban area not socially notable, it's just one among a vast array of social environments. But a mall in a small town may be the center of the community and a significant part of the social fabric, not duplicated in other places.
Architectural speaks for itself, there are lots of architectural journals and magazines and if they cover a mall because of its design, then I see that as an indication something about the mall is notable and this can be in the article.
Economic, I'd go to the social reason above. A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money. But a mall in a small town may be a significant part of the local economy, even if it makes a fraction of the money the mall in an urban area does. In the same way as a factory in a city with a huge manufacturing base like Los Angeles or New York wouldn't be notable, but if you move that same factory to a small town, it could be the lifeblood of the economy, if it closed the town would (and sadly have) dry up.
*"Historical": "every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers." So by that logic, Bon Marche in Paris is notable because it was a first, whereas Kohl's, Burlington, and J.C. Penney aren't notable at all because they weren't the first of anything nor did they pioneer anything.
"separating the wheat from the chaff.... helps the visibility of notable ones." That's like saying that a musician who never entered the Hot 100 (for example
The Forester Sisters, which is a
WP:GA) should be deleted so that an article on, say,
Maroon 5 or
Metallica can have its visibility helped, whatever that means. Because by your standards, the Forester Sisters were just a "routine" band who routinely got together, routinely released singles and albums, routinely got reviews from routine music reviewers, and routinely broke up like most other bands do.
"it's just one among a vast array of social environment". So by your logic,
Northland Center is notable because it was one of the first and a "pioneer", whereas literally every other mall in Metro Detroit is "just one among a vast array" and therefore not notable. Not even the one that had the very first
American Eagle Outfitters in it, huh? Because it's in a mall that's "just one among a vast array" by not being notable in any other fashion.
"Architectural speaks for itself". Not every structure has to be architecturally notable. Again, I guess that means that
Forest Fair Village is just another run-of-the-mill, routine mall that routinely got built and routinely died because it didn't have anything significant from a structural standpoint.
" A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money." How much is non negligible by your standards? Is
Colonial Plaza no longer notable because it got torn down?
Rolling Acres Mall is not notable because it didn't make enough money and failed?
If you contrast
Tri-City Pavilions with other GA-class mall articles like
Colonial Plaza or
Forest Fair Village (again, both of which are GAs), then you will see that the scope of coverage is exactly the same. But by your standards, not notable because they're "routine", "not historical", and their removal will "help the visibility of notable ones", whatever the hell that means.
Wikipedia does not have a limited amount of storage space so it's not like there's a pressing reason to "separat[e] the wheat from the chaff". Again, that's like saying that lesser-known, defunct bands should have their articles deleted, or that canceled TV shows should have their articles deleted to "increase the visibility" of currently-airing shows. Are
The Forester Sisters "chaff" because they're "routine" and no longer active? Is
Lonestar "chaff" because they haven't had a hit single in years? Is
Joe Diffie "chaff" because he's no longer alive? Is
Colonial Plaza "chaff" because it was torn down? Is
Rolling Acres Mall "chaff" because it was torn down? You seem to be concocting an utterly absurd and overly narrow view of notability that in no way lines up with
WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)04:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Reply First, these are not my standards. I am discussing it from the guidelines.
The
WP:NBUILD is not an all of the above requirement.
Le Bon Marché may (I haven't looked) have importance architecturally or historically. JC Penny may be notable due to social or historic reasons, even though it is failing economically and their store (as far as I know) have no architectural importance. This will be reflected in the sources.
If something is important architecturally it will be covered by architectural journals and magazines, or by articles from historical preservation societies. The same is true about economics; if something is economically significant it will be reflected in the sources. I don't have a standard,
WP:NBUILD is a standard and it requires significant coverage showing why something is "worthy of note". The comparison of musical groups or television shows to shopping malls is
Apples and oranges, they are entirely different and have different standards of notability. Much of the rest of your reasoning is simple
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
When you attempt to get personal with comments such the ones above, you're only showing emotion that betrays the weakness of your reasoning and evidence. //
Timothy :: talk05:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. The sources that Calliopejen1 presented above show that there is pretty significant coverage for this topic. I disagree with the nominator that "If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls." Notability is not assessed in relation to other subjects, and openings, renovations, and closures are not necessarily "routine". These sources show that there's some pretty specific coverage of this mall in third-party reliable sources, which is enough to meet
WP:GNG. Just because a mall is dead does not mean that it automatically becomes insignificant - see
WP:NOTTEMPORARY.Further, I'm not convinced that this automatically fails NBUILD. According to
WP:NBUILD, "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The requirement is that such buildings need significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Historical, social, economic, or architectural significance is an ancillary, and will be demonstrated by whether the topic meets the GNG.
epicgenius (
talk)
18:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Reply: None of the sources provides any evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD. It's all routine coverage or promo pieces. You could find articles like these for every single mall. These sources show that this was just an average mall; a number of people have looked and none have come up with a single source that shows this mall has historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. It was so completely average that even when some people tried to revive it, the plans failed.
Construction Under Way at Hawthorne Plaza Site". Los Angeles Times.
Dead link
✘No
Jeff Arellano (October 2, 2005). "Hawthorne Mall: Hawthorne California".
It's a simple blog entry on a site about Dead Malls. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
✘No
Williams, J (30 June 2014). "Watch: Exploring the Spooky Abandoned Hawthorne Mall".
One paragraph promo about "Tom goes inside the abandoned Hawthorne Plaza mall" Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
✘No
Hernandez, Miriam (19 November 2014). "Hawthorne staging comeback with outlet mall". KABC-TV.
Short routine coverage about a possible plan to become an outlet mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
✘No
Mazza, Sandy (18 February 2016). "Ambitious new plans emerge for abandoned Hawthorne Plaza mall". Daily Breeze
Dead link
✘No
"Hawthorne Happenings March 10, 2016". City of Hawthorne. 10 March 2016.
Financial interest in tax revenue
It's a city community events calendar page
It says nothing about the mall
✘No
azza, Sandy (12 February 2018). "Makeover of decrepit Hawthorne Plaza Mall canceled again". The Daily Breeze.
Dead link
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Kowsky, Kim. "YOU ARE HERE Reaching Out to an Ethnically Mixed Clientele: [South Bay Edition]." Los Angeles Times
Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
✘No
Gnerre, Sam. "SOUTH BAY HISTORY: Hawthorne Plaza." Daily Breeze
Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
✘No
Sandell, Scott. "Hawthorne Plaza Shops Around for a Way to Survive Slump Retail...Los Angeles Times
Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
✘No
Glover, Kara and Anne Rackham. "Hawthorne Mall Faces an Uncertain Future." Los Angeles Business
Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
✘No
Mazza, Sandy. "Hawthorne Mall Stalls Over Housing." Daily Breeze, Oct 10, 2010.
Is not about the mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
✘No
"Shopper's Paradise each Center Tries to Carve its Niche with Own Personality: [South Bay Edition]." Los Angeles Times
Short promo piece. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
✘No
Mazza, Sandy. "Mall Makeover Mired in Debate." Daily Breeze, Jun 22, 2008
Is not about the mall. Its about a stalled plan to possibly make over the mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting
WP:NBUILD
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Comment The sources above and in the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable. //
Timothy :: talk02:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Then let it? Notability has been established for "run of the mill" plazas on here because of having reliable sources (newspapers) and verifiability. Anchor stores are usually the long term leasees of the property. Depending on the anchor store, they might have also bought the overall land. That information usually suffices
WP:GNG. –
The Grid (
talk)
02:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I got curious for possible sources:
This provides some history of its beginnings. It verifies the February 1977 opening and 1999 closure.
[29]
This is a blog but it looks like the newspaper articles references can be verified. Note I didn't bother to view anything about its usage as an abandoned site.
[30]
Comment for closer: since there is an
RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you, //
Timothy :: talk09:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
That was the opinion of a single individual, not a consensus. At ANI the consensus in the close was stated, "You and others suggested, reasonably, that some the guidelines for malls should be developed and clarified, and in fact constructive discussion about a potential WP:SNG is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC on shopping malls and notability guidelines.". Let the closer have all of the information and they can decide. There is no hurry to close these only to have them reopened at DR as a result of the RfC. //
Timothy :: talk20:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable dancer with non-verifiable claims to being "the first B-boy hip-hop dancer", "retired having never lost a B-boy battle" or "helped push B-boy breakdancing into the mass media as hip-hop". Written like a promotional piece.
Nearlyevil665 (
talk)
13:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. While he may have been an influential performer, I can't find any sources to support the somewhat
weaselly claims made in the article. I'm happy to be change my vote if anyone can find sources to demonstrate his notability per
WP:ANYBIO or
WP:ENTERTAINER, but at the moment there's not enough to warrant keeping the page.
~dom Kaos~ (
talk)
15:13, 27 August 2020 (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.
Reviewed under new article curation / NPP. No indication of wp:notability. No GNG suitable sources given and I couldn't find any. No SNG basis. Appears to be a small industrial park. North8000 (
talk)
12:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as far as I can tell the only actual source is the subject's own website. Wikipedia is to be based on secondary, 3rd party indepdent coverage. It is not a directory of everybody and everything that has created a website.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is that the publication is notable, and of note is that no participants here have agreed with the statement in the nomination that the article constitutes advertising. North America100014:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Haven't seen enough yet to make a determination on notability or lack thereof either here or on the
related nomination of Paletten, but I dispute the notion that
WP:CSK #2 applies here. I've helped process many a nomination by an IP or a new account, and while these have, to put it charitably, varied widely in terms of merit, that does not mean that they have not been made in good faith. Nom is persistent--I'll assume that this is the same person as the one behind the IPs who had AfD-tagged the articles previously (which I reverted as incomplete noms)--but I see no indication that the intent is frivolous, vexatious, or malicious. Unless something new comes up, the discussion should proceed. --
Finngalltalk15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This article shows an abyssmal failure to pass GNG. The page from his employer is not indepdent, so we have at best one source that passes GNG, which requires multiple sources, and I do not see strong evidence that even that source passes GNG requirements.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not pass
WP:ARTIST nor
WP:GNG; maybe a case of
WP:TOOSOON. Most of the secondary sources on him come from 'aftonbladet', which I don't see as a reliable independent secondary source. I disagree that
WP:CSK#2 applies here, and disagree with the reasons given to invoke it here. Walwal20talk ▾
contribs07:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment My only question is whether there's an argument for
WP:NPROF C8 or similar here. Editorship of a well-established publication like Palatten is not nothing. (But this is the only assertion of notability in the article, and I didn't see anything else on searching.)
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
08:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete in the absence of anyone making a case that being one of 3 chief-editors for an art magazine confers notability, and with no other evidence in sight of notability.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
08:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: First source is a passing mention in a book that is devoted to
Chuvash history. Second is a conference paper held in the region the artist hailed from. Updated comment: I took a look at the Russian sources and a couple of them reference to the
Chuvash Republic government site[10][11], which is obviously not a reliable source. One is a reference to a statement commemorating the artist by the National Museum of the Chuchav Republic[12]. There is also another source that is a passing mention (artist referenced to 1 page) in a 420 page book[13]. Four links are dead[14][15][16][17]. One reference is to a catalogue of the artist's work[18]. One is to a open Russian database of artists[19]. That's pretty much what the Russians sources are. P.S @
Eostrix: If there is a more streamlined or efficient way to comment with the references and evidence of non-notability please let me know, I'm new around here!
Nearlyevil665 (
talk)
12:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Being catalogued and being honored by a state government (
Chuvashia) are also signs of notability. There are a whole lot of hits in google books for Кокель 1880 (most of which refer to this artist).--Eostrix (
🦉 hoothoot🦉)13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
You misunderstood. He wasn't honoured by the Chuvash Republic. There were simply references to him on their government website, which was most likely for the purposes of promoting tourism to their region. Those two links are now dead too, by the way. There is no way to confirm what those government website references constituted, but my best guess is that it would be promotional. As for the cataloging, that too is blatantly non-notable. It was for a catalog produced in 1960 for the exhibition of the artist's works. Any artist that has ever had an exhibition could produce a reference to their own catalog of works. There is nothing to suggest that this particular catalog was of any note, quite the contrary.
Nearlyevil665 (
talk)
13:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
In regards to "Any artist that has ever had an exhibition could produce a reference to their own catalog of works", as Kokel was dead and buried for four years in 1960 it would be quite a feat (a miracle, even) for him to produce his own catalog for the exhibition.--Eostrix (
🦉 hoothoot🦉)13:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I stand corrected it would have taken necromancy for the man to produce his own catalog being dead and all, but I'm still not convinced a catalog produced for what appears to be a dubious local exhibition evidence in support of notability for said artist.
Nearlyevil665 (
talk)
15:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. As far as I see from Russian language sources, he was one of the most important painters in Chuvashia. This link includes bibliography of more than 30 books in Russian, where he is mentioned, with first 6 books especially dedicated to him.
[35].
Arthistorian1977 (
talk)
12:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I did a brief search and turned up three sources, which confirmed the birth date and death and the elopement date. If I can find such information almost 300 years after her birth, I think she is likely notable.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
06:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: She is notable for the mere fact of having her DOB/DOD documented in secondary sources? Context matters - All sources that do mention her (or her DOB/DOD) establish no significance or notability other than her posing and serving as a muse to her notable husband,
Allan Ramsay. Her elopement too would have not been recorded if the notable husband was out of the equation. I strongly suggest a merge with
Allan Ramsay, if not an outright delete.
Nearlyevil665 (
talk)
06:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
There is a lot more than her DOB documented in the sources. I've analyzed a lot of articles for AfD, and yes , I think there's enough here. Expectations are typically a little lower for those who have been dead for 300 years.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
06:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment.
Previous AfD discussion mentions coverage in Mitchell's Women in Scotland, 1660-1780 and in Barker and Challis's Women's History: Britain, 1700-1850. Can't find these on Google books - can anyone give more info about the mentions there?
Tacyarg (
talk)
07:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I found Barker and Chalus' book on Google where there are (for me) three sentences about her that I could see (about Lindsay herself rather than her husband or relatives). This book references "Virgins and Viragos" by Rosalind Kay Marshall where the snippet I see shows an index entry for her under the name Lindsay as a "see also" to her husband's entry. There is a great deal about her in, for example, "The life and art of Allan Ramsay" by Alistair Smart available on the Internet Archive.
[36]WP:NOTINHERITED is not a policy or guideline. It is advice as to what arguments are best avoided in deletion discussions and so is somewhat premature when referred to in an AFD nomination. It decidedly does not say that relatives of notable people are not notable or even that they are not notable if they would not have been written about except for their famous relatives. Her elopement too would have not been recorded if the notable husband was out of the equation is an inappropriate argument to be making. As always we look for sources about the person themselves and in this case the sources seem entirely suitable for our purpose.
Thincat (
talk)
09:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The nominator’s rationale stands. What exactly did she do besides exist a few centuries ago? It’s not like she was the subject of a famous work, so being in a gallery isn’t relevant to independent notability that is unable to be established.
Trillfendi (
talk)
17:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. She's notable because reliable, independent sources took note of her. Notability is not temporary, and noted people need not accomplish great feats.
pburka (
talk)
17:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per PamD and others - notability is just about met, this article is potentially useful, and it's doing no harm (very unlikely to be UPE or an SEO scam after 300 years...)
GirthSummit (blether)15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Thincat. and also it would be a great help to others to find details about her and i think there is no personal interest as the person died, I suggest to update it properly
Onmyway22 (
talk)
16:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Can't see any evidence of notability. Does look like it may be a paid-for article, particularly given the behaviour of the account creating it.
Number5710:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. One of the most successful music producers in Israel! Produced "
Toy", "Shney Meshugaim", and many other 1# charted songs, and even won
Society of Authors, Composers and Music Publishers in Israel prize (One of the most notable Israeli music prizes).
WP:NM: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." + "Has won or been nominated for a major music award". He meets the criteria! Israeli guys would joking on this deletion nomination, believe me.
YairMelamed (
talk)
22:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Seems a weak keep to me, but I daresay Israeli/Hebrew language sources would solidify him as a keep - he's written some major works, including stuff for Eurovision.
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
01:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment That may be so. But where is the in-depth, independent, secondary references. Single sentences and passing mentions, are insufficient. I saw mention for Eurovision, but I can't find much on.
WP:THREE would be ideal. scope_creepTalk06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Beger is one of Israel's prominent music producers and songwriters and responsible to some of the major hits in the recent years. The above mentioned article is in
Yedioth Ahronoth, it's exclusively about Beger and it's not pr, there is also almost
an hour intreview with him in
Kan.
Tzahy (
talk)
04:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Where is the rest of the coverage, that should be visible for a
WP:BLP. At the moment it still fails
WP:SIGCOV. Where is the in-depth, intellectually independent secondary sources that are needed to establish notabilty. That article does look PR. Stating he is notable, without evidence isn't ideal. scope_creepTalk09:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. While he may be prolific and influential, there simply doesn't appear to be sufficient independent, third-party coverage of him to pass
WP:ANYBIO.
~dom Kaos~ (
talk)
15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The
deemed university is a type of degree-granting institution in India. There are several engineering colleges, medical colleges, liberal arts colleges, and many other specialized institution declared as 'deemed-to-be-university.' Hence, a separate article for 'Medical deemed universities' seems redundant. It should be redirected to
deemed university page.
Neurofreak (
talk)
10:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. While there is sourcing that can verify information, there is a consensus that only the Inc article satisfies our
criteria to establish notability. As such there is a delete consensus at this time.
Barkeep49 (
talk)
01:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I think this fails
WP:NCORP but it's arguable—hence this sitting in
CAT:NN since 2016. There was indeed a 2-page article in Inc about it in 2007: basically, World Orphans did not do its due diligence with overseas partners and ended up out $70k. Beyond that, there's not much else significant I can find. There's
this in the Gaylord Herald Times (small local newspaper) and
this (maybe an RS, but just a namedrop). I think this calls for a deletion discussion.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
03:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm on the fence. Not very notable beyond the Inc article, although that article is not insignificant because of the controversies/issues raised. The article in Gaylord Times, a relatively weak source, reads like a puff piece and Blue & Green (also puffy) probably isn't
WP:RS. Maybe a weak keep if the content leans mainly on Inc.
Rhode Island Red (
talk)
23:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The
INC piece] referred to above fails
WP:ORGIND as it relies entirely on an interview with Mr. Wiseman and has no "Independent Content". As stated above, the blueandgreen reference is really a profile about Wiseman and only mentions this company in passing. The HeraldTimes reference relies on interviews with people involved in the company, fails
WP:ORGIND. Topic fails
WP:NCORP/GNG.
HighKing++ 19:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Sure, littered with phrases which make it clear that the information was provided by Wiseman. For example, how could the author know whether Wiseman was "surprised" or not, or what he "wondered" about, etc. It fails
WP:ORGIND because none of the prose is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
HighKing++ 10:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. Sure, the references are somewhat deplorable, one is primary, but the organisation has both detected and cleaned up fraud in a charitable area were all too many are quick to engage in fraud. Recognise their cleanup efforts. --
Whiteguru (
talk)
12:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm just not seeing the multiple
WP:RS we need to meet
WP:NORG. Looking at what's in the article now, guidestar is a directory listing, mlive.com is a college paper article that's mostly about a student, and World Orphans is largely a name drop. The Inc article is a good solid source, but it's just one, and I'm not seeing anything else in my own searching. --
RoySmith(talk)21:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject does not meet Notability (people), and Not a Directory. Local politician without any claim to national significance. Note that "Lord Mayor" is a ceremonial role taken up on a rotating basis by councillors; it contrasts with the role of the elected mayor (e.g. Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan). It is reliant on primary sources.
The JPStalk to me12:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Groupe M6#Television Yet another pointless BFM Lyon Ado article creation; it's never aired a minute of original content and the Groupe M6 article describes it in perfect detail. What we have in the article is pointless corporate information nobody wanting to read a network article cares about. Nate•(
chatter)02:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This doesn't seem to be notable since the article lacks sourcing and all I could find about it in a
WP:BEFORE was a trivial article about their profits. So, I'm not seeing anything here like multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources that it would need to pass
WP:GNG or
WP:NCORP. Plus, the article is kind of advertish.
Adamant1 (
talk)
04:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Draftify. Per
WP:PUBLIC, significant coverage in reliable sources is almost certainly available, we just need more time for editors to find those reliable sources and add them to the article.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
02:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: Large, publicly-traded company in Zimbabwe that produces about 3/4 of the country's wine. It doesn't attract the same kind of North American press coverage that an American or European company would, although I found two American newspaper stories following an import push in 1989:
one article from the national syndicate Howard Scripps News Services, and
another article from the Arizona Daily Star. I believe that this demonstrates notability. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
18:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Being listed is not an automatic indication of notability - see
WP:LISTED. Usually a listed company features in analyst reports but no analysts cover this company. Toughpigs provided two references. The first from the Star Tribune is no good, it simply contains two quotes from a company executive and nothing else, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:ORGIND. The second reference contains exactly one relevant sentence - enough to confirm the existence of the company and little else - and also fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:ORGIND. Similarly, Bad-patches reference is entirely based on an interview with the company's Director of Trade and has no independent content, also fails
WP:ORGIND. I have searched and I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. The best I found was a book entitled
Multinationals and the Restructering of the World Economy by Michael Taylor and Nigel Thrift which has a chapter on "South African Breweries Limited" and mentions this company. Multiple sources are required. As such, topic fails GNG/
WP:NCORP.
HighKing++ 15:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails both CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV. I likewise see nothing here to meet WP:COMPANY, HighKing is right:
WP:COMPANY explicitly says that being listed on the NYSE doesn't confer notability, never mind in the Zimbabwean exchange. Finally, there is nothing in any relevant notability criterion exempting Zimbabwean companies from their requirements. If this subject hasn't achieved SIGCOV, the answer is that it does not qualify for an article.
Ravenswing 11:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - Going to err on the side of keep here. There are a ton of sources (if you haven't yet, use "Afdis" as your search term), but I'm not terribly familiar with sources from Zimbabwe. It's clear that it has a major economic presence in the country, and I think it's just less common to have sources write about consumer products in the same way that's common as in e.g. the US. So it's not surprising that most of the coverage is business/trade-oriented. I'm throwing "weak" in front of keep mainly because I'm not sure about the reputation of these sources, and there seems some potential for basis on press releases and/or qualify as "routine", but here's some of what I see:
NewsDay,
Chronicle,
Sunday News,
Business Weekly,
The Standard,
Business Times,
Zimbabwe Independent,
Sunday Mail,
Equity Axis. It's a tough one. — Rhododendritestalk \\
18:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: This is a large, company traded on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange not the NYSE however I am inclined to stretch the guideline of
WP:LISTED. This distiller also has 6 locations. Not Napa Valley but notable. Passes
WP:NLightburst (
talk)
02:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Whilst there has been a considerable number of submissions, the sources cited relatively late in the debate deserve proper consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Stifle (
talk)
12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Producing 3/4th of the country's wine (per Toughpigs) is a strong indicator of notability. We should not expect US-standard sourcing to be readily available online for a Zimbabwean company.
SD0001 (
talk)
10:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
No one here is expecting US-standards based sourcing to exist and it's ridiculous to claim we do. Let alone to try and act like articles about US subjects are the only ones that can meet such a low freaken bar as having two in-depth sources about them. Anywhere in the world should be able to meet that standard and it doesn't have jack to do with the US. It probably wasn't people in the US who came up with the guideline in the first place. American's aren't the only ones that speak English. Also, it's totally the soft bigotry of low exceptions to hold Zimbabwean companies to a lower standard then companies from anywhere else just "because Zimbabwe." There's plenty of extremely well sourced articles about Zimbabwean companies in Wikipedia. Including
Old Mutual,
Ecobank Zimbabwe,
Bindura Nickel Corporation, etc etc, just to name a few. Not every damn article about something in Africa should be kept just because voters like you and ToughPigs have a slanted, clearly wrong opinion about the place. Some things, no matter where they are located, are just not notable. That's life, get over it and stop blaming Africans or Zimbabweans because something isn't notable (that mostly goes for ToughPigs, but also anyone else that feels like calling Africa about the level of journalism there. Whatever it is). --
Adamant1 (
talk)
12:39, 30 August 2020 (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.
Advertorialized article about a short film, not
properly referenced as passing
WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we look for markers of a film's significance, such as notable film awards or attention from established film critics in media, not just technical verification of the film's existence. But right across the board, the review pullquotes here are all from unreliable and non-notability-making
blogs rather than real media outlets, and I can't find any evidence whatsoever of coverage in stronger sources. In addition, it warrants note that the article was created by an editor whose username matches the name of the film's director, thus indicating a clear
conflict of interest.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete:, as per nomination, apparently a
WP:COI with the film director authoring the article. First two references are good reviews. Fourth reference is a dead link. Fifth reference is a good review, sixth is a dead link, defaults to a short review on archive.org. Seventh is broken, eighth is a 404. While the pull quotes are intriuging, and the good reviews inspiring I can't see this passing
WP:FILM. --
Whiteguru (
talk)
12:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge with
List of central banks: Per
WP:CLN simple lists can be building blocks. I like the table format here, but the List of Central Banks has more information. Combining the two into one list makes sense. In this case I'd say whoever(s) decides to do the work can decide on how to do the merge. //
Timothy :: talk02:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article has been linked to a single primary source since at 2010 and I was unable to find the multiple in-depth reliable sources that would be needed for it to pass either
WP:GNG or
WP:NORG. As an alternative to deletion the article could be merged or redirected to the article of the town where it's located
Palapye, which already has an education section, or
Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa. Merging or redirecting this to either one would fit the consensus about how to handle non-notable school articles. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
09:07, 9 August 2020 (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.
A department of Bangor University - did consider a redirect but the title is so generic it could be mistaken for any similar department in any university.
Cardiffbear88 (
talk)
10:39, 27 August 2020 (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.
After having worked on this article recently and brought it to the current state it is in, I am having serious doubts about the notability of the person in question from a Wikipedia perspective. Yes, the event that he was part of was notable, so he can be mentioned there -
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, or as a commander in the JK State forces/rifles article -
Jammu and Kashmir Rifles, but as separate article, I am not so sure.
As per
WP:1E, as everything seems to be about the MVC action, and there doesn't seem to be "significant coverage" of his whole life in reliable sources, 26 years of his life and all of his army career except four days - this article has very little basis to stay if Wikipedia guidelines are appropriately adhered to.
DTM (
talk)
10:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep (cross-posting from
WT:INDIA) I think this is too notable. 1E is for stuff like
Prakriti Malla. This brigadier (pass of
WP:NSOLDIER right there, btw) played a major role in a major world event. Saved a whole state for a country rather than the other, ensuring a conflict that's lasted to today? Has a postal stamp with his face? Has a village named after him, and schools (more than one Wikipedia notable entities)? Won second highest honour (ANYBIO), and has since received sustained coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (GNG) about his deeds and whether he should have been awarded the highest military award his country has to offer? As I said, too notable. Compare this with the articles we keep on internet influencers and domestic footballers. Usedtobecool☎️11:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This is exactly what I am talking about; everything about him is only related to 4 days in 1947; and not of his life as a whole. There are just too many large gaps about his life. His entire army life (except 4 days) is missing as well as his early life. We might as well called the article Rajinder Singh in October 1947.
DTM (
talk)
11:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I am sure the information is somewhere, in the personnel archives of the organisation he worked for, for example. Missing details, which is true of most historical figures, isn't enough reason to delete even if it is completely missing, IMO. Usedtobecool☎️11:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I think
WP:1E does not apply per its second paragraph. While there is not much information about his earlier life, there is enaugh of a legacy related to the person, so there is an enduring coverage. Having a postage stamp certainly indicates notability.
Agathoclea (
talk)
11:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Though the reason for the notability is clearly the one event during the war, there appears to be plenty of related coverage that has continued over the years. Definitely notable and I'd actually go for speedy keep on this one. --
RegentsPark (
comment)
12:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep.
WP:BLP1E always needs to be applied with common sense; interpreting it literally when the events themselves are very significant doesn't make sense. There is substantive coverage of this individual in several dozen sources, as even a quick google books search reveals. If you feel the need to establish firm consensus on this,
DiplomatTesterMan, feel free to let it run, but as I write this you still have the option of withdrawing this and closing as "speedy keep", because no one else has supported deletion. Vanamonde (
Talk)16:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep on the basis of his crucial involvement in a seminal event in the founding of India and the lasting legacy indicated by the stamp (he's marginal for WP:SOLDIER, BTW), but there is no way this article will even get to B-Class on the basis of the material in the article at this point, 27 years of his life are completely missing, and the usual sources for such information on highly decorated Indian soldiers are mute on that period of his life.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
01:14, 28 August 2020 (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.
Seeking consensus on a very close case on
WP:BASIC. In addition to the usual barrage of press releases, there's coverage in major outlets (e.g.,
[44],
[45]), but it either seems
WP:ROUTINE or really about
Icahn Enterprises.
[46] seems to be about him personally, but I'm not sure if it's reliable. Has sat in
CAT:NN since 2016, presumably because the case is so close. I would have considered a redirect, but since he's been an exec at a number of companies there's no clear target.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
16:10, 19 August 2020 (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.
New page review: I’ve looked at this BLP several times. There are primary sources, interviews, non-notable awards and other references, but taken all together it does not amount to a GNG pass in my view.
Mccapra (
talk)
10:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete it's not impossible that we're missing some coverage due to the difficulties of researching Iranian subjects, but that hunch isn't enough to justify keeping at this time. signed, Rosguilltalk15:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Appears to be spam. I'm not finding coverage outside of real estate listing, primary sources, and a few spammy websites. Not notable.
Hog FarmBacon15:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete:
WP:TOOSOON might be generous. If it flies and a decently sourced article can be produced without
WP:CITEBOMBing a couple of sentences then a chance might for mainspace occur in the future, but I am nowhere near convinced that would happen.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
12:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject of this badly sourced article does not meet
WP:NCORP and, even after extensive attempts to rewrite, the article is still an advertising brochure. The previous AfD closed as no consensus for want of participation, but the subject is no more notable now than it was then. My own searches turn up hits for unrelated organisations with the same name, but little to nothing about this one.
ReykYO!08:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - I agree with
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The nom has misrepresented the first nomination. Six editors voted with four voting to keep. Nowhere was it stated 'a character that appeared in 83 episodes is notable'. In fact the character is a major character in two television series that spanned 158 episodes and a TV movie, as well as having appeared in crossover episodes of other TV shows. Neither series had 83 episodes so I'm not sure where that figure was plucked from. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
08:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect - Mistaken guideline aside, the nomination is correct that this currently fails to establish independent notability through real world information-providing reliable sources. The keep !votes in the previous AfD did rely on all "it's notable" claims without any backing, so sources should be provided if those claims are to be made again. The number of appearances are completely irrelevant to establishing notability.
TTN (
talk)
12:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete / redirect - after a review of the sources. There are some questoins of whether Mr. Moseby is a racial stereotype, but nothing enough to establish the
WP:NOTABILITY of the character, and really more about racial representation in children's programming as a whole. In the sources he's cited as a brief example in a much wider conversation about representation, when we really need more
WP:SIGCOV to explain this character's real world reception overall.
Jontesta (
talk)
15:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion was closed on 25 August by
User:Awesome Aasim, a non-administrator, as keep. Pursuant to
WP:DPR#NAC, I, an uninvolved administrator, have vacated this closure and determine that the debate be relisted for a further one week from today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Stifle (
talk)
08:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
weak keep The source I found (linked above) is more than plot--it is very much analysis of the character and his interaction with others. In particular a discussion about sexuality and behavior. Reading the whole thing is actually fairly interesting. That said, the source is short (the entire discussion about this character is a bit less than a page spread over a few pages). But with everything else, I feel like we are over the bar. I am shocked that there isn't as much in the popular press here as I'd have expected.
Hobit (
talk)
16:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
There actually was a lot more for all of the main characters while the program was actually airing. I don't know if it's a thing just with Disney programs or whether it occurs with all kids' TV programs but almost as soon as the program ended, sources started disappearing. Admittedly, a lot of the websites did start reorganising their content but it's almost as if they said "Well, that program has finished, we don't need this stuff any more" and dumped everything. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Highly notable character who was a cornerstone of a highly notable 2000s Disney Channel Sitcom. Sources have become dead links over time. However, the character lives on in memes and nostalgia; and its clear that it had made Phill Lewis's career appearing in dozens of episodes with this unique character.
DrewieStewie (
talk)
13:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Can you cite any sources to show that "the character lives on in memes and nostalgia"? Because if all the sources saying that are now "dead", well, than it means the character no longer lives on. And while notability is not temporary, we need to be able to verify those old sources, otherwise it is just a claim that
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Or THEWERESOURCESBUTNOWTHEYAREGONE. C'mon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This has been tagged for 8 years as
WP:OR (the tag was added by
User:TenPoundHammer). I sadly concur that what we have here is a OR-ish
WP:ESSAY in need of
WP:TNT. Google Scholar/Books search show there is no such concept as "Ideology of Tintin". Now, both the comic author and his individual books received good amount of coverage, and so there are few tidbits here and there that could be merged to
Hergé,
The Adventures of Tintin or one of dozen+ specific books his stories are collected in that are almost all notable (at least I assume so...). Through in most cases, those issues are already dicussed there, making this article a SYNTH POVFORK (for example, accusations of anti-semitic themes are discussed at lenght, with better references, at
Flight_714_to_Sydney#Critical_analysis already). Anyway, no, there is no "Ideology of Tintin", and this mostly unreferenced essay is beyond clean up, IMHO. PS. Prior AfD from 2007 was not linked on the article's talk page, but the nom also noted OR. The consensus back then was "rescue by adding references since
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES". Which hasn't happened in a decade plus. Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Complete
WP:OR. If it contains any legitimate ideas, it should be restarted in the main article only with the support of proper sourcing.
TTN (
talk)
14:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a fictional nation that appears in a few strips of
The Adventures of Tintin. Unfortunately, the article is pure PLOT with no shred of analysis / reception / significance. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement.
WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. And before someone proudly displays a
WP:GOOGLEHITS results, yes, the country is mentioned in some books like
[49] or
[50] but unfortunately the discusison I see is limited to
WP:PLOT summary or is otherwise limited to passing commentary that "San Theororos is a parody of a banana republic" or such. Whichj does not suggest that we need a dedicated
WP:FANCRUFT description if this fictional country, a mention in the first book it appears in, which I think is
The Broken Ear, should be sufficient; and at best this could be redirected to
List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Current sourcing is insufficient to meet
WP:GNG. It would be most prudent to build up
The Adventures of Tintin#Settings over trying to do anything with that bare-bones list of locations. I wouldn't doubt the possibility of a few locations from such an old series meeting GNG, but proof will need to be shown first.
TTN (
talk)
13:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet
WP:NWP:GNG. There is almost no coverage in
WP:RS. The one cited source that comes closest to RS just mentions the person in the passing. Does not belong on English-language Wikipedia.
Stefania0 (
talk)
05:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article fails
WP:GNG and has had an issue of being
WP:OR since March 2019, I’m not sure if these articles were fixed if the article would be worthy enough to save or if deletion is the best option for it.
Pahiy (
talk)
04:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:BROADCAST. The sources in the article at present, including one from The Hollywood Reporter, demonstrate that this station exists, which seems sufficient for the (IMO unduly permissive) standard of WP:BROADCAST. A merge to
Nickelodeon#Media is also possible.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:NCORP. Created by the company's founder. I did find one passable source in my
pre-AfD check, which I have added, but NCORP requires multiple sources to qualify. The other external links listed are either not independent or do not mention Freelanthropy except in passing. –
Teratix₵04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
List of Batman Beyond characters. I found a few sources that mention him, but these were merely plot mentions, largely due to his role in Terry McGuinnis' origin. I was unable to find enough sources that went in-depth enough to support an independent article, so Redirecting to the main character list, where he is already covered, would be the best solution.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
List of Batman Beyond characters. I remember doing a source search on this character a year or two back to possibly expand this article, but I could not find enough significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. However, I think this is a viable search term, and the character is already mentioned in the above list so I think that would be more beneficial than outright deletion.
Aoba47 (
talk)
04:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I remember this character. She was pretty cool! Redirect to the list... =P If a
Aoba47 made a full-hearted attempt to improve it and didn't uncover sources, then new sources are unlikely to be found now. -
2pou (
talk)
16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
List of Batman family enemies. The characters only significance is that he began in animation and then made the transition to regular comics, similarly to
Harley Quinn though clearly not as notable. There may be some relevant information out there about that transition, but that could still simply be added to the characters entry on the Batman villain list.
Rhino131 (
talk)
12:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The actual commentary on the character in the first doesn't really actually say much. It's just 80% plot recap. The "The Essential Batman Encyclopedia" is a literal plot recap, so it does not provide significant coverage. The third doesn't seem to have previews, but it's obviously the same vein of literal encyclopedia like the other.
TTN (
talk)
00:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The coverage in Welcome to Arkham Asylum discusses the character as an example of the messages that the show presents about psychiatric care: "This scene, in particular, conveys another confounding message regarding psychiatric institutions: psychiatric treatment, although therapeutic, can result in fears of both the care provider and the fellow patient." —
Toughpigs (
talk)
18:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Adam Strange. While there have been other characters that have had some involvement with the planet, it was introduced with Strange's first appearance and they have more or less had a shared history every since. He is by far the character that is most intrinsically tied to the location. Outside of the single sentence in the introduction mentioning the issue it first appeared in, the entire current article is completely unsourced, in-universe plot descriptions, which should not be kept or merged.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete since there doesn't seem to be a good redirect
WP:ATD-R option. It also appears to be the Romanian adjective form (Transylvanian), so one could delete and redirect to
Transylvania, but the search function might provide
better options to a searcher, so delete. -
2pou (
talk)
07:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - A minor fictional planet that only appeared in a small handful of issues. Searching for sources brings up a few results, but none of them appear to be valid for passing the
WP:GNG - most are just fansites or user generated content, and the one I found that appears to be from a reliable source is nothing but a long plot summary of the initial story. The location is far, far too minor to include in the DC locations list.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Hawkman. I understand 2pou's argument, as there have been multiple characters called Hawkman, some connected to Thanagar, some not, and it's all very confusing. But I'd still prefer a redirect over deletion, and Hawkman as a whole is still closely connected to the planet.
Rhino131 (
talk)
01:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Refereeing at international level is not an indication of notability under ny guideline, not seeing anything on the Hungarian Wikipedia article to indicate GNG
Fenix down (
talk)
06:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment This referee has reffed international matches, although GNG is not met here, I was wondering if there are other language sources that haven't been found.
Govvy (
talk)
11:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Amethyst, Princess of Gemworld. The location basically exists as the location of Amethyst's stories, and pretty much all sources mentioning it are actually discussing her and her various comic series as the primary topic. There is currently no reliably sourced information to Merge, but redirecting it to the article on the main topic would make sense.
Rorshacma (
talk)
15:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Rather pointless disambiguation page. Any characters prominently named Iron Man should just be relocated to the real disambiguation page.
TTN (
talk)
13:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - As stated, any actual notable character here named "Iron Man" would be better to be included on the disambiguation page. But, really, that would only be James Rhodes, as he is the only one here that actually prominently took on the mantle for any amount of time. Every other entry is either just an alternate version of Tony Stark, or "someone who wore the armor once or twice".
Rorshacma (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as redundant to the disambiguation page, and several other Iron Man article spinoffs that are still just about various editions of the same character. Don't need another
WP:CONTENTFORK, especially without meeting the
WP:GNG.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
04:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:LISTN and
WP:NBOOK. While this isn't named as a list, in function, it is a list. I'm not finding anything that discusses these books as a unit. In fact, I'm pretty much just finding content on wikis, unreliable blogs, and sales sites. I don't see how this is possibly notable.
Hog FarmBacon02:11, 27 August 2020 (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.
Appears to be a fringe theorist of ethnic groups in Bangladesh who fails
WP:NAUTHOR. Worldcat says his most widely held book is in 20 libraries (
[54]). Most of the cites in this article are dead or unhelpful, but there is one review in The Daily Star in English
[55], so at least the beginnings of a
WP:NAUTHOR case. Articles in other Wikipedias do not help with sourcing.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.