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 meets
WP:NALBUM. Practically all of the sources used in the article are either unreliable or situational (which usually can't be used for notability). Film Music Reporter usually isn't reliable as per
this discussion. Screen Rant cannot be used to demonstrate notability per
WP:VG/S. Doing a
WP:BEFORE check, I don't see any reliable sources that specifically
covers the soundtrack.
Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs23:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge back to film article. Very little to be said beyond a track list and an exhaustive list of "Songs that aren't on the soundtrack but appear in the movie anyways" which doesn't really fit the scope of such a spin out article.
Sergecross73msg me00:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep You have reviews of the soundtrack (like
this one), but particular songs or aspects of the score are mentioned in the film reviews. Lilke
Roger Ebert's for example, who did not like particularly the film but
states:
"Parents will enjoy some retro songs harking back to their middle school days like “
It’s Tricky” or “
This is How We Do It.” Grandparents are not overlooked; the soundtrack also features
Andy Williams and Norah Jones."
So, yes, this soundtrack is quite notable, overall or for
particular songs, and even the original score can be
sourced. And a dedicated page was therefore a good idea, as there is material to write a good page.—
MY, OH, MY!
09:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
"Zanoboard Reviews" is not a reliable source source, and passing mentions from movie reviews is a pretty weak argument for splitting out an article like this. This isn't much of an argument for independent notability.
Sergecross73msg me10:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
What the PRP is to the music world is probably on par with what the screenrants, gamerants, and thegamers websites are to the video game world - situationally usable but not an ideal source or much of an argument for notability.
Sergecross73msg me13:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Reply:Just replying here to
User:Pizzaplayer219 on the last part of their comment above: the insertion by me of a link in your text was obviously unintentional and I did not mean to edit anything in your text. But, as I said in reply to the template you left on my tp, sincerely sorry for that.
17:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)—
MY, OH, MY!reply
Comment: While I am it: there is also have
this review of the soundtrack( in French), for example, and their site is quite reliable. Independently, the size of the main article (film) plus the fact that the page on the soundtrack has a partially list-like format would make, if remerged, the page not easily readable (let alone convenient to expand). I am sure it is not necessary to direct anyone to WP pages about this. —
MY, OH, MY!
17:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge I wanted to !vote Keep, but the sourcing isn't there. I guess it wasn't as impactful as the first film's soundtrack.
QuicoleJR (
talk)
21:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment No opinion here, but I'd like to note that Film Music Reporter is considered a reliable source, and is used on many high-quality articles (including GAs and FAs).
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
18:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't know if there have been any actual discussions, but there is certainly
WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for this, at least on film articles. It's usually only used to source track listing and album release dates anyway, which I assume they directly get from the studios/labels. Essentially, they're a press release outlet. (Can't be used to prove notability, obviously.)
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
17:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Editors remain broadly divided on the merits of these and similar lists. The introduction of notability considerations that apply only to some of the articles included in this nomination led to enough of a
pile-up so as to make the emergence of any consensus highly unlikely. signed, Rosguilltalk23:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete SIB and North Hudson For the first two...just all made up of random condo towers nobody would seriously catalog (and "North Hudson" feels like someone's pretend creation and not meant to be taken seriously). I feel like the other four for actual urban communities need to be separated into their own nom and am neutral on those. Nate•(
chatter)23:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Depending on how overzealous you guys are, I could show you hundreds to thousands of weak articles to go after, likely enough to put a dent in the 6.45 million front page article count, making it go down a little since in the post modern society, such superlatives inlcuding tallest building are no longer in vogue, with a good chance for example that Burj Khalifa will never be surpassed.
B137 (
talk)
03:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep All: information as to the tallest building in one's local area is a great example of encyclopedic knowledge. These articles may not seem notable to the others in this thread, but I empathise with the local Wikipedians in the area, and I would expect them to regard this kind of list as notable. A list of an area's tallest buildings of an urban community is considerably more notable than say, a list of all the burger kings in an area; sufficiently such that I think these articles are worthy of encyclopedic entries
Jack4576 (
talk)
11:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Sunny Isles and Comment on others. The construction of these buildings in Sunny Isles over the past 20 years has drawn considerable media attention, with several towers receiving critical awards, etc. The height argument presented above clearly does not apply here (or should be considered on its own for any article) as many of these buildings are taller than any in many lists for cities not proposed for deletion. Also, the “random condo towers” argument is not relevant either, or else the list for Miami should be considered for deletion as nearly all of those are condo buildings.Certainly the Miami Beach article is much less notable than this.
Fredlyfish4 (
talk)
14:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I have been PRODing articles about those condo towers in Miami for the past 3-4 years. Those articles border on failing
WP:GEOLAND and if that's been the case for 15 years - I don't see that changing any time soon. The focus has always been
WP:LISTN and
WP:SIGCOV when these go through AfD. –
The Grid (
talk)
15:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep All The articles are encyclopedic, provide ample sources and provide evidence of notability for each of these lists. Why merge / redirect hasn't been considered as an option is concerning.
Alansohn (
talk)
17:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)reply
That's a
bad assumption. One look into the search for Wikipedia:List of tallest buildings shows 1,777 results but it doesn't seem like all of them point to such discussions. When I do a more exact search, I get 54 results but that still seems low. It seems non-notable buildings have been redirected to "List of tallest buildings in [Place]" in the past. I'll mention this the last time for this AfD, the focus is
WP:LISTN. Can this list suffice notability on its own? If not, a merge to the place's name is a valid
alternative to deletion but usually a deletion also suffices. –
The Grid (
talk)
13:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)reply
What is exactly you are referring to? What is the point you are trying to make about the height of the buildings or the size of the city? We see people not being impressed, but that is not the point. Not liking small city skylines is not a reason for deletion, tho that has been offered as reason in this discussion.
Djflem (
talk)
19:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Given how the ten most recent closed AfDs about "List of tallest buildings in XXX" all ended in delete (
Charleston,
Charleston,
Beaumont,
Raipur,
Greensboro,
Szczecin,
Lansing,
Little Rock,
Durham, and
Columbia), I don't think this one will end differently.
WP:NLIST requires the group to be discussed in-depth as a set in multiple reliable sources, and I don't really see how that is met. There are over 4,000 cities all over the world with population over 100,000, if we let these cities pass, I see no reason that others won't try to create similar pages for others, and that would be pretty hard to maintain. Honestly this kind of information should just be added to the article about the city itself.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
01:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Perhaps the outcomes of those other AfDs were wrong and the more compatible GNG outcome would have been to retain those articles.
Jack4576 (
talk)
08:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)reply
LOTS AND LOTS of "tallest buildings in AREA" articles have been at AFD in the past, and "Kept". I tend to think most or all of those mentioned here must have been bad decisions, should be and will be reverted in effect by re-creation of those lists. I may work on that myself. --Doncram (
talk,
contribs)
16:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The requirement for them to be discussed in-depth as a group would result in far more of the US cities for which there are such lists failing than are listed here. So why are they also not included? The Sunny Isles article, while citations can be improved (and I would do so if kept), is better referenced than most of them. Sources such as these
123 are certainly closer to discussions on tallest buildings in a city than most US cities with lists have.
Fredlyfish4 (
talk)
Fredlyfish4 (
talk)
18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)reply
They got height limits from nearby airports increased from a 649' (198 meters) limit to near 750' (230 meters), making those few tallest going up possibly the 'tallest oceanfront towers in the US' as that article states.
B137 (
talk)
19:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)reply
ITSINTERESTING isn't a reason to keep something. If someone wants a blog recording the tallest structures in this or that city then by all means. But it's not encyclopedic.
TheInsatiableOne (
talk)
07:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
>12000 pageviews in the past year suggests a decent amount of people out there find it interesting or are at least curious about the topic.
Fredlyfish4 (
talk)
22:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment The buildings in Sunny Isles have been discussed together by at least one book
1, so other than personal sentiment there is no reason presented here for deletion. It is missing some of the newest buildings (which are discussed in individual sources, sometimes in reference to existing buildings), but in a rapidly developing place, requiring even brand new towers to be discussed would result in every single "list of" article failing.
Fredlyfish4 (
talk)
17:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes Sunny Isles, or now shady isles, is a coastal tower suburb miles out of the Miami or Fort Lauderdale or even the Miami Beach urban areas. The incidental urban density is just a side effect of its high density investments, or what is coined "accidentally urban", or "forced urbanity".[New Suburbanism: Sustainable Tall Building Development] With a few more 200 meter plus towers, it should rank as a top 10 skyline in the US, with all oceanfront addresses from end to end of the town soon to be large towers over what was once known as motel row.
B137 (
talk)
18:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep all, for reasons given in my comment at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Syracuse, New York. [AFD which seems headed for "Keep, obviously".--Doncram (
talk,
contribs) 16:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)] Note also that
Sunny Isles Beach, Florida (while the specific name of place seems unfamiliar to me) includes assertion "It is renowned for having the 14th tallest skyline in the United States despite its relatively low population." Related to my comments at the Syracuse AFD, an obvious alternative to deletion would be to merge the list of tallest buildings in Sunny Isles Beach to the Sunny Isles Beach article (i.e. to place the entire list there as a section, corroborating the "has a tall skyline" claim). And it would be an editing decision, okay to be undertaken at any time by decision of editors at its Talk page, to split that list back out again. --Doncram (
talk,
contribs)
15:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: It would be entirely unfair to delete the list of tallest buildings in Albany (capital of New York State) on basis of an AFD titled about a relatively unknown place such as Sunny Isles Beach (although the fact of there being tall skylines of beachside communities in Florida is more widely known). The naming of this AFD is in effect a sneaky try to delete stuff without proper scrutiny. An AFD titled about tallest buildings in Albany would obviously attract more !voters who would know that the AFD should be opposed. Above, I !vote Keep all, including for Sunny Isles Beach. --Doncram (
talk,
contribs)
15:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I think I see what you mean now. AfD should have stayed with Sunny Isles Beach, it should have never added the other articles. –
The Grid (
talk)
12:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete all none of these cities are known at all for having tall buildings; there is no reliable source that will collate data about the tallest building in random mid-sized American city. There is no inherent notability and encyclopedic-ness in such a topic; 14th tallest skyline is barely a thing and can be included in two sentences in the city article. The only places with "buildings by height" articles should be places that are known for having tall buildings: major metropolises like NYC or Shanghai where there is SIGCOV specifically of the fact that there are a lot of tall buildings in said city.
AryKun (
talk)
04:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
So you're saying all cities in the US except the 13 above Sunny Isles with such lists should be deleted as well? Based on your opinion that these are random cities and despite there being reliable sources discussing them as a group?
Fredlyfish4 (
talk)
15:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Incorrect at least for buildings over 150 meters (492 or 500 ft), or even down to about 100 meters (328 ft) in domestic western areas. There is a reliable source, the
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, CTBUH, that not only categorizes cities' lists and geographical lists, but that also uses databases or FAA filings to correct the actual height of as built buildings, not just the initial height claims a proposed new building has.
B137 (
talk)
18:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The other articles should have never been added to this AfD. I would be ok with a procedural close to separate these articles to separate AfDs. –
The Grid (
talk)
12:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: User:The Grid seems to be suggesting they will open 5 more AFDs after this AFD is closed. That would not be okay: the articles on five cities Albany NY, Camden NJ, Arlington VA, Rochester MN, and North Hudson NY have in fact been addressed, several with specific comments and all by the more general arguments. And here is more specifics: they each have one or more buildings over 100 meters, which is a very round number and has been a proposed cutoff for obviousness of notability of individual buildings in the past. Albany is distinct for having tallest buildings in NY outside NYC, and being capitol. Camden (across from Philadelphia), North Hudson (the skyline on the Palisades across from NYC), and Arlington VA are natural locations for clusters of tall buildings outside the major cities they adjoin. About Arlington: "Due to the height restrictions imposed in Washington D.C., many of the tallest buildings in the D.C metropolitan area are constructed in Arlington, right across the Potomac River from Washington." (Quote from its article). About Rochester MN, the 3rd biggest city in MN and home of the Mayo Clinic, it is in fact unusual because of the tallness of its buildings for a city of its modest size. It may be implied it has the highest ratio in the nation, or the tallest buildings of all cities in its size range, i am not sure. Anyhow, these are all valid lists, which readers expect Wikipedia to have. It would be weird/wrong to delete any one of them. Also all the other general reasons apply. Including they are valid editing splits off of articles about their cities; and they are valid splits out of "list of Tallest buildings in the United States", which like other huge lists can naturally be split by geographical areas. So, you had your potentally devious shot at deleting them for sake of deleting them (or for IDONTLIKEIT) and the answer is no, and it is not okay to immediately open 2nd or 3rd or 4th AFDs about them (nor should such AFDs ever be opened). -Doncram (
talk,
contribs)
05:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't see why The Grid (or others) should be forbidden to open multiple AfDs (though he did not sound like he was going to do that). He was instead recommending that the group AfD be closed and the articles be discussed on a case by case basis which is 100% valid. You have made your own viewpoints clear, but each article can be argued on its own merits, if a closer seeks to procedurally close.
Natg 19 (
talk)
06:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
This is exactly what I meant with my vote. When you group these as one, it's going to lead to what we're going to see: a "no consensus" result. The outcome to List of tallest buildings in [Place] lists have never been straight forward, they always have been on a case-by-case basis. Also, to answer @
Doncram, why are you suggesting that I would proceed with AfDs after this? Much less, assuming I want these all deleted? The grouping is a bad form for this AfD, period. That's the main issue. –
The Grid (
talk)
15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The closer can prove either or both of us wrong, but IMHO the correct result based on quality of arguments here is "Keep all". No one is forbidden from opening AFDs in the future, but IMHO it still would be wrong to waste others' time again. The topics have been discussed enough, and you (plural) have taken your shot. --Doncram (
talk,
contribs)
19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Some people also seem to suggest here that Sunny Isles is some random small suburb. The area between Miami and Fort Lauderdale is composed of many smaller cities, but it is one continuous, relatively dense urban area, and that is particularly the case around Sunny Isles. It is just a relatively geographically small city with a ton of very tall buildings, but the surrounding cities, particularly Aventura, Hallandale Beach, Bal Harbor, etc, have dozens (hundreds?) of smaller high rises (~20+ stories) still exceeding heights of many buildings in some of the other cities' articles, but no one would consider creating an article for. If these were all one city, I doubt this would be receiving the same criticism.
Fredlyfish4 (
talk)
14:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I am sure the fact that the relative obscurity of "Sunny Isles Beach" name contributed to this list being targeted by deletionists. If there is a general name for part or all of the coastline between Miami and Ft. Lauderdale ("northeast Dade County"?), it would perhaps be good for editors to move and expand the article to cover the longer stretch of territory, after this AFD is concluded. The AFD close should not dictate that, it is just something editors could discuss at the Talk page. --Doncram (
talk,
contribs)
19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Procedural Keep. Sunny Isles and Albany have enough reasonably tall buildings, with enough sources, to keep. Not sure about the others, with a leaning delete.
Bearian (
talk)
14:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Given all the large buildings, a list with details is notable. I would recommend keep for all the lists with North Hudson being questionable with only 2 entries on Wikipedia.
Patapsco913 (
talk)
16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Following this relisting and all the previous comments, I have updated the Sunny Isles article with more context and references. The article does not rely on any unreliable sources. Multiple sources have been added that discuss these buildings in aggregate, satisfying LISTN. Many other sources added throughout support the notability of this article. Whether the other cities should be deleted (or better, merged), should be listed individually.
Fredlyfish4 (
talk)
18:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for developing that. As I suggest above already, I think the other cities have been defended adequately too. In my opinion
wp:BEFORE was not performed adequately for Sunny Isles Beach and for the others too. --Doncram (
talk,
contribs)
19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: The article has been improved including comparing its high rank to US and other Florida skylines, but is misleading in saying it's only 'near the top' in number of 'high rises' (>80 meters/250 ft) per city in FL, when in fact it is by far the second tallest skyline in Florida, where other cities like Fort Lauderdale and Orlando have zero buidlings in the
List of tallest buildings in Florida, while Sunny Isles has at least eight, soon to be 12, Miami has more than 50, and Tampa and Jacksonville only have one or two each, while the other major cities of Orlando and FTL have 0. While it has no office towers or true downtown, a few of its buildings are architecturally striking and designed by '
starchitects', while also pushing over 200 meters (650 ft), the strictest cutoff height for true skyscrapers.
B137 (
talk)
02:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Can you be specific what fails here? None of the delete arguments above provide any meaningful or evidence-based argument for deletion, while the keep arguments and sources within the articles are quite clear.
Fredlyfish4 (
talk)
14:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep all from arguments provided by Djflem and Doncram. There's no consensus regarding deletion, but I would note for the closing admin that future grouping of these lists should be discouraged. –
The Grid (
talk)
14:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Certainly keepList of tallest buildings in Sunny Isles Beach. Although the population isn't very high it does have an unusual concentration of very tall buildings and is therefore encyclopedic. The nomination compares it to
List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri, which had 12 entries, none taller than 55m (and the shortest only half that). This list has 20 buildings which are at least 130m tall, so they aren't comparable at all. This suggests to me that the bulk nomination wasn't a good idea. Hut 8.517:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Unbundle these AfDs. I haven't the time to examine notability in detail, but it's fairly clear that we've gotten to the point where individual cities need to be considered individually. Vanamonde (
Talk)17:33, 31 May 2023 (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
WP:ARTIST, after posting a
WP:BLPPROD the article now has one source and but it still reads like a resume. Did
WP:BEFORE and was unable to find anything that would help this article pass
WP:ARTIST. Article claims that C-Sick was nominated for a Grammy in 2019 for an album he and 32 other people helped produce. I don't think just being a producer on an album passes
WP:ARTIST. As for the Grammy nomination this is not true, the album was not nominated for a Grammy according the list of winners and nominated albums on the awards website.
"2019 GRAMMY Awards: Complete Nominees And Winners List". www.grammy.com. Retrieved 2023-05-17. Dr vulpes(
💬 •
📝)21:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment re: the Grammy nomination. The album in reference indeed was nominated for best Rap Album of 2019. The confusion is that awards for 2019 works are handed out in 2020. You'll find it listed there. That said, the claim of it being a nomination for this person is disingenuous, as it was Meek Mill who was nominated as Executive Producer. The 34 other people who get listed as "producers" range widely in their contributions, but it's really only the Executive Producer who was nominated.
ShelbyMarion (
talk)
19:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Per my comment above. Not enough accomplishments or RS references. Page the product of an SP editor with inflated claims for promotional purposes.
ShelbyMarion (
talk)
19:19, 19 May 2023 (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 appear to be notable, tagged for such since 2018. Nothing to support notability found in a BEFORE, but since "Vanity Fair" is a difficult search topic I am sending it here to see if anything can be found to save this article. If not, then it should be deleted.
DonaldD23talk to me12:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I was able to find a source for Vanity Fair, which included a cast list which mentioned 8 actors, but only gave the roles for three.
Rorr404 (
talk)
16:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
"劉雅英厭倦演裸戲,加盟無綫參演大亨劇集,希望憑演技建立新形象" [Tired of acting in nude scenes, Lau Nga Ying joined TVB to participate in the "Vanity Fair" series, hoping to establish a new image with her acting skills]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1978-01-08. p. 15. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via
Hong Kong Public Libraries.
"張瑛因患腰痛進住浸會,盧國雄約滿後跳槽佳視,李添勝升任「大亨」監製,鍾景輝表心跡决不跳槽" [Cheung Ying admitted to Hong Kong Baptist Hospital owing to back pain. Lo Kwok Hung switched to Commercial Television after his contract was up. Lee Tim-sing was promoted to be producer of "Vanity Fair". Chung King-fai adamantly expresses not switching companies.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1977-12-01. p. 42. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via
Hong Kong Public Libraries.
"無線邀朱玲玲正式簽約,張美琳重返無線拍大亨,朱克主持八位藝員簽約" [TVB invited Loletta Chu to officially sign the contract. Cheung Mei-lam returned to TVB to film "Vanity Fair", and Chu Hak presided over the signing of eight artistes]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1978-02-17. p. 19. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via
Hong Kong Public Libraries.
"赴日本拍「大亨」外景,鄭少秋有無限回味,一頓團年飯花掉千多元,暢談雪祭塲面忘掉驚險" [Went to Japan to do location shooting of "Vanity Fair", Adam Cheng had infinite aftertaste, a reunion dinner cost more than $1,000, talking about the snow festival and forgetting the thrill]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1978-02-24. p. 23. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via
Hong Kong Public Libraries.
The book notes: "1978: A series of TVB's Jade Theatre theme songs written by Joseph Koo and James Wong, including “Vanity Fair” (大亨) (sung by Paula Tsui 徐小鳳), ..."
From Google Translate: ""Vanity Fair" (first aired on 2 January 1978) ..."
Wong, Ha-pak 黃夏柏 (2020).
漫遊八十年代:聽廣東歌的好日子(增訂版) [Roaming in the 1980s: The Good Days of Listening to Cantonese Songs (Extended Edition)] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: FeiFan Publication 非凡出版.
ISBN978-988-8675-73-9. Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via
Google Books.
The book notes: "我最早認識徐小鳳的歌,也是源於電視劇- 台灣配音劇集《保鑣》和《神鳳》。她在上述電台 節目表示,在娛樂場所唱歌多年,早闖出名堂,只 是電視台遲遲沒有聯繫她唱主題曲。1978年的〈大 亨>是她首次演唱本地製作電視劇的主題曲,那時 我尚年幼,已聽聞該劇收視不濟,主題曲亦沒有大 熱。資料顯示,以劇集《大亨》及電影《漩渦》(黃 百鳴首次投資拍攝的電影)主題曲掛頭名的大碟, 並未獲金唱片。"
From Google Translate: "The earliest songs I knew of Paula Tsui were also from TV dramas - Taiwan dubbed dramas "The Bodyguard" and "Shenfeng". She said on the above-mentioned radio program that she has been singing in entertainment venues for many years and became famous early, but the TV station has not contacted her to sing the theme song for a long time. "Vanity Fair" in 1978 was the first time she sang the theme song of a locally produced TV series. At that time, I was still young, and I had already heard that the show was not well received, and the theme song was not a big hit. According to the data, the album with the theme song of the TV series "Vanity Fair" and the movie "Vortex" (the first movie that Huang Baiming invested in) has not won the gold record."
Thank you, I believe that the reason why others were not able to find any sufficient amount of information about the show is that there is not much English media coverage about the show, but there was plenty of coverage about it in Chinese, as it had aired in Hong Kong. From the synopsis on the Chinese Wikipedia page, it appears to be about three men who all are involved in Cantonese opera/theatre, all of which are friends, share a goal of becoming rich tycoons over its 85 episode run. Because the coverage is mostly in Chinese, I recommend that someone who can translate Chinese get on the project.
Rorr404 (
talk)
16:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Additionally, I was able to get this cast list from a member of the Chinese Wikipedia:
演員 (Cast):
1. 香家 (Heung Family)
- 鄭有國 (Jimmy Cheng Yau-kwok) as 香景山 (Heung King-shan)
Husband of Ching Suet-yee
- 湘漪 (Sheung Yi) as 程雪怡 (Ching Suet-yee)
Wife of Heung King-shan
- 羅蘭 (Helena Law Lan) as 凌素心 (Ling So-sum)
Elder daughter-in-law of Heung King-shan
- 黃文慧 (Bonnie Wong Man-wai) as 周美珍 (Chow Mei-chun)
Younger daughter-in-law of Heung King-shan
- 上官玉 (Sheung-kwun Yuk) as 駱少梅 (Lok Siu-mui)
Concubine of Heung King-shan, later re-married to Sit Keung
- 李司棋 (Louise Lee Sze-kee) as 香若楠 (Heung Yeuk-nam)
Illegitimate daughter of Heung King-shan, girlfriend (and later wife) of Lui Pok-man
- 陳美琪 (Maggie Chan Mei-kei) as 香蕙之 (Heung Wai-chi)
Elder daughter of Ling So-sum, girlfriend (and later wife) of Lui Hok-man
- 劉雅麗 (Alice Lau Nga-lai) as 香敏之 (Heung Man-chi)
Younger daughter of Ling So-sum
- 關菊英 (Susanna Kwan Kuk-ying) as 香若梅 (Heung Yuek-mui)
Third daughter of Heung King-shan
- 黃允財 (Wong Wan-choi) as 香祖輝 (Heung Cho-fai)
Fourth son of Heung King-shan
- 吳新偉 (Ng San-wai) as 香紹基 (Heung Siu-kei)
Son of Chow Mei-chun
2. 雷家 (Lui Family)
- 石堅 (Shih Kien) as 雷嘯堂 (Lui Siu-tong)
Uncle of Lui Yat-fung and Lui Yat-fan
- 黃新 (Wong Sun) as 雷一峰 (Lui Yat-fung)
Lui Yat-fan's elder brother, husband of Chu Sau-mei, father of Lui Pok-man, Lui Hok-man and Lui Yee-man
- 程可為 (Rainbow Ching Hor-wai) as 朱秀眉 (Chu Sau-mei)
Second wife of Lui Yat-fung, stepmother of Lui Pok-man and Lui Hok-man, mother of Lui Yee-man
- 劉丹 (Danny Lau Dan) as 雷一帆 (Lui Yat-fan)
Younger brother of Lui Yat-fung
- 陳嘉儀 (Chan Ka-yee) as 羅曉芬 (Law Hiu-fan)
Wife of Lui Yat-fan
- 朱江 (Paul Chu Kwong) as 雷博文 (Lui Pok-man)
Eldest son of Lui Yat-fung, boyfriend (and later husband) of Heung Yeuk-nam
- 周潤發 (Chow Yun-fat) as 雷學文 (Lui Hok-man)
Second son of Lui Yat-fung, boyfriend (and later husband) of Heung Wai-chi
- 廖安麗 (Annie Liu On-lai) as 雷綺文 (Lui Yee-man)
Daughter of Lui Yat-fung and Chu Sau-mei, stepsister of Lui Pok-man and Lui Hok-man
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.
There is not much media coverage that justifies the inclusion of Jimmy the Greek on Wikipedia. It is just a fast food franchise with locations in many malls in the Greater Toronto Area, BC and Alberta. That doesn't make it notable. There is no significant media coverage and most media coverage is trivial.
747pilot (
talk)
20:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Easy to find GNG references.
Toronto Star,
Toronto Sun. This Winnipeg Free Press article is a bit brief, but isn't bad either -
ProQuest752159654. BEFORE failure. Generally, well known restaurants such as this and Osmow's will be notable, and more work checking for references needs to be done before nominating. Can you please withdraw this nomination,
User:747pilot?
Nfitz (
talk)
01:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Article rightfully already survived a previous AfD. Should not have been re-nominated. It appears
User:747pilot suddenly retired after placing this nomination, so unlikely they will withdraw.
Locu (
talk)
16:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah, they changed their name to
User:user b12u3ewq1561 and then did seem to retire. I certainly hope that wasn't because I objected to some AFDs. I hope they continue here - I'm troubled by some of their nominations, but others were good. Just needs a bit more research, that's all.
Nfitz (
talk)
22:21, 24 May 2023 (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.
Not notable- there is very little, if any media coverage about Baker's Dozen Donuts. This is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.
747pilot (
talk)
20:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. In general, I'd expect a franchise that apparently once had 100 locations to be notable, but there are almost no sources that attest to that. It might be that, if we had access to a bunch of Canadian local newspapers from the 80s and 90s, we'd find a wealth of information on this chain. Or we might find nothing. But as it is with almost no sources at all, we can't judge even that. --
Tserton (
talk)
12:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: there appear to be quite a few results on
ProQuest when searching for ""baker's dozen" donut" restricted to the years 1975-1999; there are also a number of unrelated results. I cannot access the articles to assess their relevance, though.
Mindmatrix17:33, 18 May 2023 (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.
Big Smoke Burger is not really notable. It doesn't stand out like other burger chains like Five Guys. It is not a large chain and there is not much media coverage about it. I do not think it is notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia.
747pilot (
talk)
20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep – Meets
WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of
available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. These are all
bylinednews articles written by
staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources (with the exception of the QSR Magazine and The Canadian Business Journal sources, which are still reliable and independent). These sources are notadvertorials; I find it very difficult to believe that these media companies were paid by Big Smoke Burger to publish these articles. North America100011:36, 1 September 2016 (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.
Leaning keep. Not only has she received the honorary "Contribution to Cinema" award the nominator identified, she's the namesake of the Sevin Okyay Cinema Writing Achievement Award at the International Women Filmmakers Festival.
[1] There seem to be a lot of sources available in Turkish which I'm not able to evaluate, but I suspect they'll support notability per
WP:GNG.
pburka (
talk)
21:20, 17 May 2023 (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 driving school is not notable. There are almost none, if any Wikipedia articles about specific driving schools/driving school franchises. Although Young Drivers may be the biggest in Canada, it doesn't really meet the notability guideline. Other countries may have driving schools on their scale but they're still not notable enough for Wikipedia.
747pilot (
talk)
20:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. If the coverage by reliable sources exists (and it seems to), then the company is notable. We have articles on other for-profit training companies. A company doesn't have to be cool to be notable. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)20:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
This article definitely needs rewriting as it reads like an advertisement, but the nominator's statement is misleading. This is not a single school, but a company which owns 140 schools. There is no rule that says such a company cannot be notable.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
19:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not going to vote, but i think it's important we understand that having the word "school" in this company's name doesn't make it in any way an educational institution. It's a business that for profit provides training in a single skill in a field dominated by for profit businesses. In no way should the grace we show educational institutions regarding notability apply.
69.92.163.38 (
talk)
00:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep My mind boggles given how well it is known, and are asked to comment on various issues. Simple?!?! Hundreds of hits in Proquest, dating back over 50 years. Massive BEFORE failure by
User:747pilot - can they withdraw this nomination?
Nfitz (
talk)
23:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't see,
User:Renamed user b12u3ewq1561 that noting something is a big BEFORE failure is a personal attack. It's about what you did - not about you. I certainly don't see it as personal attack, nor meant it to be taken that way. Now, if you'd talked about how you'd scoured the Internet and Proquest, but failed to find sources, it might be a personal attack - but I see no indication in the discussion that there was a proper BEFORE attempt.
Nfitz (
talk)
18:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Withdraw- I think perhaps they are indeed notable but the article will need a lot of cleanup to avoid promotional content.
747pilot (
talk)
01:10, 21 May 2023 (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. The inside cover
[2] of one of Armstrong's other novels, Exit Strategy, contains excerpts from reviews of Stolen by the New York Times, Quill & Quire, the Toronto Star, Toronto Globe and Mail and London Free Press, which would mean it easily fulfills
WP:NBOOK #1. The Quill and Quire review is available online.
[3] Unfortunately, the archives of the other newspapers are all behind paywalls, so I can't verify them myself (but anyone with a Toronto library card should be able to access the Star and Globe and Mail). We shouldn't consider a book non-notable just because it was published before the modern Internet. --
Tserton (
talk)
12:57, 18 May 2023 (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.
List of non-notable sportspeople with no indication of meeting
WP:LISTN nor any actual benefit to the encyclopaedia. PROD would likely be contested based on some similar PRODs that I've done recently. I oppose merging to
2020 Women's Bandy World Championship on the basis that the article is completely unsourced. I can't think of any good reason to keep this.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)19:53, 17 May 2023 (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.
Semi-pro Scottish footballer with no evidence to support a claim to
WP:SPORTBASIC or
WP:GNG. The interview cited in the article is published by
Dunfermline Athletic, his employer at the time, so is clearly not independent. In my
WP:BEFORE, I found
Daily Record 1 and
Daily Record 2, both of which are trivial mentions. This player is an internet-era footballer in a developed country. If significant coverage is not found online then I highly doubt that he is notable.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)19:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - As far as I can see does not meet notability. The highest level he played at was the lowest tier of the Scottish League system and he does not seem to have generated significant coverage then or at any other point in his career as a footballer.
Dunarc (
talk)
20:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article on a journeyman around the SPFL semi-pro basement league and beneath. (I watched at least one game in which the subject played in SPFL League Two.) As others have said above, the given sources are a brief Q&A apprenticeship piece on a club site and passing mentions. Nothing in the article text or elsewhere indicates attained biographical notability here.
AllyD (
talk)
20:49, 24 May 2023 (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 A quick search of the website shows nothing notable. In fact, traffic is so low to the website that their social media accounts appear first before their official website.
Hadal1337 (
talk)
15:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Kill the blockchain with fire. The sources there are all very promotional and praise crpyto and Producer Bazaar.
SWinxy (
talk)
18:47, 22 May 2023 (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.
Not meeting GNG and uses flowery language. The art was gaining critical notice, yet we have no (and I can't find) sources that discuss it, other than sales sites.
Oaktree b (
talk)
18:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I think there are references to the exhibitions, the language that used may be improved. There are so many articles on Wikipedia, that are only 2-3 sentences, and not marked for deletion, I don't thinnk the work that I done should be evoluated like you did it. I don't agree with you, sorry
Noobsaiboth (
talk)
18:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
•Comment - In an online BEFORE search I found nothing to confer notability in the English language. When I searched his name in Armenian, Արարատ Ալեքսանյան, I found one short news story in the Armenian Times about the car-motorcycle crash in which he was tragically killed by a drunk driver.
[4]. There were few items in Armenian that look like user-submitted content like this:
[5]; and social media postings and his accounts. I'm leaning towards d*lete, but will continue to see if any SIGCOV can be found. The article seems like a memorial page containing a lot of unsourced detailed information so if there is COI involved it may be a friend or family member with a misunderstanding of the purpose of the encyclopedia. (Forgive me if that seems harsh.) If he actually was notable, one would think the art press would publish an obituary. Will keep looking before formally !voting.
Netherzone (
talk)
20:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Was speaking of the May 5 additions, some in Armenian. I didn't look at the age of the page. I've done some edits for encyclopedic language on the page and removed some of the flowery language mentioned in the nomination.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
00:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I am not finding any reliable sources for the biographical information (birth and death date etc.) nor am I finding any sources for the "Life and work" section. Let the author deal with this in the draft version of this article (
Draft:Ararat Aleksanyan). It looks like the editor created in draft space, then
incorrectly moved to main space. No signs that any experienced editors were involved with this article written by an SPA.
WomenArtistUpdates (
talk)
00:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - I tried in earnest to find significant coverage in reliable sources on this artist, in both English and Armenian. Unfortunately I could find nothing in addition to the four sources currently in the article. A source analysis revealed that all four are low quality sources: 1) a short segment on him in a YouTube video on a local TV station titled "Well I'm not successful either!", among other artists in a group show; 2) A press release from for a show on a person's blog; 3) short segment in a YouTube video on a local channel featuring several artists in a group show 4) a short description on a local tourism website of a gallery he apparently showed in that does not mention him at all. It seems that the two video sources were used on Solo shows however it seems they were actually group shows. None of these sources support notability criteria to pass
WP:GNG nor
WP:NARTIST. The only other things I found in a BEFORE search were social media and user submitted content.
Netherzone (
talk)
01:26, 21 May 2023 (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.
unsourced for well over a decade, and tagged for notability since 2019. The generic name could be hiding some legitimate sources on the internet, which hopefully will be discovered during this discussion if they exist. ~
TPW18:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It has been demonstrated and there is consensus that the topic does not meet either
WP:PROF or
WP:GNG, with no in-depth sources provided to confer notability. —
Amakuru (
talk)
11:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Distinct lack of third-party reliable sources cited, possible autobiography (or possibly just based on one). It's possible more and better sources exist in Italian, but considering the subject's article was deleted from itwiki, that seems unlikely.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts?18:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Hi @
HJ Mitchell, I hope I can give you a few insights on who is Marcello Minenna and his career.
Minenna is a renowned economist, author of 100+ papers, whose contributions in this field were quoted by many scholars and academics, both Italian and international. He is also quoted within en wikipedia's pages.
I contributed on both pages; actually the Italian page has been deleted following POV pushes (both defamatory and celebratory) and edit wars, mainly in the paragraph about judicial controversy. The same paragraph here was subject to POV and vandalism. Btw the same day of the deletion an article in an Italian newspaper was published
[6] that states that Minenna was "kicked off" by Wikipedia. It is clear that WP kicks off nobody.
My intention is to rewrite Minenna's page shortly. In fact, according to Italian guidelines, notability derives for example directly from his regular activity as columnist on the front page of the main Italian economic newspaper. The page had been on itwiki for many years (here since 2011). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Michelino12 (
talk •
contribs)
16:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I have created the page at the end of 2011. Let me firstly anticipate that Minenna has definitely an encyclopedic profile according to wikipedias' guidelines.
WP:AUTHOR requirements are satisfied since he writes regularly on
IlSole24ore on the first page and on
Financial Times.
WP:PROFESSOR also since his reseraches are largely cited and also recalled here on several WP pages.
It is not a case that the article has been on WP since 2011 until now.
Unfortunately by looking at the modifications overtime I realised that the page has been vandalised and ruined in several aspects. There are several unregistered users that damage the discussions and the article.
Delete. Anemic citation record does not rise to the level of
WP:PROF notability. None of the accomplishments touted in such extravagent detail in the article look particularly noteworthy. And we have no sources that would pass
WP:GNG or verify those accomplishments: nothing that is in-depth, reliably published, and independent of the subject. The parade of single-purpose accounts on view in this AfD (one of whom claims to be the same as long-inactive SPA
Olive75 (
talk·contribs), who created the article) and the parade of even more SPAs on view in the article history also does not make a convincing case for notability (somewhat the opposite). —
David Eppstein (
talk)
06:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about former semi-pro footballer which comprehensively fails
WP:GNG. BLPPROD was contested by adding a single piece of non-independent, primary coverage that contributes nothing to SIGCOV. The sources available online are almost entirely from his college, its conference or his clubs - none of which are independent of the subject. The secondary coverage is entirely routine/trivial stuff like match reports and a
Baltimore Sun piece that barely touches on him. He's been named to conference teams of the week by
Collegesoccernews.com but its trivial coverage.
Jogurney (
talk)
18:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - PDL players are generally not going to have the in-depth coverage required to meet GNG, and this is no exception. SounderBruce08:25, 20 May 2023 (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 appear to meet
WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of subject. Note that having notable parents does not make one notable as per
WP:INVALIDBIO.
Socksage (
talk)
17:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SIGCOV. He's done a lot of things, but they are not covered in independent, reliable sources. More is spent on his parents and what they did, than about him.
Bearian (
talk)
16:38, 22 May 2023 (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.
Biography of a diplomat, not
properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for diplomats. As always, every diplomat is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists or existed, and instead diplomats only get articles if they can be shown to pass
WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but existence is the only notability claim being made here, and the only sources are a short biographical blurb on one page of a book with over 2,000 pages and a very brief blurb about his death in a source that isn't even dated at all in order to replace the incorrect ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Living people (which I've already removed) with an actual death year category. The article further asserts that he was a politician, but says absolutely nothing about any political roles he might have held to determine whether he would pass
WP:NPOL or not. This is not enough sourcing to secure the notability of a diplomat all by itself, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable to exempt him from having to have more sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: He appears to have been the vice-minister for foreign affairs
[7], but this seems to be a bureaucratic position rather than a political one, so I don't think it can be considered
WP:NPOL-conferring as it is not a cabinet position. Besides that, there is a complete lack of
WP:SIGCOV.
Curbon7 (
talk)
03:38, 19 May 2023 (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 appears to be predicated on grouping together various different protests and movements that have little to do with each other other than that they took place in 2022 to claim them as some sort of pan-European movement against the "green agenda", which itself is a very charged title (
WP:SYNTH, policy-wise?). Probably the ones that are most closely linked here are a number of ones listed that appear directly inspired by the
Dutch farmers' protests (such as those mentioned in Germany and Spain), but none of those appear to be anywhere near as large as their inspiration, nor do they have their own articles. Maybe these sections could be merged with the articles on the Dutch protests, but I think that might be all here that's salvageable.
Aside from that, the headlines on the 66 sources that appears to mention these events in pan-European terms is
this one, which again is solely related to the farmer protests. The other protests listed include among others, protests for wage increases in Belgium, the
Yellow vests protests (which began years before anything else here) and the UK government crisis, which isn't even a social movement, nor is it tied to one. --
Totalibe (
talk)
22:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
When I wrote this article in the summer of 2022, of course my biggest inspiration was the farmers' protests in the Netherlands. However, when the wave of protests swept Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy and Poland, I saw that the problem is not only the Dutch government and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, but a much deeper problem that requires a much broader picture. I believe that this article should not be deleted but updated and supplemented, e.g. about the shocking defeat of the Dutch government in the local elections in March this year. But also the shocking victory of the Dutch populist farmer party BBB. Such a development is precisely the result of the whims of a group of philanthropists from Davos who want to implement the reforms required by the "Green Agenda" at any cost, which apparently leave many people without work and without income, so they are dissatisfied and constantly protest. For example. the fall of Mario Draghi's government in Italy was not a consequence of either the Anti-COVID or the sanctions policy towards Russia, but the result of the fall of the Italian government was a conflict with farmers and farmers who protested due to the sudden drop in the price of milk, and the rise in the prices of food and other products, the cause of which precisely the "Green Agenda". What do we have in Italy today? We have a hard populist, extremely conservative, right-wing and somewhat neo-fascist government. In France and Germany and Belgium and Spain and partly in Poland, there were large protests by farmers who oppose the policy of the Green Party in Germany, whose holders are Robert Habeck and Analena Berbock, the current German foreign minister. In France, Macron is also someone who is a supporter of the "Green Agenda", and from the beginning he has been under fire and in conflict with the majority of his citizens because without some unpopular reforms he cannot implement the "Green Agenda" in full and we are witnessing that he withdraws increasingly undemocratic measures that cause anger and riots on French streets. Poland is still unknown to me in terms of protests because I'm not sure that Morawiecki's right-wing populist government has ceded its sovereignty too much to the controversial "Green Agenda" unlike Western Europe and Germany. Perhaps the part of the article related to Poland should be removed as well as to the Czech Republic where "Protests against inflation" started. But in addition to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic, the fact is that the "Green Agenda" is one of the causes of inflation and the economic crisis in Europe, because its activation requires the shutdown of heavy industry, the abolition of fossil fuels, the killing of millions of cattle, the extinguishing of tens of thousands farms, the production of artificial meat (which Bill Gates intends), the interruption of the distribution of mining and processing of heavy metals, and this leaves millions of people without work and money. Certainly, the greatest resistance to the "Green Agenda" is in the Netherlands, France and Germany, while in Italy it failed with the fall of Draghi's government and the coming to power of right-wing populists who are absolute opponents. It may be a "Green Agenda" policy, but it has not completely disappeared because its proponents continue to promote it through the left-wing opposition, which is still strong. In France, the extreme left and right oppose the policies of Macron, who is Davos' right-hand man. In Germany, the "Green Agenda" holds power, and then in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Austria, where President Van Der Bellen is a member of the Green Party. Only in Eastern and Central Europe is there still not as strong an organized resistance to the "Green Agenda" as in Western Europe, where it has begun to be widely implemented. The "Green Agenda" probably has a lot of its advantages in terms of ecology, but unfortunately also a lot of harmful economic effects due to which people in France, the Netherlands, Germany and to a lesser extent in Spain are fiercely resisting. As for the fall of Boris Johnson's government, you are probably right. Its decline is not related to the "Green Agenda" policy, but to the CONSEQUENCES of BREXIT, Anti-Covid measures and policies towards Ukraine. That should be deleted. My mistake. —
Baba Mica (
talk)
15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. I am worried about
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH here (ping
User:Gidonb, why do you think SYNTH does not apply?). That said, the overall topic is likely notable. Naming is an issue (but probably should be discussed on article's talk). "Protests against the green agenda" is a Wikipedia-invented name. So would be "Protests against Green Politics" (sorry,
User:Jack4576). I did a quick check for other names on Google Scholar. A few scholary papers (
~5) use term "anti environmental protests". "anti green protests" is not used. I am blanking on what else, but regarding renaming, I'd go with
anti environmental protests for now, I guess, as this term is not a total OR at least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here03:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
User:Piotrus, you pinged me, then went on to support my point by referring to broad academic articles. Also in the news media comparisons exist. We stand here firmly on the shoulders of others.
gidonb (
talk)
11:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't even recall it being a cohesive "thing" and whatever notability it had has fizzled. This seems to be a synthesis/OR article, about things that never happened. Each protest might be notable by itself, but there wasn't and isn't something as cohesive as a Green Wave or what have you that ever happened.
Oaktree b (
talk)
18:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Can you hold on for another day when I have more time? What's not clear to you? Protests against the green agenda (politics) are not happening? Farmers are not protesting all over Europe? If you are a representative of that policy, you cannot tell me that something is not happening that is happening in real time. The article should be edited, not deleted. Perhaps the date should be moved from June 10, 2022 to October 1, 2019, when the farmers' protests began in the Netherlands, rather than mid-2022 when they escalated across Europe. I explained everything in the comment above which I guess you didn't even read. —
Baba Mica (
talk)
01:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per Bearian. This article doesn't distinguish between farmers' protests and general anti-government protests, pure
soap with no coherent article topic.
Jdcooper (
talk)
03:00, 20 May 2023 (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 book is presumed notable if it
verifiably meets, through
reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases,
flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The review notes: "So I found the story growing tedious as it devolved into a cycle: the heroes discuss their options, attempt a strategy, discover something that makes the problem more complicated, fight for their lives, eat, have sex, sleep, then discuss their options again, and so forth. It soon seemed inevitable that our protagonist would end up alone and in peril, and sure enough, Armstrong eventually contrives to extricate Elena from her pack of werewolf bodyguards so she can fight alone. ... Fans of action may also enjoy this book -- there are lots of fights and chases. And Armstrong provides some candid pointers on how to have hot sex in the third trimester, which some readers will no doubt delight in and others are liable to find a turn-off. I found that all the action was plot-driven and none of the characters engaged me enough to keep me interested in the outcome."
The review notes: "This is an engaging entry to highly readable series. Armstrong continues to write strong female leads, and even introduces a new one – a vampire named Zoë who has a lot of fun potential. Elena continues to be strong – content and ready to move on to a new phase in her life. Readers who became so engaged with her in the first two novels will certainly enjoy this return visit."
The Romance Reader was
published and edited by D.N. Anderson and has Cathy Sova as a senior editor. Here is more information about The Romance Reader, which I consider to be a reliable source:
The article notes: "Readers of romance fiction have a difficult task separating the wonderful from the dreadful in their genre. The often-embarrassing cover art and the always-inaccurate jacket blurbs offer little guidance to a discriminating reader. Thank goodness for The Romance Reader, which offers an independent assessment of many new releases, judged on a scale of one to five hearts. There also are columns, including "My top 10 favorite romances of all time" by several authors, including
LaVyrle Spencer and
Susan Elizabeth Phillips."
The article notes: "Web hits »
http://www.theromancereader.com. If you're a romance novel junkie, The Romance Reader has all the love and kisses you could ever pine for. The core of the site is its book reviews (more than 1,000). Authors can respond to reviews of their work. Check interviews with numerous romance writers, lists of new releases, readers' recommendations and something called Road Stories — a collection of hilarious tales from authors about book signings and other memorable moments."
The book notes: "5-146. The Romance Reader.
http://theromancereader.com. It has only been in recent years that romance novels have been taken seriously by those who don't read them, even though they are the most popular form of genre fiction with over half of mass market paperback fiction being romance novels. This site is one of the oldest review sites and it is organized into contemporary, historical, paranormal, series, and eclectic. The reviews rank the works according to one to five hearts. Other features are author interviews and a section where readers can ask questions and get answers. The site can help readers and librarians alike to be "in the know.""
This book source is about The Mystery Reader, which like The Romance Reader is also edited by D.N. Anderson. The book notes: "The Mystery Reader:
http://www.themysteryreader.com. Companion to the Romance Reader site, this Web site is edited by D.N. Anderson. ... This site is one of the most often linked to by other sites: It's been around awhile and is a credible resource for mystery reviews."
The review notes: "A new book featuring werewolf heroine Elena Michaels should be good news for fans. And, at first, all the signs are promising. In return for revealing the hiding place of a serial killer, half-demon Xavier requires Elena, her lover Clay and their boss Jeremy to steal a letter written by Jack the Ripper. It seems a fair deal, until the letter opens a portal to the past and assorted 19th-century zombies start ruining Toronto's more exclusive districts. This is Buffy territory, now colonised by half-a-dozen US novelists, of which Armstrong is one of the best."
The review is listed
here by the
Internet Speculative Fiction Database. The review notes: "The sixth volume in Armstrong’s Women of the Otherworld series sees the return of the werewolf Elena Michaels, last seen in the second volume, Stolen (reviewed in Vector 233). This one sounds fascinating with Elena persuaded to steal Jack the Ripper’s ‘From Hell’ letter from a collector, which inadvertently opens a portal back to Victorian London. Oh, and our hero is pregnant. Which has sold it to me. Colin Odell and Mitch Le Blanc have reviewed much of this series, finding it at the front of this Buffyesque genre and strengthening with each volume."
I'm not sure about the validity. For example, #3 doesn't have Broken as the main subject, which seems to be required by the crit. I will leave that review process to others.
Cunard, where do you find these sources from?
Sungodtemple (
talk •
contribs)
12:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per sources identified by Cunard. Source #3 is a collection of 4 book reviews, one of which has Broken as the main subject.
pburka (
talk)
14:52, 18 May 2023 (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 book is presumed notable if it
verifiably meets, through
reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases,
flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The review is listed
here by the
Internet Speculative Fiction Database. The review notes: "I invite you to journey with Croaker, The Lady, One-Eye, Soulcatcher and Longshadow and the rest of the most bizarre collection of mercenaries and villains ever conceived. If you've read the others, She Is The Darkness is a great ride. If you want to experience what the Black Company is, I strongly recommend you start at the beginning. Like all great, complex stories, this one is just too confusing to jump in mid-way."
The review is listed
here by the
Internet Speculative Fiction Database. The review notes: "It's difficult, as always, to review the second volume in a fantasy sequence when one is unfamiliar with the backstory, but in this case Cook's She Is the Darkness is anything but a plot-choked middle volume. Cook is no prose stylist and the scatalogical modern dialogue is a bracing change from the normal off-the-shelf archaic dialects that so many fantasy writers use without thinking."
The review is listed
here. The review notes: "... whose evil plots unfold against a landscape so bleak and blasted by war and magic that readers can't help but wonder where, for instance, the Company's food comes from, or who can afford to pay them. Fascinating, no doubt, for the fans; all but impenetrable to outsiders."
The review is listed
here. The review notes: "The distinctively non-Western flavor of much of the mythology is also welcome. Large parts of the book read like a collaboration between Michael Moorcock and the late John Masters, dean of historical novels of the British Raj. Indeed, the book offers virtually anything a fantasy reader could ask for, except a coherent narrative that stands on its own."
White, Bill (April 1998). "She Is the Darkness review from Voice of Youth Advocates". Voice of Youth Advocates. p. 53.
The review is mentioned in an advertisement
here and in an
Encyclopedia.com article
here. The review notes: "[Cook] describes the villany of the Company's antagonists with extraordinary power ... fans of the Black Company will relish this novel."
The article notes: "Volume two of the "Glittering Stone" series, She Is the Darkness, once again takes up the tale of the Company as the group moves closer toward discovery of its mystical origins when it reaches the city of Khatovar. It becomes a race against time once the Company's demonic enemies begin to kill off members as a way of preventing those origins from being revealed. Bill White, in Voice of Youth Advocates praised the novel's "complex and sophisticated story," and noted that the author "describes the villainy of the Company's antagonists with extraordinary power." Roland Green in Booklist called She Is the Darkness "wrenchingly realistic in both the details of war and the emotions of the characters.""
The review notes: "Wrenchingly realistic in both the details of war and the emotions of the characters and drawing eclectically but intelligently on dozens of different elements, the book still doesn't constitute a smooth narrative, simply because there are, after six preceding Black Company yarns, so many characters and elements that only devout followers of the saga possess the knowledge to make full sense of it. But those followers are numerous."
The article notes: "She Is the Darkness, the 7th novel in the The Black Company dark fantasy series written by American author Glen Cook, has recently been published in Persian by Tandis Publications in Tehran."
The book was published by
Tor Books, which is an imprint of
Macmillan Publishers, which owns Tor.com, so this magazine article is not independent. The review notes: "Having made it through She is the Darkness, I’d say that things are kind of back on the right track (in more ways than one). If Bleak Seasons was Crossroads of Twilight (trying to draw stuff together but not a lot actually happening) then She is the Darkness is Knife of Dreams (an unwieldy cast is prodded into moving towards a conclusion); there’s good stuff happening but it is slow work getting there… ... She is the Darkness is one hell of a slog to get through, for me anyway, as Cook really captures that long drawn out feeling of a siege that is going nowhere fast."
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.
Corporate networking organization which evidently fails
WP:NORG. Very short article provides almost no context at all. Could not find any sources of information online, partly due to many organizations with similar names and purposes also operating in the same area, such as ACG Chicago Women's Network, IWIRC Chicago Network, Ellevate Chicago's Network for Women, Chicago Booth Women's Network, the Chicago Network for Justice and Peace, and the Chicago Republican Women's Network. Article has no sources at all despite being more than a decade old.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
16:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NONPROFIT/
WP:CLUB, their activities do not appear to be national or international in scale, and I also have not located significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization (or outside the organization's local area). Outstanding in Their Field: How Women Corporate Directors Succeed (2009) has a paragraph at p. 19, describing the organization as an advocacy group and noting their history of conducting surveys since 1998.
Crain's Chicago Business in 2018 quotes the CEO but the focus is another organization; a
2020 Q&A interview with the CEO is not independent. There is a 2010 obit in The Chicago Tribune with a brief mention that they were "one of the founders of The Chicago Network, a still-prominent organization of professional women started in 1979 as a group of "movers and shakers with the sole purpose of doing some collective moving and shaking," according to its Web site." There are quotes from the president and CEO in a
2020 local news piece (which describes the org as a "professional organization that works to empower women to lead and help create gender equity in organizations") and a mention of data from one of their reports in a
2014 Chicago Tribune article on another subject. In 2022,
CBS2 reports on the participation and attendance of its own employees at a Chicago Network event.
Beccaynr (
talk)
01:28, 18 May 2023 (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.
Episode does not appear to be notable. I only found blog reviews in a BEFORE. Probably should be a REDIRECT, but it was redirected in 2022 and was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion. Should it be kept, deleted, or redirected?
DonaldD23talk to me16:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The reviews in the usual places are really hard to find with such short generic titles--and I think 'release' is about as bad a title as can be imagined when looking at popular media--nevertheless, there are a couple:
AV Club,
Screenrant. The last one focuses on Faith's transformation across multiple episodes, so one could argue it isn't in depth on the episode. There are a number of other questionably reliable reviews, and it did get mentioned in a
Slayage article. There's probably more somewhere, but again, the title is a real hindrance.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:14, 18 May 2023 (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
WP:NOT, specifically
WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is a complete and exhaustive listing of all the services offered by a (now defunct) company as of a particular date in October 2007.
Also fails
WP:CORP, since the only source cited is the defunct company's website.
WP:BEFORE is optional, particularly where the main failing of the article is not only notability (though it does fail this per
WP:CORP) but I did do a brief search and found nothing that would remedy the issue - just the usual aggregator sites, ticket-sales sites, fan-sites, and industry/specialist media outlets of dubious independence (see
WP:ORGIND and
WP:AUD).
FOARP (
talk)
16:44, 17 May 2023 (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 person does not satisfy the requirements of
WP:GNG,
WP:SIGCOV, or
WP:NPOL. People do not become notable just for running as candidates in elections they have not won. The notability standard for politicians is holding a notable office, not just unsuccessfully running for one.
BoyTheKingCanDance (
talk)
16:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Full disclosure I participated in the last AFD and my vote is unchanged. I think strict enforcement of
WP:NPOL on candidates is good since every cycle we get a lot of non-notable candidate articles. I still think Young is different because he's run so many times over a decade there is enough
WP:SIGCOV out there to write an article and meet
WP:GNG. This is like his ninth campaign, and I think him winning a nomination last cycle and the party refusing to endorse him is kinda notable. I'd like to see this article kept and improved instead of deleted this time.
I think that Young has been run so many times that he meets the
WP:GNG. I think there is enough
WP:SIGCOV, simply because he has run so many times, and that he claims that the Kentucky Democratic party has rigged primary elections against him. Along with the Kentucky Democratic party refusing to endorse him.
FatCat96 (
talk)
11:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. We have gone over this before. Running once or twice does not make one notable. Once a perenniel candidate runs more than 7 or 8 times he becomes notable.
Bearian (
talk)
16:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Speaking generally here, as I haven't taken a look at the article and as such will not be casting a !vote, but I vehemently disagree with the notion that (in general) simply being a longtime perennial candidate equates to notability.
Curbon7 (
talk)
22:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed. Merely being a perennial candidate should not denote "automatic" notability. In this case, however, the subject has received significant coverage beyond mere routine campaign coverage. In part for his notoriety as a perennial candidate, and in part for his controversial conduct as a candidate (his own party's refusal to endorse him, his allegation of a rigged primary). It is for this reason that I (and apparently others) have concluded that he passes
WP:GNG.
Sal2100 (
talk)
19:25, 24 May 2023 (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 list seems to be highly misleading, in that it doesn't just list actual imports, but also transports: e.g. Belgium is high on the list because its ports are a place of entry for e.g. Swedish or Japanese cars which are then moved on towards other countries (with some fraction remaining in Belgium). Note how the value for Belgium on the other list,
List of countries by car exports, is nearly identical, and much higher than the value of the actual car production in Belgium. Countries like Belgium (and Canada for that matter) have much more car exports than e.g. Italy or France? Lists sourced only to a Wordpress site, so if we want this,
WP:TNT would apply.
Delete Import would imply they are staying in the country, simply transiting through a port towards another country isn't an import. Some strange OR or misunderstanding of the terms I think.
Oaktree b (
talk)
18:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete both. Strong case of original research here as WorldsTopExports appears to be a self published sourced based on independent/educational research. Also
WP:NOTSTATS, content is already out of date by 2 years.
Ajf773 (
talk)
22:52, 17 May 2023 (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
WP:NOT, specifically
WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is a complete and exhaustive listing of all the services offered by a business, albeit one wholly owned by the Libyan government, at a specific point in time (apparently some point in 2011).
Also fails
WP:CORP. The only sources cited here are routesonline.com, which is not independent as it is an organisation that works with the airline industry creating forums and media coverage for it, and a 404 link to the Shabablibya.org website which, being inaccessible, is impossible to assess (though based on
archived versions of the site appears to have been the site of the Libyan Youth political movement and thus not an RS for this topic). A
WP:BEFORE search uncovered nothing that could fix this. The best I could find was
this short Libyan Herald article quoting the Libyan state news agency, who are in turn quoting Libyan Airlines. This is
run-of-the-mill coverage that falls short of significant coverage of the destinations specifically (they are only mentioned in two sentences) and anyway the coverage is not independent since ultimately the source is Libyan Airlines themselves. Passing
WP:CORP means having reliable, independent sources that meet the
audience and
independence requirements of
WP:CORP.
FOARP (
talk)
16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The parent article is plenty of reliable sources (added by myself actually) that could support most of the entries in this article. The search for them claiming
WP:BEFORE was not conducted properly.--JetstreamerTalk13:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Jetstreamer, can you tell us which of those sources meets the requirements of
WP:CORP (especially
WP:ORGIND and
WP:AUD) for this list of destinations specifically? That article does not have any data about destinations (the section on destination is blank and just includes a link to this page) so it is not clear what you are talking about. Additionally, can you say how
WP:NOT does not apply here?
The World Airlines Guide is
a catalogue with short, one-paragraph entries for each airline in the world, not significant coverage. Catalogue entries/trivial coverage don't support notability per
WP:ORGDEPTH, nor does being listed in a catalogue that attempts to list every single company in a particular field. Moreover to pass
WP:CORP the coverage needs to not be simply industry press per
WP:ORGIND/
WP:AUD, and Flight International is clearly industry press. And even with that, you still have to get past
WP:NOT and explain why we should have an article dedicated to exhaustively listing the services of a commercial organisation.
FOARP (
talk)
20:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
A high-quality and
independent source, that is not industry press, and that reaches a
regional/national/international general (not narrow-interest or local) audience, providing
significant coverage of the subject (in this case listing the destinations of Libyan Airlines and discussing them in detail). Sources that tend to provide that kind of coverage are high-quality broadsheet newspapers like the New York Times, national broadcasters like the BBC etc., though of course these also include brief coverage that does not amount to SIGCOV so simply being mentioned on them is not enough.
Delete per
WP:IINFO. The issue is not whether there may be references, the issue is that this is an indiscriminate and ephemeral and trivial. Also, the RFC noted above appears to still apply here. --
Jayron3214:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks Jayron. The
WP:EPHEMERAL point is a good one - this is presented as a list of destinations as of 2011. An accurate title of the article would be
List of Libyan Airlines destinations as of 2011, but there's nothing particularly notable about the destinations served in that year as the destinations served by any airline change from year to year all the time and it is in fact impossible to lock in a definitive listing of airline destinations. In similar circumstances (for example, military ORBATs) we tend not to keep articles about, for example, the ORBAT of the British army in a particular year unless that year was particularly notable and that was evidenced in reliable sources (see, e.g.,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 British Army order of battle).
FOARP (
talk)
14:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Why not indeed? Wikipedia is
WP:NOTNEWS and if airline destinations change week-to-week it makes no sense to try to to support what amounts to a news-feed of airline destination updates, but that's what would happen if anyone tried to keep these articles up-to-date. These articles, in my humble opinion, do not belong in an encyclopaedia.
FOARP (
talk)
20:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd tend to support your view, but let me tell you that you will have strong opposition in deleting the entire set of airline's destinations articles. For the time being I still think this article should not be deleted.--JetstreamerTalk21:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Considering people would just go to an airline's website when they wish to find out what destinations can an airline serve, I'd say this list is pretty redundant. Unlike, for example, list of past mayoral elections in a city or list of important historical event in a date, this type of list doesn't really add much value compare to its source.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
02:21, 22 May 2023 (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.
Found no significant coverage for the subject, and searches in Bengali did not return with anything other than trivial mentions. Out of the four links in the
previous AfD, only
this one has an archived version, and it doesn't seem to have mentioned the subject at all. Fails
WP:GNG.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect as an
alternative to deletion to singer
Shayan Chowdhury Arnob, where his album is briefly mentioned. The sole source contains only a single sentence about the album, supporting that it was released in 2010. Neither the singer article nor the Bengali version of the album article have any better sourcing for it, and searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found nothing with which to demonstrate notability. Fails
WP:NALBUM. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
17:01, 23 May 2023 (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
WP:NOT, specifically
WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is a complete and exhaustive listing of all the services offered by a business.
Also fails
WP:CORP, as the only source cited is the company's own website. A
WP:BEFORE search uncovered nothing that could fix this, as, unsurprisingly, there is no significant coverage of all the destinations of a minor Albanian airline to be found (at least, not easily) in reliable, independent sources that meet the
audience and
independence requirements of
WP:CORP.
FOARP (
talk)
15:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:IINFO, these kinds of ephemeral lists are not really appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, the RFC above recommends deleting these already. --
Jayron3214:11, 18 May 2023 (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.
Not finding evidence of this passing
WP:GNG, source search not turning anything up in particular. The article also fails to indicate why the episode is especially noteworthy.
ASUKITE15:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Don't take it personally. We have fairly strong policies regarding notability for a reason, but we absolutely want your contributions! It's just a learning opportunity. God knows I've had a few of those myself.
ASUKITE17:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I understand! It is just difficult to do anything when there are no sources available to link to because the websites that published things at the time are long gone. I really appreciate all the effort you and so many others have gone to to suggest improvements or find sources, or even in so many cases; make a minor edit of removing an extra apostrophe rather than just clicking the “undo” button and erasing twenty minutes of piecework.
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 fails
WP:NOT as it is a clear failure of
WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Specifically it is a complete listing of all the services provided by a company. It is no different, ultimately, to a complete listing of all the outlets of
Roy Roger's as of 5th July 1983. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not the Yellow Pages or Skyscanner.
Even if the RFC were set to one side, and the
WP:NOT issues dealt with somehow (and I do not believe they can be), this article would still be a failure of
WP:CORP, which explicitly requires that articles solely about the services offered by a company are cited to significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources that go beyond mere
specialist/industry press and are not simply
local or narrow-interest coverage. This is resolutely not the case for this article, which is cited only to the company website Kuban.aero (now 404), a blog on Travel.ru (a website that sells travel tickets), and Agent.ru (another website that sells tickets). Given the NOT issues a
WP:BEFORE search is not mandatory, but I did one anyway and unsurprisingly there was nothing that would fix this. The lack of a corresponding RU-language page about the destinations of Kuban Airlines is also indicative of the problem. Looking at the sourcing for the
Kuban Airlines page there is also nothing that would fix this.
FOARP (
talk)
15:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, and per
WP:IINFO, of which these kinds of ephemeral lists of airline destinations are a textbook example. Also, the RFC above shows there is an existing consensus that these lists should be deleted. --
Jayron3214:12, 18 May 2023 (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.
Not finding sources indicating a pass of
WP:GNG or
WP:NALBUM, was draftified once already. There may be non-english sources but I didn't find anything at trwiki either. Article relies on sales numbers which is backed by discogs, which is unreliable per
WP:RSP.
ASUKITE14:54, 17 May 2023 (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.
(Totally rewriting a reply so excuse any leaps in logic as I forget what I deleted.)
Midwestern United States has the distinction of being a census region, which is a very important and well defined metric. Regardless you've swayed me a bit, and I see now that it could be possible to rewrite this from a list of counties and businesses/things within them into a historical-sociological description of a more vague region referencing geographical/cultural points. But I maintain that this can only work if we can identify a through-line or (hesitate to use the word) narrative that would make an article actually cohesive and educational/explanatory. If its a cultural pocket, or was heavily defined by geography and weather incidental to such, or if some event affected this specific region differently than its surroundings, anything to distinguish it. I'd like to see what others think but for now any theoretical closer can discount my !vote as nomGabberFlasted (
talk)
15:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Draft Agree with nom, OR/SYNTH. None of the sources support article subject so this is essentially an unsourced article and is not suitable to stay in mainspace. If this is a notable subject (Reywas92 refs show it may be, but none actually define the subject,
[8] or define it significantly different from the article
[9],
[10],
[11]), drafting will provide time to find references with a properly sourced definition of Northeastern Pennsylvania that meets NGEO or GNG. //
Timothy ::
talk09:36, 25 May 2023 (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.
Poorly sourced article about a dropped television pilot with no strong alternative claim to passing
WP:TVSHOW. While this did get broadcast as a one-off special despite its failure to get picked up to series, that isn't an automatic free notability pass in and of itself -- it would still have to be shown to have
WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about it to establish its significance. But the only sources shown here are a single "pilot in production" press release from the producers and a
Blogspot blog that isn't a reliable or notability-assisting source at all, and I can find absolutely nothing else on a
WP:BEFORE search except glancing namechecks of its existence. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt a failed pilot from having to have much better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:44, 17 May 2023 (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.
Article fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The majority of the sources are mere passing mentions or statistics tables, and the bulk of the prose is simply statistics that have been written out as sentences. The Olympedia source is the most in-depth coverage that we have, but its own sourcing is unclear and in any case it's insufficient to establish notability on its own. –
dlthewave☎13:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd say yes. It gets its information from the same place as Sports-Reference used to get their Olympian data and according to Slate editing is "restricted to about two dozen trusted academics and researchers who specialize in Olympic history."
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
15:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not too concerned about Olympedia's reliability, but we do generally expect multiple SIGCOV sources to meet GNG. –
dlthewave☎16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
On balance I'd say there's a strong argument to keep here, based on existing sourcing and I think it's fair to say that there will be further sources in suitable paper-based newspaper archives. The breadth of sources here is beginning to paint an in-depth picture. So on balance I think we're probably fine keeping here.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Nice article. Could be used if necessary with something like "unknown newspaper" as the credit. This firms up my suggestion of keep above but also suggests very, very strongly to me that when there's a half decent bit of biography in Olympia (a paragraph or two that go beyond sporting stuff) that there's almost certainly going to be further coverage to the extent that we can craft an article worth keeping.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
20:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per analysis by Blue Square Thing and SIGCOV found by KatoKungLee. JoelleJay's characterization of this as non-independent and primary is unequivocally wrong. FrankAnchor15:15, 18 May 2023 (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 meet
WP:ARTIST. Previous AfDs mentioned sources in Deccan Herald and NIE; these seem to be magazine interviews and not necessarily independent of the subject. All other sources are about the festival/organisation itself with barely a passing mention. No evidence of artist inventing any notable work, only a potentially notable organisation. Article has remained in promotional tone for years, because the only sources on the person are inherently promotional.
Fermiboson (
talk)
12:02, 17 May 2023 (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 GNG. Unsourced. BEFORE showed promo, database style results, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly (the album) and in-depth. No objection to a consensus redirect to the artist //
Timothy ::
talk11:20, 17 May 2023 (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.
Unsure - I'm inclined to believe that libraries are generally notable, particularly in countries where there are not many of them. There appears to be a few Bengali news reports (fwiw I don't have full access to relevant sources) but there may be questions about independence of those sources so I'm not offering them for consideration here. Also
this from bn.wiki appears to be a deletion page, perhaps indicative of something. I think we really need people who can read the language to have a proper AfD discussion here.
JMWt (
talk)
11:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is not a public meaning government-owned library but a private library open to the public. From the photo, it would seem to be a small, possibly one-room, library. Bn Wiki deleted it as A7. The library has no coverage and does not even show up on Google Maps. There is nothing to suggest notability of any kind.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
10:33, 18 May 2023 (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.
I can't find anything when searching "Karlshrue College" or "කාල්ෂ්රූ විද්යාලය" that would satisfy
WP:GNG or
WP:NORG. Best I found was
Janta Review which has no meaningful info. Article has been unsourced since 2005 and tagged for improvement since 2009 so an AfD is well overdue here since I can't find a way of bringing this up to even the minimum standard.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)08:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete School closed in 2010 and I can only find mentions of a schools in the German town of Karlsruhe. Nothing for this school.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:46, 17 May 2023 (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.
Oppose. The article is well sourced and notable as a
Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust site. I successfully nominated HMWT as a
featured list and it was
Today's featured list on September 23, 2016. No concerns were raised about the articles on any of the sites in the FL review. FLs should preferably have articles about each item in the list, and it would be odd - and unhelpful for readers - if Outonhead was the only HMWT site which did not have an article.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
10:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Neither the trust nor the local authority (which it seems own the land) are independent sources. Even if they were, we need more than that.
JMWt (
talk)
11:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I checked OS maps and found Oughtonhead Common Nature Reserve OS Grid Ref: TL 16860 30275, Longitude: 0°18'3"W, Latitude: 51°57'31"N. Is this the same place? If so it meets
WP:GEOLAND as a named place, and searches on the full name appear to show plenty more references, sufficient to demonstrate
WP:GNG.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
12:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
There's no assumption of notability there. It says "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist."
This one isn't. Very slight information exists beyond the statistics and coordinates and that which does is sources from the manager (the trust) and the owner (the local authority), neither of which are independent.
JMWt (
talk)
13:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
And I did not say I thought that meant it should be an article. The problem with
WP:GEOLAND is people too often assume that meeting the definition of "presumed notability" means that notability for an article is established. It is not, because as the guidelines state, sometimes the feature is better described in a parent article, as there may not be sufficient information for an article of the feature in its own right. That is why I said it meets GEOLAND but also said I thought that the sources, if it refers to the common, demonstrate meeting GNG for an article. Another problem with GEOLAND, and one that we are stuck with, is that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. It is both encyclopaedia and gazetteer, and although the guidelines say it is not indiscriminate, it is usually the case that named features on national mapping like OS maps will be deemed notable. However, what matters is the sources, and as you did not clarify that yes, this article does refer to Oughtonhead Common Nature Reserve, I have since established that fact for myself and done some more reading. There is certainly sufficient information out there to establish an article for
Oughtonhead Common, and I have since found that such a stub article exists. Oughtonhead Common Nature Reserve is then established on the common in 1982, and I have found it does get mention in a few books, but in my opinion the nature reserve is not sufficiently significant to have an article separate from the common article. Everything about the nature reserve could be placed in a section on the Oughtonhead Common article, to the benefit of both. My considered view is therefore that a merge would most benefit the project. I will place that !vote on a new line.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
13:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Oughtonhead Common. The two are co-extensive, and the nature reserve is the key feature of the common.
Oughtonhead Common is the common name (er... pardon the pun!), but this should be a section of that article, and the redirect could then point to the section. My further consideration of this is above.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
13:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
At AfD it is not the state of the article that matters, but whether sources exist that establish notability. Sources don't have to be in the article, they just have to exist. Chiswick Chap has cited four additional sources, so they should also be considered.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
19:49, 17 May 2023 (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 tried to find significant coverage in reliable sources; unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any. Looking at the past AfD, the sources found were largely trivial coverage or unreliable coverage, including forum posts. As the article stands, it is largely supported by self-published sources or unreliable sources, with the only exception being the Maximum PC link. If someone can save it, I'd be more than happy to see that.
Cukie Gherkin (
talk)
07:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Very poorly sourced and no evident
WP:RS out there with full reviews. The original creator didn't seem very concerned about whether it was notable, at least.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
14:20, 17 May 2023 (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.
He also has dozens of passing mentions or minor quotes in news articles regarding his company RatBag. I think all these combined establish notability.
Merko (
talk)
22:52, 18 May 2023 (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.
It appears to be largely promotional in nature and lacks independent sources to prove the claims made. The bulk of the information is sourced from Fernando's own website, which is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia.
BoraVoro (
talk)
06:49, 17 May 2023 (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.
only sources are databases for the infobox. a search for sources only turns up some sources about some emergency there and some people who teach there.
lettherebedarklight晚安06:44, 17 May 2023 (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 GNG. Sources in the article and BEFORE are promos or primary. No objection to a redirect to
Devlin discography; there is no properly sourced material for a merge beyond basic facts. //
Timothy ::
talk05:23, 17 May 2023 (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.
Unsourced article. While both of the members seem to be notable, I can't find any significant coverage of the band. Previously deprod, but the user who deprod it did not add any source as well.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
15:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More opinions are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Timothytyy (
talk)
04:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Brian Eno: Fails
WP:NBAND. Criteria 1: I cannot find any reliable sources reviewing the band or its album. Criteria 6: Miromusic does not appear to be independently notable (that article should probably be PRODed). None of the other criteria apply.
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
02:47, 21 May 2023 (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 is about a vague topic with limited value, furthermore has been poorly cited for a over a decade. This has led to various misinformation occuring through out the article. In turn, the majority of properly sourced information is spoken about on their own dedicated pages without an explanation for their relevance to this topic. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
StevoLake (
talk •
contribs)
Redirect to "Imperial Preference" it was a thing at one time to have free trade among members of the British Empire, but as the empire has faded, free-trade has evolved. Being in the Commonwealth isn't such as an important factor for Canada for instance as being part of the Empire was for trade.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More opinions are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Timothytyy (
talk)
04:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
^Roberts, Russell D. (2007). The choice: a fable of free trade and protectionism (3 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
ISBN978-0-13-143354-0.
^Unger, Roberto Mangabeira (2007). Free trade reimagined: the world division of labor and the method of economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
ISBN978-0-691-14588-4.
^Hanson, Ann Aubrey; Zott, Lynn Marie, eds. (2013). Free trade. Opposing viewpoints series. Farmington Hills, Mich: Greenhaven Press.
ISBN978-0-7377-6055-2.
^Panagariya, Arvind (2019). Free trade and prosperity: how openness helps developing countries grow richer and combat poverty. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press.
ISBN978-0-19-091449-3.
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.
No evidence of this list being particularly notable. It doesn't seem to pass
WP:GNG, either. It's just a team posted by FIFA in 1994, does not merit an article for me.
Paul Vaurie (
talk)
04:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Article is very basic with not much notability. Much work would be needed to improve. Article also lacks context, and could have been made up for all I know. Sources are very few and the whole thing looks very unprofessional.
Pablothepenguin (
talk)
16:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - You have to look in multiple languages for this article. While we might call this the FIFA World Cup All-Time Team, it's also known as the "Equipo Histórico de la Copa Mundial FIFA", the "Tim Sepanjang Masa Piala Dunia FIFA", the "Seleção de Todos os Tempos da Copa do Mundo FIFA" and the "ဖီဖာ သမိုင်းတစ်လျှောက်အသင်း", amongst other names in every other language.
KatoKungLee (
talk)
15:55, 18 May 2023 (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 about a novelist is poorly sourced; I have carried out
WP:BEFORE and have not been able to find any coverage to add. It has been to AfD before, in 2006 (keep) and 2010 (no consensus). It has been tagged as needing more citations since 2010.
Tacyarg (
talk)
02:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep mainly per the comment by DGG in the previous AFD in 2010. Someone with access to a good library should follow up with reviews of this published author and improve the article if possible, but would appear to satisfy the requirement of multiple independent reviews. Andre🚐02:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Graham Diamond's publishing career began in the late 1970s, meaning many of the reviews and coverage that prove his notability are not easily available online. However, I discovered that he was a best-selling author in the early 1980s, with more than a million copies of his books in print. As for citations to prove this, the Wikipedia Library has reviews of novels Samarkand and The Beasts of Hades from, respectively, 1980 and 1981 issues of
Library Journal. He's in
Contemporary Authors along with having a detailed entry in St. James Guide to Fantasy Writers by David Pringle, released by St. James Press (a division of
Gale) in 1996 and an entry in A Reader's Guide to Fantasy by Baird Searles and Beth Meacham, released in 1982 by
Avon. In addition, I also found a good bit of coverage of him over the years in various issues of
Science Fiction Chronicle and other magazines, including a two-page profile from a 1984 issue of
Editor and Publisher. I've now cleaned up the article some and also added many of these sources. Based on all this, I believe he meets
Wikipedia's notability standards for creative professionals. --
SouthernNights (
talk)
16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
My books have been constantly in print. In more recent years, Venture and Endeavour Press UK. Now Lume Books, UK and CANELO, UK, have new editions of MAYBE YOU WILL SURVIVE out. The Holocaust true seller has over 1,700 4 and 5 star reviews on Amazon, available at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and Israel. It was contracted by a publisher in the Czech Republic and is now in print in Czech.
BLACK MIDNIGHT, a terrorist thriller published by Kensington/Zebra in the US, and is now available from Lume, UK. A softcover is available from Lion in New York.
Jerelle Kraus, author of the Truth of the NY TIMES, hailed my work on LinkedIn. Editor/writer Susan Shwartz also hailed my work and invited me into an anthology.
I have more proven work than most authors today.
A brand new novel DINER OF LOST SOULS book 2 is coming out in a few weeks. With well over a million softcover books in print I think I deserve to remain listed.
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 about semi-pro footballer who played 51 minutes of football in the first stage of the Copa MX back in 2016, which comprehensively fails
WP:GNG. An AfD in 2017 resulted in no consensus despite GNG failure under a presumption that because he was a young player, he would play enough to satisfy the deprecated NFOOTBALL in the future. Well, he's only played as a semi-pro since, and the coverage hasn't really improved (
Los Pleyers and
e-Consulta are the best sources I could find, but they are not in-depth coverage).
Jogurney (
talk)
02:00, 17 May 2023 (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 states that Tan D. Nguyen is a congressional candidate. It also mentions his conviction for voter intimidation. Congressional candidates are neither notable or not notable under
WP:POLITICIAN. However, nothing is so distinct about his candidacy that he himself warrants an article. It is otherwise run of the mill coverage of candidacies that do not rise to the level of candidates like
Christine O'Donnell or
Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson). The other is his conviction.
Notability as it relates to crime and criminals states that "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The information on his conviction can be merged into
the 2006 election's article.
Mpen320 (
talk)
00:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable individual, not meeting notability for politics; what's left is the "crime", which seems rather minor. There is more focus in the article about his transgressions rather than him as a person, this is perhaps some sort of attack article.
Oaktree b (
talk)
02:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win, but this neither demonstrates any preexisting notability for other reasons nor evinces a reason why his candidacy should be treated as a special case of greater notability than everybody else's candidacies.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:02, 17 May 2023 (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.