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.
Article was deproded because “ full time MLB umpires are presumed notable according to BASE/N”. My argument is why, when an article is so short that all it says is John Smith is an ambassador from Country X to Country Y, and it gets deleted with the reasoning that ambassadors are not inherently notable. Have we gotten so anti-intellectual and so anti-global that a baseball referee who had been on the job for a few weeks or months is more wiki worthy than an. Ambassador who might have decades of experience? It doesn’t make sense to me. I want someone to explain to me, in a way I can understand, why this guy is notable but an ambassador isn’t.
ThurstonMitchell (
talk)
23:46, 14 December 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.
Substantively the same as was AfDed in July with the exception of September 1 being declared in her honor (source 9). Still no evidence she meets notability guidelines as also discussed at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Longevity#Hester_Ford. Was tagged G4, which the creator removed. Bringing here for discussion and if deleted, suggest protection of the redlink/redirect.
StarM23:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
keep she’s been subject to many media reports and is so annually, her birthday gains a lot of public attention every year. Plus her birthday was only recently named the Mother Hester Ford Day by commissioners.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Thebiggangwiki (
talk •
contribs)
08:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per my
WP:NOPAGE reasoning in the first AfD, which resulted in deletion. Being the "oldest x" is not notable either, and nothing substantive has changed with her lack of notability since the first AfD.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
07:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Typical longevity fanfluff. No substantial improvement over previously deleted article. Social media hits are no indication of actual notability. Nothing more than a minor local celebrity so far therefore fails GNG.
DerbyCountyinNZ(
TalkContribs)07:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Prior stand alone articles for Gertrude Baines, Dina Manfredini, and Gertrude Weaver who were oldest Americans and world’s oldest people have all been deleted for lack of notability. Hester Ford is the 6th oldest living person and certainly has less notability then the aforementioned.
TFBCT1 (
talk)
21:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete per G4 and only G4. No prejudice against recreation if she becomes oldest in the world, as the articles would no longer be "substantially identical."
schetm (
talk)
04:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete but add back if she reaches 116 and makes it into the top 3 Currently Hester Ford is not even in the top 5 of oldest currently living people in the world and is only in the early part of being 115 still. My suggestion would be to take down Hester Ford for now, but then if she makes 116 and gets to where she is in the top 3 for oldest currently living person in the world add a new page for her provided some good, reliable sources come out about her giving good longevity oriented information.
JasonPhelps (
talk)
20:43, 17 December 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.
As far as I can tell, he fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NFOOTBALL. Neither the first nor second tier of Zambia is fully professional and I don't believe that Lazio Babies were playing in the top tier of Ghana at any point. I'm not finding any coverage that suggests he could pass GNG.
Spiderone22:40, 14 December 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 Reluctantly. The two times the subject name came up in publications were both single quotes in the context of articles on the subject's employer. Both are also essentially the same statement "Aramco builds oil fields to last for centuries." I was only able to find fourteen papers or patents and not any with citations so PROF1 seems unlikely. The awards mentioned in the article are either for service to a scientific society, rather than in recognition of accomplishment, or an award from a trade show organizer. As a result, PROF2 also seems unlikely. PROF3-8 wouldn't apply in this case.
MoneciousTriffid (
talk)
01:25, 17 December 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, wrong external link, all references are out of service, only one ESPN crick info source is there available on infobox which is also wrong with data on infobox and article, in short falls
WP:NCRIC. --
Pratyush.shrivastava (
talk)
18:46, 14 December 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 badminton player, fails
WP:NBAD. Success at
[1] U15 U17 & U19 level isn't a criterion of notability. As many of my previously created articles also deleted for the same reason. Also, a clear case of
WP:TOOSOON. Zoglophie
Write?18:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Some of these comments should be noted from previous similar archives:
Delete, as creator@
Zoglophie: I had created this article but I am OK with your explanation. Please add this point to
WP:NBAD that junior champions are not notable. I had created it as I believed that winning the top title in junior national championship is good enough. Regards,-
Nizil (
talk)
07:32, 16 December 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 - unnecessary split - better covered in its parent article. Not independently notable. I’d say merge but as the nom noted, there’s little to be added really.
Sergecross73msg me18:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per above- Not independently notable to the point that a split would make sense. There is no worthwhile content to merge, and it would not make a useful search term for a Redirect.
Rorshacma (
talk)
21:06, 14 December 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 - unnecessary split - better covered in its parent article. Not independently notable. I’d say merge but as the nom noted, there’s little to be added really.
Sergecross73msg me18:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Not independently notable. Just a role people play, not an actual character in its own right. This doesn't even seem right as a redirect (wouldn't it be Crewmember?)ZXCVBNM (
TALK)20:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per above- Not independently notable to the point that a split would make sense. There is no worthwhile content to merge, and it would not make a useful search term for a Redirect.
Rorshacma (
talk)
21:06, 14 December 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 league that exists outside the English league system although
English football league system has it down as being at the 17th level. In any case, it doesn't have inherent notability so needs to pass
WP:GNG. The article is currently only listed to primary sources. A
British newspaper search shows that the fixtures, results and league tables were published in the Yarmouth Independent on occasion but I couldn't see anything more.
This appears to be the website for the league as far as I can see. ProQuest turned up
this and
this, both of which are just adverts in the local paper asking for more clubs to join. I found nothing worth mentioning in a search of Google News and DuckDuckGo.
Spiderone18:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: I decided to put the handy 'View history' tool to use! Drawing from my experiences there with this page, I reckon this page is here only because people closely associated with the matter etc. etc. etc., so it's more of an advertisement than an actual claim of notability. Plus, only three users made any major contribution to this article; one of them's Internet Archive Bot, the other's a user whose only edit was on this page and the last one who has been inactive for a very long time. So, delete I think
Rebestalic[leave a message....]02:41, 21 December 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 could find no indication of notability under
WP:NSONG or GNG including no reviews that would help to establish notability. Minimal mentions of this album in my English and German searches beyond it exists.
Barkeep49 (
talk)
17:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The band doesn't have an article either. So why would their album be notable? By the way, the first AfD of this title was not about this album, it was about a non-notable single by a rap group called U.S.D.A.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk)
11:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Note that there is currently a
draft article in development for the band, and that should be finalized before any of their albums get articles. This particular album has no evidence of notability anyway, as it is only present in the usual retail and database services and achieved no reliable media notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 17:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. Can't find a single mention of this band on the websites of either Kerrang! or Rock Hard, Europe's two biggest metal magazines, which doesn't bode well for the notability of the group or their album.
Richard3120 (
talk)
15:03, 17 December 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.
Another stub article about a non-notable band, this time about a noise music supergroup. Even though it had notable members such as the master of noise, Merzbow himself, the sourcing is beyond abysmal - Discogs and Musicbrainz still don't establish notability. They don't have an article on jpwiki either. When I searched for their albums, I only found the standard unreliable sites. By the way, this is the second nomination, as this article survived an AfD back in 2014 when it was closed as "no consensus" - it was basically kept just because the band had notable members. They sure did, but the sourcing is dreadful and it hasn't been changed ever since. Sourcing is the heart and soul of WP, basically. This can safely be included in any of the members' articles, but please, someone tell me, why do we need stubs like this which merely state that the band has existed and they were active at some point? That is the job of a database, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a database. That's why I always cringe when I see unreliably sourced (or not even sourced whatsoever) stubs which merely announce the subject exists. Not just about bands, about anything. (I have been told at past AfDs that the "dark ages" of Wikipedia was in the 2000s, when lots of stubs were written, masquerading as articles, that merely announced the subject's existence. This was written in 2007. Since WP has lots and lots of articles, these tend to be forgotten, so that's why they survive for too long.) So, to the point: non-notable band. Btw, I love the name too.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk)
17:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Star7924:: Well, it doesn't fail every notability test, because at least it had notable members. But the sourcing is abysmal and I couldn't find anything reliable. Like I said, this can be included in any of the members' articles, and the title can stay as a redirect. But that's it.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk)
06:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - It is true that the group had notable members, which technically satisfies one of WP's notability guidelines. But that does not matter because Flying Testicle accomplished little in its own right, much less anything that generated reliable media coverage. The band can be listed briefly as a side project in each of the members' individual articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 15:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Also note that Flying Testicle is already listed at the
discography for workaholic Masami Akita, better known as Merzbow, who has 346 of his own albums, a few dozen collaborative albums, and numerous side projects. Many get little media coverage but are worthy of being listed in his history for encyclopedic purposes. Individual articles are rarely merited, including this one for Flying Testicle. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 15:47, 16 December 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.
Doesn't seem to meet
WP:GEOLAND or
WP:GNG. Rennick's index calls it a
locale (geography), but doesn't say anything else about it. Newspapers.com is only bringing up last names for me, while the only Gbooks hit was for a Loving Graveyard, giving directions that seem to lead to the site of the subject of this article. Topos show one home with a graveyard across the road and a church down the road after the graveyard. There's a little more development today, but not a whole lot. I may be wrong, but this seems to be more of an informal rural neighborhood than a legally recognized community. WP:GEOLAND does not seem to be met, and GNG does not seem to be either.
Hog FarmBacon03:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Nom. The inundation of name only locations, supported only by a GNIS source, fails any and all sourcing requirements to establish notability. This is no more than a
dictionary entry.
Otr500 (
talk)
15:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. per Otr500, Redirects are cheap and harmless, it looks like in Nov 2020 this received 24 views. //
Timothy :: talk02:15, 14 December 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.
Does not seem to have been a community. Topos show a small cluster of buildings, ranging in number from 3 to 5. Newspapers.com brought up a total of three hits, all in reprints of the same government notice that it was seeking bids for road work, with one end of the work area being Demunbruns Store. Google books brings up two hits. One states that there were two stores and the Demunbruns Store site, the other calls it "the Demunbruns Store", saying that it served as a post office, grocery store, and souvenir shop all in one, and that it was razed in 1939. I'm not seeing a
WP:GEOLAND or
WP:GNG pass to me.
Hog FarmBacon03:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
delete (sort of) Google suggested searching for "Demunbrun Store", and this got me enough hits to explain everything. It was a large general store which served as something of a gateway to Mammoth Cave in the days before the national park takeover, and was torn down in 1939 as part of the formation of the park. There are a number of pictures. My suggestion would be to add some of this material to
Mammoth Cave National Park, and create a redirect at
Demunbrun Store to that section. At any rate, the current article is useless, and as a searchable term, it's not a good search target string.
Mangoe (
talk)
18:39, 6 December 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 More sources added. Rewriting Synopsis as it was copied and was a copyright violation. Movie featuring Sharon Stone and Andy Garcia is notable.
Expertwikiguy (
talk)
00:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes I agree, but because of having notable actors, I vote to keep. People will be searching this even before its released and we all know it is going to get more coverage soon. Yes I saw your
WP:CRYSTAL argument, but I am not saying this to be the reason to keep. My main reason is there is enough coverage now and credible actors to justify a keep.
Expertwikiguy (
talk)
10:11, 11 December 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.
Evidence seems to suggest that she fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NFOOTBALL. Called up to the national team but it doesn't look like she ever played. A
WP:BEFORE search was made difficult as there seems to be an anime character with the exact same name.
Spiderone14:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I can't support a keep !vote at this time but I don't support deletion - every single player at the
2007 FIFA Women's World Cup has an article at the moment, which is probably correct. I'd like to make sure she wasn't covered in Japanese media before deleting her article.
SportingFlyerT·C15:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Yeah, it's certainly hard to imagine someone being called up to a WC squad without being able to pass GNG. I did also take note of the fact that she has Wikipedia articles in multiple languages. Other than
this, I couldn't see more than a passing mention anywhere else, though. Of course, I will reconsider if more sources are found. Maybe I've completely missed sources in my BEFORE search or maybe she is the exception that proves the rule.
Spiderone16:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, but only looked at the first 3 pages on Google, Google News and Google Images. She is mentioned here as
third placed goalkeeper in a vote. This seems to make a suggestion that she
might have played for Japan in 2008. Ideally, we would need something more conclusive than that and I'm not sure how reliable that source is anyway. The search is littered with namesakes like
this.
Spiderone17:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. We've deleted male players who were squad members at major tournaments before. If sources can be found then ping me.
GiantSnowman16:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
We're seriously saying that a player who made a senior World Cup roster did not "participate" in that competition? That goes against all SID conventions; for winning teams, e.g., you would've gotten a medal even if you hadn't played.
Seany91 (
talk)
16:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Participation would imply playing. In the same way, you don't pass
WP:NFOOTBALL for just being on the bench during an international senior fixture. You need to actually play in a match to pass the guideline. The article clearly states that she was the 3rd choice goalkeeper so it's highly likely that she was not even on the bench.
Spiderone19:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:NFOOTY has the verb "play";
WP:SPORTCRIT has the verb "participate". Those are two different words, and the implication you drew is subjective. Furthermore,
WP:SPORTCRIT was developed for "presuming notability." Why wouldn't we presume that someone who's made a senior World Cup roster to be notable?
Seany91 (
talk)
20:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)reply
It clearly says at the top of SPORTCRIT Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. There is no necessity for this article to be kept just because they happened to be named in a major tournament squad. It also says This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline (i.e.
WP:GNG). Have you got any evidence that Amano passes GNG? I see no reason to keep an article on someone who clearly fails GNG and NFOOTBALL and only passes a very loose interpretation of SPORTCRIT
Spiderone20:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)reply
And my point still remains: if someone who made a senior World Cup roster can be presumed not notable, then your understanding of notability is clearly out of whack.
Seany91 (
talk)
12:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete any sport criteria that allows someone to be considered notable without playing in a game is clearly wrongheaded, should not be used to keep articles, and need to be rewritten.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:36, 18 December 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. Google Books reveals there is plenty of sourcing, such as
this, but the problem, as so often, is that the content is in Spanish and accessible only as snippets. I find plenty of mentions/results, which suggest to me that the film is plenty notable--we just can't access them so easily. And from the Spanish article: Manrupe, Raúl; Portela, María Alejandra (2001). Un diccionario de films argentinos (1930-1995) pág. 291. Buenos Aires, Editorial Corregidor. ISBN 950-05-0896-6.
Drmies (
talk)
23:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:NFO, while there are some book mentions everything I see are minor reference which do not support
WP:GNG, there is a Spanish language page, but neither it (google translate) nor this page make any claims that imply notability.
Jeepday (
talk)
18:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment the incoming links to the page seem to be related to the template of the Directors work
Román Viñoly Barreto. The Director may or may not be notable, but if he is there is nothing indicating every film he made is notable.
Jeepday (
talk)
18:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Many of the articles about films by Barreto are similar to the one discussed here. It may be worthwhile to consider some of the articles about his other films as well while we are discussing this one. ―
NK1406talk•
contribs15:51, 13 December 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 page was created in 2009; that same year it was tagged for being unreferenced, and it has remained unreferenced ever since. I can find no reference to "Bacon" or what is supposed to be its alternative name, "American Euchre", in American or international card game compendia. Almost all online sources are circular references and the game is not listed in the world's leading card game website,
pagat.com. "American Euchre" normally appears to refer to the North American variant of Euchre, as opposed to the British variant. The only reference I can find to "Bacon" is at
catsatcards.com, but it is itself unsourced and may simply draw inspiration from the Wiki article. If, as this Wiki article says, Bacon was invented during the second half of the last century and is popular in the eastern US, one would expect to find it covered either in modern American card game literature or in online sources from that part of the world. But there appears to be nothing. Eleven years is plenty of time to find sources; it's now time to delete this one.
Bermicourt (
talk)
18:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Found two sources that confirm most of the points made in the article. I removed the unsourced material (mainly variant rules, for which I could find no sources).
Guinness323 (
talk)
17:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that's helpful, however, one of those sources is a blog and I thought blogs weren't valid sources. However, we may be able to replace it with the catsatcards.com ref.
Bermicourt (
talk)
20:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Seems there are three potential sources for this, and I don't consider any of them reliable. Denexa is a corporate blog for a small business that sells playing cards; gamerules.com is indiscriminate in what it publishes, per their
about us page "this is a community effort if you’re looking for a game we don’t have tell us, and we’ll get it on the site ASAP. Did you invent a game? Badass! Send us the rules to it and if it makes sense, seems like fun, we’ll add it and promote it on the site to your credit"; it's hard to tell exactly what catsatcards is because their about us page literally just lists a bunch of cats. Essentially, we have three different
self-published sources, none of which are from people with established expertise and none of which are reliable or establish notability.
Lowercaserho (
talk)
12:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete There are no claims of notability in the article, the references present do not support notability, I searched for anything to support notability, but the did not find anything (name does not lend it's self to a narrow search)
Jeepday (
talk)
14:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I was not able to find any better sources for this variation. It is mentioned once or twice in passing in a couple of sites but otherwise not elaborated upon except for the sites discussed above, which are insufficient. ―
NK1406talk•
contribs00:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment this editor made several other unsourced articles on card games (which I am now checking for sources); it's very possible they were inventing the games themselves. I'm not sure how to tell if the sources found are citogenesis or not.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
05:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The total lack of sources seems to have been addressed. Here is
one more that was interesting to read - not sure about reliability, however. As a WP user I would appreciate having this article available to me if I wanted to know more about the game, which doesn't seem to have been recently invented as speculated above.--
Concertmusic (
talk)
16:03, 14 December 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 came across this article when looking for an article to copyedit but after doing a bit of work am concerned that it does not meet the notability requirements. In particular, there seem to be no reliable sources about this man. Two of the sources given are deadlinks (and judging by the webdomains, were never reliable sources by WP standards) and the third appears to be an unreliable, user contributed source
[4]. I have made other searches and have not been able to find reliable sources which could support the info included in this bio.
Slp1 (
talk)
03:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I have now possibly found one of the deadlinks sources elsewhere
[5]. It seems to be excerpts from the memoirs of
Georgy Zhukov, but assuming it is accurate or reliable (which is very uncertain, as far as I can see), does not even mention the subject of the article.
Slp1 (
talk)
03:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I believe our strong precedent is to keep articles on holders of the highest award for military valour, even if they're private soldiers.
Johnson Beharry, when winning the VC in 2004, was a private;
Bryan Budd was a corporal and section commander when he won the VC posthumously in 2006. Neither article has been nominated for deletion.
Buckshot06(talk)22:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Significant coverage in RS is present in the sources that have been added to the article, and Mashkov is unquestionably notable under
WP:SOLDIER as a top-level award recipient under longstanding consensus in addition to meeting
WP:GNG due to coverage in multiple secondary sources. Given that most Russian newspapers and books are not digitized, it is certain that more coverage of him exists than what can easily be found in digitized publications. While the title Hero of the Soviet Union was more frequently awarded in World War II than comparable awards such as the Medal of Honor, at most less than a thousandth of the millions of men in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war received the award. As to arguments about the lack of notability of small unit commanders, we have numerous examples of highly notable privates and
junior non-commissioned officers.
Kges1901 (
talk)
13:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you for finding those two sources. I found an online version of the Kuznetsov book and it has a fairly detailed bio in it, as you know.
[6], which is excellent. Can you help with the Shkadov book? Is there an online version available where we can see the extent of the coverage he receives? Of course, there is also the question of how reliable sources written in the Soviet era really are (see
Historiography in the Soviet Union,
[7]). --
Slp1 (
talk)
16:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I have been working off what I have been able to find online, and the Shkadov Heroes of the Soviet Union biographical dictionary is available online with a google title search. Again these are not the only examples of coverage and it is highly likely based on what I have found researching other Hero of the Soviet Union biographies that he is covered in a unit history of the 5th Tank Corps, but that is not available online. As for the reliability of Soviet sources, it is impossible to write anything about Soviet military history without using Soviet sources and they are used by highly RS Eastern Front historians such as
David Glantz and
David Stahel. On the general issue of Soviet reliability, see Stahel, Kiev 1941, pp. 5-6: on strictly military matters they were frequently closer to the mark than contemporary western accounts..
Kges1901 (
talk)
13:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I did some googling with the title but haven't been able to get much further. I understand that it is impossible to write about military topics without Soviet sources, and that they may indeed be reliable on the facts. But this is a question is whether someone who is only mentioned in Soviet sources of a particular era (and in fact is only one among 1000s and 1000s given a similar hero treatment in those sources) is really notable enough to have an article on WP). --
Slp1 (
talk)
01:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
The copy I use for
Shkadov, Mashkov's entry is in volume 2. The fact is that Mashkov is mentioned in modern Russian sources because of his Hero status - HSUs are still considered national heroes in Russia due to the
Great Patriotic War narrative. In the case of Mashkov, we have examples such as
[8],
[9], and
[10]Kges1901 (
talk)
13:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Clearly passes
WP:SOLDIER #1. These nominations are getting ever more ridiculous. Editors who never vote to keep anything continually saying that a long-accepted guideline is just an essay is getting boring. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete we lack significant coverage to justify the article. We need to rethink how we define soldier notability, in a few cases we have defined it in unsustainably broad ways.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that WP:SOLDIER is in fact an essay and not a community-accepted inclusion guideline. Other arguments would be needed to keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. He is a highest Soviet Honor award recipient, Hero of the Soviet Union, plus two other high honor awards, one of which is the next highest after the hero of USSR. This is like a Medal of Honor equivalent or so. Understand the Soviet Union was a bit more liberal in given the hero's awards than the U.S. (11K v ~500), still deleting this decorated Red Army officer will be a sign of bias against non-English WWII soldiers. Please consider keeping teh article.
Kolma8 (
talk)
19:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
That is not comparable because the Knight's Cross was a multi-level award and the highest level of it is still considered notable. Hero of the Soviet Union, Medal of Honor, and Victoria Cross are all awards with only one level, so that Knight's Cross AfD's do not apply here. Additionally, many of them have been restored with enough material to be considered notable.
Kges1901 (
talk)
12:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Why is it not comparable? What levels of it qualify then? Only the Knight's Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds of which only one was awarded or the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds of which only 27 were awarded? Only 7000 Knights Cross were awarded in total, fewer than the 12,777 Hero of the Soviet Unions.
Mztourist (
talk)
17:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
It's not about number awarded. It's simply the fact that the Knight's Cross was often awarded for a significantly lower level of gallantry than was required for other "top" awards. The basic level of the Knight's Cross was effectively a second-level decoration comparable to, say, the British Distinguished Conduct Medal or Distinguished Service Order or the US Distinguished Service Cross or Navy Cross. The lower awards (Iron Cross 1st and 2nd Class) were so ubiquitous as to probably not even count as third-level awards (and were distributed much like the US Bronze Star or the UK Mention in Dispatches). The Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves or above should be regarded as a first-level award, however. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep winner of highest award for military valour (which WP:SOLDIER also includes as criteria 1). Otherwise we need to start nominating VC winners for deletion.
Buckshot06(talk)22:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Good improvements have been made since nomination. I have no issue with notability. This is what I would want to see in an encyclopedia article on the subject.--
Concertmusic (
talk)
15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
AFD closures are really useless and shameless. Do not waste time unnecessarily disgusting guys. Is AfD something to wait for until we get more delete votes?
VocalIndia (
talk)
17:03, 14 December 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 “senior pastor” who doesn’t satisfy
WP:RELPEOPLE, generally
WP:RELPEOPLE is used as yardstick as an alternative to
WP:GNG, which a before search shows subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The few hits are in primary sources not independent of the pastor. The sources in the article aren’t event about the pastor. They read more like announcements, an example is
thisCelestina007 (
talk)
20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi
Celestina007, Thanks for reviewing the article and for the pointers. I have added more news sources and web references. Regarding the announcements like
this one, I thought they are of value coming from government records. Thanks.
Innocentwalu (
talk)
21:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
The announcement I made reference to in my Del rationale is
this & not the
one you just linked to above which isn’t even sufficient to show he satisfies
WP:GNG. Can you show us in the very least
WP:THREE reliable sources that proves subject of our discussion does indeed possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy GNG? Celestina007 (
talk)
22:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. I checked some "references" and they do not support the claims in the article, such as one [12 at the moment] says that he was recognized by the Congress, but the link leads to an article where it says that Bachus was a guest speaker; the other [11] is just a Bachus's own article, which clearly cannot be used; other link [10] is only accessible by subscription, so cannot be verified. Now: [1] link mentions Bachus in passing, not really a good reference; [3] - a House of Rep tribute... and so on... Most importantly fails WP:RELPEOPLE, does not even come close to meet any of the 4 criteria.
Kolma8 (
talk)
17:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi
Kolma8, Thanks for the feedback. I have done more research and added references from NY Times (2), bloomberg law and others. I'm going to clean up the text in relation to 'recognition'. I based that text on
this link and
this one that appear to be a congregational record.
Innocentwalu (
talk)
20:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Innocentwalu, it seems you don’t understand the concept of GNG which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The two sources you just added do not substantiate nor prove the notability of the subject of our discussion. Celestina007 (
talk)
20:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Innocentwalu, the reliability of resources will not compensate for the lack of notability here. Notability on Wiki is a criterion based concept. Some folks are meet wiki's notability criteria, some don't. Mr. Bachus appears to me as a great honorable man, but that does not mean that he meets the particular criteria to have his own article on wiki.
Kolma8 (
talk)
21:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There are enough sources provided in the article to pass the
general notability guideline. While not all sources cited necessarily point to notability, they are still good sources for content--and enough exist to meet GNG's standards. Further, it seems that the subject also meets the criteria set out in the essay
WP:IMPACT and although that's not policy, it is useful for interpretation.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
23:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)reply
To the contrary, there are literally no three solid reliable sources that all adhere to, or are of any value to
WP:GNG. Like stated earlier, subject also doesn’t satisfy any criterion from RELPEOPLE so I do not see any reason why it should be a standalone article. Celestina007 (
talk)
12:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Nom and Kolma8's comments and research with an
ATD of userfy: I was ready to jump in on the side of "keep" EXCEPT, I disagree that "There are enough sources". A lack of reliable in-depth and independent sources is evident and the collective total of the sources presented do not contribute enough to advance notability for a
stand alone article.
Otr500 (
talk)
04:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - meets
WP:IMPACT and also GNG per the third party coverage from Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World. None of these are niche "local only" publications. If you delete this don't be surprised if people say WP is racist.--
Epiphyllumlover (
talk)
05:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment — Meets an Essay? an essay?? When did essays become a yardstick as opposed to policy?? Of which subject of the article doesn’t satisfy, that is, both
WP:GNG &
WP:RELPEOPLE. The aforementioned sources fall short of
WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, when did we start keeping or deleting articles based on what “people” would say? Celestina007 (
talk)
09:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment — Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World are the three sources which proves it meets GNG. If Wikipedia can't even follow its own rules to keep from deleting a civil rights activist, people might wonder what motivated that.--
Epiphyllumlover (
talk)
22:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I went back and forth on this one for a while, but was finally convinced to vote Keep by the small improvements made to the article, as well as that there is international coverage in both French and Brazilian Portuguese if News is searched. Nothing very in-depth, but in the end I see no need to delete.--
Concertmusic (
talk)
15:24, 14 December 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.
Fails applicable notability (and content) criteria. In terms of
WP:SIGCOV and
WP:LISTN, and per the very recent/related outcome of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tallest buildings and structures in Derry, there are few to no sources which discuss the members of this list together. The very few sources that do discuss some of the list members as a group (like
this or
this, clearly state that Dublin is not known for its tall buildings. Stating that "Dublin isn't known for its towering skyscrapers" and "In the 1960s, we built two tall buildings – both of which, by today’s standards, are hardly classifiable as skyscrapers [..] Since then, typical 'tall' commercial buildings built in and around Dublin were no more than six to eight storeys in height". In terms of the content itself (and
WP:CFORK and related guidelines), *all* of the members of this list (and the content/tables/etc alongside the list members) is/are covered elsewhere. Including at
List of tallest buildings in Ireland. Which seems to be where effectively all the material content (and sources) here seem to be "copied" from. I propose redirection. But it doesn't seem like a plausible or necessary redirect.
Guliolopez (
talk)
14:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Completely incorrect points, Dublin has since built multiple tall buildings since 2000 as seen in the current article we are discussing. Article is notable as tallest buildings in Ireland is a poorly kept up to date article plus almost every capital city on the planet has such an article on tallest buildings and structures. One of the most common google search query's for Dublin specifically is its tallest building which wikipedia currently fails to answer well. Also the Derry article was deleted way too early as it like this current Dublin article is not yet complete. This Dublin article will also cover past and future developments of the city, there are multiple 100m plus buildings proposed for the city [1] for instance (can also be seen there are more in Dublin's planning application portal
https://www.dublincity.ie/residential/planning/planning-applications and the cited article does not cover these. Most notably the article of tallest buildings and structures in the relatively nearby city of Belfast
/info/en/?search=List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_Belfast which is the template for how this article will develop in future. Note the buildings and structures are of a similar height. It would be nice to be able to finish an article before it was fully reviewed for instance I'm still going through the process of adding references...
Regarding the other article I used it as a skeleton for this one however I found incorrect info on it and have made edits on it accordingly...I intend this article to be much more fleshed out and in detail, and there are enough buildings and structures above threshold heights to warrant a separate article in itself, unlike the previous article about Derry. I would have added all of this into
/info/en/?search=Dublin, but the article would have been too long for a normal readers attention and too awkward for someone looking for the specific information.
list of tallest buildings in Ireland also fails to rank the churches as buildings, as other tallest building articles do for other major cities.
I have now updated the article further with lists of unbuilt and proposed buildings of significant height, this proposal wrongly highlights a lack of references there are now currently 34. These lists are more up to date than any on the Ireland article and there are more buildings to add. The user who made the complaint also deleted titles of tables I was about to create and has incorrectly interfered in the creation of the article, with likely a political bias against the building of tall structures in Dublin. I still cannot see how multiple 200m plus structures are not significant.
Comment. Hiya
Petaaa95. If the "tallest buildings in Ireland [list] is poorly kept" (and I would argue that it is not), then the solution is to improve it. Not to create a CFORK of it. If the intent of "This Dublin article [is to] also cover [..] future developments of the city", then I do not understand how that will sit with the
WP:VER and
WP:NOTCRYSTAL guidelines. (In particular I would note that, if we're going use that
Emporis.com list of potential/future developments as a source, then I would note that effectively every member of it describes a cancelled project. To the extent that, if we had created an article/content using it as a source, then all that content would be invalid. There is no reason to have an article listing every developer's notional pipe dream. Per the
WP:CRYSTAL guidelines). In terms of the "every other capital city has such a list" argument, I would note that, not only is that an
"other stuff exists" argument (generally to be avoided in AfD discussions), but it's also not true. There is a
List of tallest buildings in Switzerland article (but none for
List of tallest buildings in Bern/
Zurich). Same is true for
Greece (and
Athens) or
Iceland (
Reykjavík) or
Austria (
Vienna) etc. The need or relevance of each article is taken on its own merits. We don't need a
List of tallest buildings in Oslo article. When the same content is covered in
List of tallest buildings in Denmark. We also don't need one for Dublin. (FYI. I note with some interest your unfounded suggestion that I have some form of unspecified "bias". And "should be banned form contributing to any of these pages". While I will resist the urge to comment on that for now, I draw your kind attention please to
WP:AGF and
WP:NPA. And the possibility of a
WP:BOOMERANG).
Guliolopez (
talk)
16:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Emporis is the biggest database for buildings in the world and takes all heights from the planning applications themselves and are only incorrect when plans get amended. It is the best source available regarding building and structure heights. Anyone involved in planning and development knows this.
Comment - as with the Derry list, the biggest issue here is notability. Are there reliable sources covering this topic significantly? At the moment, this article is almost entirely a violation of
WP:NOTMIRROR as it's largely a copy and paste from the user-generated database
Emporis.
Spiderone16:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Its not a copy and paste from emporis, some of it is sourced from emporis the rest I'm adding directly from the planning applications themselves, this article is still a work in progress, also most other lists of this nature use them as a primary source. Anyone involved in planning knows its the most reliable database available.
Also adding other sources for each building if not tonight, tomorrow, this deletion thread should never have been made (but for someone with a large personal investment in a linked article) for a relevant article which is newly created. For instance what is the point in editing in Wikipedia if an article cannot be improved rather than deleting relevant information. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Petaaa95 (
talk •
contribs)
16:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose Leeds has a page, Bristol has a page and Dublin is bigger than either Leeds or Bristol so I fail to see any consistency in the deletion criteria proposed here. Give the editor a chance, the page is brand new and all of the elements are clearly not in place yet because it is a work in progress.
Wikimucker (
talk)
18:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Draftify - if the creator believes that they can find sources to justify this list then I'm happy for it be sent to draft and to go through
WP:AfC. At the moment, it completely fails
WP:LISTN and
WP:GNG and is a violation of
WP:NOTMIRROR. There may be a weak argument that it has a navigational purpose under
WP:LISTPURP at best.
Spiderone19:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep but modify Many of the buildings included on the list are notable enough to have their own articles. Keep the list article, but only include buildings that are notable to have their own articles.
Sneakerheadguy (
talk)
21:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I was able to find sources commenting on tall buildings in Dublin.
I'm sure there are more, but the two sources above should be enough to establish notability. Tall buildings are apparently rare in Dublin, which makes the existence of tall buildings at all, in such a large city, even more remarkable.
Edge3 (
talk)
03:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per above discussion. There's whole books and articles written about Dublin's skyline and how it's changed over the years. Frankly, I was surprised how many tall(ish) and colorful buildings were in Dublin in 2017 when I visited, since all the old family photos, postcards, stamps, TV shows, and films that I'd seen showed a flat and grey city. Today's Dublin has an actual skyline. FWIW, I'm technically an Irish citizen born abroad.
Bearian (
talk)
22:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - Notwithstanding the issues there have been with maintaining these pages for
Guliolopez I believe this seems to meet just about every criteria for being a wp page. I'll have a review of it in detail in the next few days to make sure everything is above board anyway. Detail on this page being set up is contained on a message board Skyscrapercity if anyone wants to contribute there.
Financefactz (
talk)
10:44, 16 December 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'm struggling to see how he is notable. He gets a few hits on search engines but few sources cover him in any detail. The article makes no assertion of notability; a lawyer and columnist who is married and has been on a pilgrimage to Mecca. There's nothing to build a biography from.
Spiderone22:03, 15 December 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: Yeah, it is hard to find anything on him since he played in the
I-League at a time where coverage was really small, especially for reserves and the like.
here is one article showing that he played in an I-League match against
Dempo for
Mohun Bagan. Article does need to be redone however. --
ArsenalFan700 (
talk)
14:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm presuming that that must have been the game where he made his sole top flight appearance, since the article states that he only played one game before moving to United Sikkim
Spiderone14:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Definitely wasn't his only first-team match.
This, admittedly a blog so can't be used but just for this discussion on just having 1 game, shows that he played in another game against
HAL. I can also find a lot of actual sources on him being an unused sub in the
Federation Cup. But yeah, as of now, he is super, super fringe passing
WP:NFOOTY. --
ArsenalFan700 (
talk)
17:09, 14 December 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.
Lack of Notability. People notable for only one event (article published at Medium). Criteria based on search engine statistics (of that article).
Alexcalamaro (
talk)
11:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and
Kolma8. Let's talk policies and facts. On Wikipedia, journalists and writers do not get notability from what they write, but from what others write about them in secondary sources; I see nothing here. For a supposed influencer, he has 0.132
Wheatons on Twitter; he's followed by 20 accounts of 5,000 that I follow.
Bearian (
talk)
02:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. The relevant criteria are those of
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Criterium 1 is fulfilled by the number of interviews he has participated in and citations he has received, including from epidemiologists. Criterium 2 is fulfilled by the creation of the concept of the Hammer and the Dance, which has been quoted by several heads of states, referenced in scientific papers, and has over a million results on Google. Criterium 3 is met by the several articles published about him in outlets such as Forbes, Vanity Fair, or La Nueva España.
User:WhyBerkeley (
talk)
05:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC) —
WhyBerkeley (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
This is Tomás Pueyo. I was alerted about this conversation by a friend. I don't feel strongly about the outcome of this discussion or the page. Do as you think is right. It sounds to me like
Kolma8's argument about looking at
Wikipedia:Notability_(people) for criteria is the right thing to do, and it does look like
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals's factors are the ones adjusted to the situation. Other arguments seem anecdotal or ad hominem. I can provide my perspective if this is relevant, but I'm biased, don't have experience in these matters, and don't feel strongly anyway. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pbulises (
talk •
contribs)
22:51, 12 December 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 Armenia is an idea, even if it is not always politically descrbed in that way. I would argue that the article be moved to
Russian Empire Armenia. There was a concept of Armenia, as the areas where there was a large or majority ethnic Armenian population, even if there was no political unit of Armenia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This term is used in dozens of
WP:RS in order to refer to the period in Eastern Armenian history that directly followed the Iranian/Persian period. One example: "Announcements written in Armenian were circulated in Armenian villages, and Russian soldiers, some of them Armenian, together with Cossacks "strongly persuaded" any reluctant Armenian to leave Iran. Between 1828 and 1831, 35,560 Armenians left the Azarbayjan Province and moved into the newly formed Russian Armenian Province, which was soon identified as "Russian Armenia" in order to distinguish from "Turkish Armenia." -- George Bournoutian. (2018). "Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914". Routledge. page 20
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.
Comment Seems to have a large enough body of work under her belt, but we'd need further citations to back it up; any songs that have charted?
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:26, 14 December 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'm not super familiar with bodybuilding so I don't know if any of Misri's titles grant him automatic notability. Working on
WP:GNG instead, I don't think he passes it. Most of the sources on him focus on his father
Esa Misri but notability is
WP:NOTINHERITED. This article already exists in draft space and, in my view, it should have stayed there for now.
Spiderone11:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I have a confession to make. I went to 'speedy' this but it doesn't quite fit any category, so I went to draftify it but it's such a mess I waited to see what someone else would do with it. If a draft exists, delete this. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
15:09, 14 December 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 school. Search finds only the usual directory listings etc., no secondary coverage at all, let alone RS. Fails
WP:GNG /
WP:ORG. I earlier requested speedy (keep forgetting that educational inst's aren't eligible for A7) which was rightly rejected, hence this AfD. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
11:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - The sources in the article are the school's own web site, a directory listing and a verification of school details from an education board. There is no substantial coverage about the school and searching for sources just turns up lots of school directory sites. --
Whpq (
talk)
14:51, 20 December 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 article has no references to
reliable sources, doesn't seem to be notable, and is filled with
original research. In addition, it is literred with advertisements to the school's allegedly official YouTube channel. I did a Bing search, yet it doesn't seem to shed light on its notability. GeraldWL10:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Promo spam. Article idoes not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:NSCHOOL / (
WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks
WP:ISWP:RSWP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. The article author has exactly one edit - creating this article and seems from the lead to be mainly interested in getting people to subscribe to a Youtube channel. //
Timothy :: talk08:39, 17 December 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.
As far as I can see, this fails both
WP:NFOOTBALL and
WP:GNG. He has some coverage but, in reliable sources, it's nowhere near as in depth as, say,
Marcelo Flores, who also fails NFOOTBALL, but has a decent claim to passing GNG. Most of the coverage of Cottrell is just in Arsenal fan sites and blogs. Suggest delete or draftify.
Spiderone10:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
NFOOTBALL states Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable.. Since he has not done this, he fails NFOOTBALL. This can be kept if sources show that he passes
WP:GNG, though.
Spiderone14:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete football notability is so ludicrously broad that if we let anything else in related to football we will descend to being even more of footballpedia than we already are.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
They should probably be discussed, thanks for pointing them out! I can point to at least 70 AFD discussions where soccer players who played 1-5 professional games have been deleted. This is due to a consensus that has been developing.
Geschichte (
talk)
11:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete for now. As said aboveconsensus has been developing that appearing in part of one game is not enough. In this case I think it is probably a case of
WP:TOOSOON as the subject of the article may yet make regular appearances at professional level.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dunarc (
talk •
contribs)
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.
Based in Liverpool, Stanley Leisure plc is the United Kingdom's largest casino operator and fourth-largest operator of betting shops. In addition, the publicly traded company is involved in online betting and has interests in betting ventures in Italy and Bermuda. Stanley divides its business between two operating divisions: gaming and betting. The gaming division is responsible for running Stanley's 41 casinos, of which 37 are located in the provinces and four in London. The best-known casino is Crockfords, one of London's oldest and most exclusive gambling clubs. Stanley also owns the largest casino in the United Kingdom, Star City in Birmingham. The gaming division runs two online gaming businesses: www.crockfordscasinos.com, taking advantage of the Crockfords name, and www.acropoliscasinos.com, which represents the combined businesses of two acquired online casinos, "Acropolis" and "Avalon." Stanley's betting division operates 600 shops under the Stanleybet banner in Britain, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland.
The book notes: "Stanley Leisure operates in the betting and gaming sector and is the fourth biggest bookmaker and the largest casino operator in the United Kingdom."
The book notes: "And, in the north of England, Stanley Leisure plc, based in Liverpool, was incorporated in 1980 and developed gaming (casinos) and betting shops. In the next decade this company was the fastest growing and amongst the most profitable in British gambling. [additional history]"
Delete the quotations methioned above are mere listings, that at most prove size, not substantial sources as needed to show notability . DGG (
talk )
10:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
The
Encyclopedia.com entry for Stanley Leisure is over 2,000 words long. That source by itself strongly establishes notability since a company with a 2,000-word encyclopedia entry will be covered by numerous other sources such as those I've listed. There are also numerous articles about Stanley Leisure in The Times, The Independent, and the Financial Times.
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 - Extremely minor fictional character that appeared in a single issue of a comic book. I can not find a single reliable source giving any kind of coverage.
WP:PRESERVE would not apply here as there is absolutely no sourced content to preserve.
Rorshacma (
talk)
21:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect / brief merge - I'm surprised to find that this hasn't come up more often, but there is a
WP:PASSINGMENTIONhere and
here. Both say the same thing in a few words: "Magneto in 1963 was a mutant, and would have a Jack Kirby / Stan Lee precusor in Strange Tales #84 (1961) about a monster with magnetic powers, also named Magneto." And "He was not the first Marvel character to be called Magneto. Hunk Larken devbuted as the metal-controlling Magneto two years before the Master of Magnetism. When the X-Men's nemesis became popular, Hunk Larken's name was changed to Magnetor." This is too brief to write a notable stand-alone article, but it meets our standards of verifiability, and has a significant enough role to be mentioned somewhere.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
17:33, 15 December 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 worked very closely with
Anwar Chitayat in promoting brushless linear motor technology around the world since its beginning 30 years ago. He was the inventor and I was the promoter. We worked very closely together for 8 years and were successful in revolutionizing the world of high performance automation. We were connected with thousands of engineers, technicians, scientists, business managers, plant managers of potential customers many of which were on Fortune 500 who notably knew very well who we are and where to find us. As result of my leadership in business development of linear motors Today Linear motor technology is using Anwar's inventions all over the world by thousands of companies. Therefore Regarding notability I am in process of collecting both Anwar's and mine most relevant list of references to add it to the pages. For that we may need some time. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Beidelberg (
talk •
contribs)
06:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks. This process triggered my thoughts in creating more related technology pages which are missing. Will probably start is early next week and will advise progress. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Beidelberg (
talk •
contribs)
17:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not well sourced; no pass of GNG evident. Sourcing analysis for
current version: Footnotes #1-#4 and #10-#13 (patents and publications by the subject) are primary and not independent. #5-#7 (ASME, American Machinist, and Control Engineering) only quote him and are not in-depth. #8 and #9 (Rockwell and Optinet) don't mention him at all. That leaves only a local news story about the subject landing a private airplane, not enough for notability. Google Scholar shows citation counts of 14, 11, 10, and less, not enough for academic notability through
WP:PROF#C1, and the academic career section of the article describes nothing else that could qualify. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. For people bitable as developing technology , treating them as academics and looking for impact of published papers is irrelvant.The equivalent is to show the impact of their inventions, andd that's considerably harder to quantify. DGG (
talk )
10:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Tried to add some flying and military spice to my "resume" like life story. The importance is perhapse the combination of innovative, real time, solutions to real problems and teaching students how it is done
Beidelberg (
talk)
16:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree with
DGG, the practical impact of an engineer or inventor, for example in industry, can be difficult to measure. It appears to me that overall the subject's work with linear motors, machining and positioning systems, including papers, patents, development and teaching is notable. --
Alan Islas (
talk)
14:15, 16 December 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.
You need to have a good reason to bring an article back to AfD when the consensus was so clearly 'keep' before. In my opinion, I think that it's worth having a second discussion about this one, especially since the previous discussion was quite poor for the simple reason that many of the arguments totally ignored any Wikipedia inclusion policy. It was disappointing to see arguments to avoid being used such as
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS,
WP:ITSUSEFUL and
WP:ITSINTERESTING. The rationale for deletion was, itself, not strong and that seems to be one of the main reasons as to why it was kept. Since that AfD, there has been a growing consensus that these types of lists do need to demonstrate
WP:SIGCOV and do need to pass
WP:LISTN, some examples are below but this is not exhaustive:
And many, many more. As with those above, this fails
WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:
Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article (only one notable building).
Secondly, this topic does not have
WP:SIGCOV in
WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraper Center, Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Townsville' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The whole article is currently a violation of
WP:NOTMIRROR in that it's just a copy and paste from Emporis.
The city is not the largest in Queensland nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 36m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Brisbane so why are we doing it here?
Spiderone21:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: nom summed this up complately. Article does not meet
WP:GNG, there is not
WP:SIGCOV discussing the subject directly and indepth or
WP:LISTN,
WP:RS do not discuss this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the List does not meet the purposes of
WP:CLN, only a single list entry has an article. //
Timothy :: talk01:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This article is much more than a mirror to Emporis the two are not the same. This article really needs a ref improve tab There is several sources so some Townsville buildings have some notability. I think its better to improve articles that need it than just the easy option to delete them. As we try to enhance Wikipedia as a learning tool going forward.
CHCBOY (
talk)
18:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)reply
@
CHCBOY: Where are the other sources that this article uses? None of them are cited in the article. It certainly gives the impression that it's all cited to the user-generated Emporis.
Spiderone19:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes we need to find more sources which can help improve the article. I have linked the city's tallest to its article now renamed.
CHCBOY (
talk)
18:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Hotel Grand Chancellor Townsville is an interesting building and most probably a notable one. My concern still remains, though, that the topic of 'tallest buildings in Townsville' is not covered significantly by the media. The two tallest buildings are both notable enough for articles but is their height really something that's documented that much? Outside of Emporis and Skyscraperpage, is the topic of tall buildings in Townsville actually discussed at all?
Spiderone18:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't know why you picked out Townsville over Wollongong which from its list has no notable buildings with their own stand alone articles and no tall ones over 100m either.
CHCBOY (
talk)
08:10, 17 December 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 don't think this is a thing; seems to conflate and confuse regional devolution with 'independence' or 'secession'. Likely
WP:SYNTH, possibly with an underlying political motive (note the plug for a new 'Northern Independence Party'). --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
13:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete 100% agree with the nominator: this looks like
WP:SYNTH to me as well. At a passing glance it looks well-sourced, but most of the references have
nowt to do with independence, instead being about devolution. My (very much
WP:OR, unreferenced and probably subjective) perspective as a northerner is that full-blown independence is not a thing anyone has really advocated until the existence of the new party. (Devolution has been: for instance by the
Yorkshire Party.) Renaming to
Devolution to the North of England or similar, and refocusing, would be a second choice if it were determined the material was worth saving.
YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)14:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I fully agree with the nominator and the excellent points made by
User:YorkshireLad. The article contains many errors - (eg the idea that the
2004 North East England devolution referendum was about "whether to establish a parliament for the North" is at best a serious misunderstanding). The article reads as very leading and there does not seem to have been any serious discussion of the North of England become its own state in modern times (devolution or the North of England joining an Independent Scotland as mentioned here are not the same as Independence) or any coverage of any such campaigns by credible sources. There is also no political party with any elected representatives that advocates such a step. Equally what is meant by the "Northern or the "North of England" problematic as this is a vague term. While mention is made of an "independent country in the North of England, based on historic Northumbria" inthe article, the
Kingdom of Northumbria's borders varied significantly over the years. By some definitions Northumbria would arguably exclude large parts of what is now accepted as being part of the North of England (eg Manchester), by others it would include significant parts of Scotland including
Edinburgh!
Dunarc (
talk)
22:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Neutral I am changing my view as some of my concerns have been addressed, but there is still the problem that the article confuses independence with devolution. In fairness, this I do not think this is entirely the creators fault as this is something that other sources mix-up. Basically what was proposed in 2004 for the North East (and was planned to be offered to other regions including the Yorkshire and Humber in the future until the failure of the 2004 referendum killed the idea) was the creation of an assembly (not a parliament) which would take some decision making power from the Parliament of the United Kingdom as the Welsh Assembly does for Wales. The North (and any other devolved region) would still return MPs as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales do post-devolution. Independence would involve the creation of a new state or states as happened when the Irish Free State was set up. Equally English regional parties with elected councillors like the
Yorkshire Party are not like pro-Independence parties in Scotland and Wales. For example the Yorkshire Party does not favour a parliament for the North of England, but an Assembly for Yorkshire. It is not currently working to create a state that also includes the North East and North West of England, which the idea of it being a Northern independence movement would imply. The issue of devolution for the North and its various regions is to my mind worthy of an article as it is a notable subject debated by many parties and it is great to see someone work on it. If the article is renamed and focused on devolution/increased autonomy and makes clear that there movements in different regions of the North of England, then I think most of the issues could be sorted and we would have a useful article.
Dunarc (
talk)
22:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Yep, good points
Dunarc, I think you,
YorkshireLad and I are roughly in agreement - an article that addresses both, and notes the difference rather than blending htem together. There would appear to be more activity/support for devolution than outright independence, which I can see is probably more fringe.
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
12:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I'm the creator of the article, and the RS articles (VICE ""North of England Independence Devolution " ""An independent north? What an England severed in two might look like" The independent) ARE about the North breaking away from England, as well, there are a bunch of articles talking about the various parties, and their wishes for an independent/autonomous North. This is clearly a live issue, there are four political parties all formed to push for some level of independence for the North, all with their own wiki pages, and yes some of them *do actually have elected members* in local council. My main feeling in writing it was... I was suprised there wasn't an article for it already - there are wiki articles about parties formed for the issues, but oddly, there were no wiki articles about the *actual* issue itself.
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
05:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I will also comment on
Dunarc discussing the practicality of the North breaking away... that's got nothing to do with a discussion about whether the article should be deleted. Whether a Northern England secession movement is practical, or whether the North is properly defined, is no doubt an issue for this movement - but the Wikipedia article just reflects the existence of the movement, whether the movement is going to work, or whether you can define the north easily is not relevant to the AFD dicsussion.
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
06:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Deathlibrarian: Thanks for improving the article; it's definitely not the same one I !voted on earlier. I'm inclined to change my !vote because this is looking less
WP:SYNTHy, but I'd still argue that about 50% of the article is still about devolution rather than independence. (In particular, while arguably those four parties want some level of independence for the North, that manifests as three of them—the
North East Party, the
Northern Party and the
Yorkshire Party—wanting no more than devolution. Imagine how the
SNP would respond if you told them they had "some level of independence" already! I wonder how you would feel about renaming and refocusing the article, as I suggested above, to be explicitly about devolution and (implicitly) independence? There doesn't seem to be an article about devolution to the North either, unless I'm missing it, so this could be a really good opportunity to have that covered too, and I'm not sure that (yet) the two issues are sufficiently distinct to warrant two separate articles. Even if kept as an article solely about independence, I think it should be renamed to something like "Independence of the North of England", for two reasons: (a)
WP:NCCAPS indicates that "independence" shouldn't have a capital letter unless it's the first word in the title, and (b) it should be indicated that this is about the independence of the North of England, as opposed to the north of any other country, per
WP:PRECISE. In other circumstances I'd have
WP:BOLDly moved it myself, but it's inadvisable to do so during an AfD. Finally, pinging the nom,
DoubleGrazing, in case they want to take a look at the re-jigged article. (You've already pinged the other !voter so there's no need for me to do so.) Sorry, this was a longer post than I intended!
YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)08:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)reply
- Cheers
YorkshireLad - Yes, I've spent a bit of time finding more RS and adding a bit more detail, I was hunting down some better sources, and some BBC coverage and an extra article from the Independent. I'm happy for the article to be renamed, you are correct, there is a difference between devolution and outright independence, though they both are seeking more autonomy for the regions than they now currently have of course.... but I think as you say makes sense for the article to cover both, two articles doesn't seem warranted. I'll change the spelling of indepedence, and I figured the title would need to be changed - I was thinking it may need England in the title eg Northern Independence (England).. or something.
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for tagging me in, @
YorkshireLad: I've read the article again and looked at the newly-added sources, and while I agree that things have somewhat improved, the fundamental issue remains, namely that the article combines calls for devolution and increased autonomy with some mostly humorous remarks about 'Unilateral Declaration of Independence' etc., and concludes that Northern England is aiming for independence. It is not; that is where the synthesis lies. If this were an article about the debate over, and progress (or otherwise) towards, increasing autonomy for Northern England, in that context there could perhaps be a short section about calls for independence (with suitable health warnings to make it clear that that's still not much of a 'thing'), but that wouldn't be improving this article, that would be creating a new article and merging some of this into that (which, FWIW, I would support, but that's a different matter). --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
10:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm the article creator, and just in response to
DoubleGrazing's suggestion I may have created the article because I am connected to one of the parties - I am not, in fact I live in far away Australia, so have no personal connection to the issue, which I personally see as impractical for economic reasons. I stumbled across the issue doing AFD when one of the parties was listed.
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
21:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentJohn Pack Lambert a rename has been suggested by all editors here, so considering this, I've changed it to "Northern England Devolution" I had a look at what the concept is referred to popularly, and this seems to be the most common term - the page still needs a tidy up, but as you point out, at least the name is more informative and less ambiguous now. If editors here have a better suggestion, by all means, go ahead. As per other suggestions, I have change the wording of the article so it addresses autonomy for the North generally, including devolved powers and some mention of indepedence. Thanks everyone for your input.
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
06:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Deathlibrarian, Do you mind if I move it back for now? I think it should be moved elsewhere, but to quote the main AfD page: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. (I think there might also be a need for debate about where it should be moved to: certainly
WP:NCCAPS means it needs to be at
Northern England devolution at least, and I think
Devolution to the North of England reads a little better.)
YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)11:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Commentsigh The article has now been moved anyway, by
Starklinson, to
Northern independence. I don't want to get into a move war by moving it back again, especially since it may well end up being moved yet again after the AfD, but just leaving this note for the closer in case it impacts on any closing scripts.
YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)10:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Starklinson, As I said above, per
WP:AFD: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. It's expressly not a prohibition, so I won't move it back and you haven't done anything wrong by fixing the capitalisation. (And outside of an AfD discussion, I would have done the same!) But it potentially makes it harder for whoever comes to close the decision, because the AfD and the article are now under different page names.
YorkshireLad ✿ (talk)11:02, 9 December 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.
Draftify - seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion in this particular case and the creator themselves have stated that they are okay with this option
Spiderone16:00, 14 December 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.
Doesn't seem to meet
WP:GEOLAND. Not on topos, no GNIS entry, and all of the newspapers.com hits for Sellew in Imperial County seem to be for a railroad engineer named Francis L. Sellow.
Hog FarmBacon05:18, 14 December 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 - Nothing here that indicates the
WP:GNG. (Not because of the “most computer games aren’t notable” argument though - I don’t agree with that notion at all. Hopefully the nom meant something more like most amateur fan games or something? That could at least be argued.)
Sergecross73msg me14:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Maybe if the article had actual citations to newspapers, magazines or other publications, I'd judge it. This is just an unsourced mess. From what I gather, it's a 5 yr old, Japanese-language computer game. Regional impact at best.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:35, 14 December 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.
PROD deleted because Azeez played in the
UEFA Europa League and not the Irish League. The team he played in the Europa League however is part of the Irish League, which isn't in
WP:FPL.
WP:NFOOTY says that a player is notable when they play in a game in which both sides are fully-professional, Dundalk isn't. The article also fails
WP:GNG.
ArsenalFan700 (
talk)
04:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep He's played in the Europa League group stages, which we have always considered to meet the criteria. Also by the way; the Irish League is Northern Ireland's league, the Republic of Ireland's league is the League of Ireland. The C of E God Save the Queen! (
talk)07:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - I can't see how any of the coverage would be enough to pass
WP:GNG and this clearly fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Alternatively, this could be sent to draft if there is consensus that the player is likely to be notable soon.
Spiderone16:02, 14 December 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 is mostly about a road. I see nothing to indicate this road has any sig coverage. There is one ref that is routine local coverage about a construction project. If there was some important sourced info on the road, it could be merged into
U.S. Route 44, but I don't see anything appropriate to merge. There is one paragraph that says Burnside was a separate community in the 1800s (and it's in the navbox as a community). That paragraph is unsourced, but there is a possibility the article could be kept (and renamed) if any sources are found to show it was an actual distinct settlement at one time.
MB03:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Not finding anything to support that this is notable enough. The only semi-noteworthy reference I found was the single local source already included in the article.
Sneakerheadguy (
talk)
21:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable street. Of course I also think the street I live on
Alter Road is not notable either. At least the article we have on it does not have the level of reliable, 3rd party, indepdent secondary sources providing indepth coverage we would need to justify an article. At best it probably should be upmerged to an article on the bounaries of Detroit, although where I live on it we are fully in Detroit (technically Alter is all fully in Detroit, further south some Alter residents have the back line of their property as the city boundary).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:24, 17 December 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.
As the article suggests, this appears to simply be a collection of oil wells in the middle of a largely uninhabited oil field.
WP:GEOLAND is not met. There's a ton of noise under the search terms I used, because Tim Spellacy was apparent a major local figure and oil baron in the area, but I didn't find anything indicative of a
WP:GNG pass.
Hog FarmBacon03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete "No permanent residents live in Spellacy." and no evidence it was ever a notable community. There MIGHT be an argument about the Elkhorn Pit and Spellacy Sands/Mascot Oil, but on the balance nothing makes Spellacy 'a community' and it fails GNG... Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
04:33, 14 December 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.
Alexandermcnabb, do you understand that the choral conductor is the very person who shapes the award-winning choir? He made notable other recordings also, conducted several broadcaster choirs and is an influential university professor. Please withdraw. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
22:24, 19 December 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.
Well, over a decade later and this page has not improved in a single way. It's still spammy advertising of one brand of a non-notable, non-unique toy. Original AfD closed as "no consensus". There may be room for a section on light-up discs at
Flying disc; but even so, this would not be the sole entry there (nor was it the first such product). There's just nothing notable about this. When I Google this, I see the company's own marketing, third-party sales at shopping sites, trivial reviews at non-independent sites (toy/game review sites that make all their money off advertising what they're reviewing), and trivial coverage in mainstream news sources (lists of toys, lists of outdoor games, etc.), and other dreck. No one considers this company or its product to be particularly important. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:07, 14 December 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 any evidence that this is a notable org. Results are mainly non reliable sources or mentions where a missionary is serving. The
cited book is nothing other than a blurb among other blurbs about religious orgs, nothing to establish notability
StarM02:14, 14 December 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'll also note that the main list is having a size issue, it is so large that it is causing the reflist template to not display properly (see
discussion). Splitting by country may not be a bad idea. postdlf (talk)
18:50, 14 December 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
Arkady Fiedler - I was unable to find much in-depth coverage of this specific book. Even in Polish sources, I can find little more than mentions of it as one of the books written by Fiedler, though admittedly I am relying on Google Translate for these sources. However, deletion would be inappropriate as the author is definitely notable, and the book is already mentioned on his article. So, it should be redirected there, for sure.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:31, 14 December 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.
Mr. Hovley apparently had extensive agricultural concerns in the Brawley area, and one gathers this siding (for this is what all the oldest topos label it) served one of his concerns. The siding has been replaced by a more extensive network just to the south. The area is full of ag businesses now, but go back into the 1950s and it's all farms except for one elevator or the like at the siding. I get no sign that this is was ever a settlement, and in fact get precious few name drops of the place at all, so I'll have to say it's not notable.
Mangoe (
talk)
00:45, 14 December 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 have looked for other sources but only found a few press releases about the release of the teaser, and some gossip style notices of the same kind that are already used as sources in the article. No sign of this meeting
WP:NFF or
WP:GNG. The title indicates that the film will be released in 2021, but not even that is has a source. --bonadeacontributionstalk17:35, 14 December 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 It reads like an essay, and it seems to me that even were the subject shown to be notable, this needs some
WP:TNT given the writing and lack of sourcing.
Mangoe (
talk)
00:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Draftify the article seems to be translation of Nepali wiki with missing sources. There are two ways- 1) delete unsourced parts and reduce it to a stub to keep it or (b) someone knowledgable work in the article in the draft space.
nirmal (
talk)
13:52, 15 December 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.