The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note The Finnish WP article doesn't look too bad, but notability is still vague. Translation of relevant (sourced) bits: [...] The games are particularly popular in China and the United States, with Finland being a marginal market.[1] The games have voice control in dozens of languages.[2] BeiZ was founded in China in 2010.[3] The company was acquired by Finnish ownership two years later.[4] At the time, entertainment game makers such as Rovio, Supercell, Remedy, Bugbear and Fingersoft were considered the cornerstones of the Finnish game industry.[5][2] Lola Panda educational games have been successful internationally, especially in China, without the publicity of the more well-known game houses.[6] Lola Panda teaches children under school age to learn various skills.[6] –
sgeurekat•
c09:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Relisting this discussion didn't bring this any closer to a consensus so I'm going to close this now. I can only echo the words of Sandstein in closing the first AFD as applying to this as well:
Three-way split between keep, merge and delete, each with good arguments. I'd normally go for merge as a compromise, but here there are also valid arguments against a merger given the length of the target article.
This is an unnecessary and redundant collection of matches that Liverpool have played in international competition. An
article outlining the club's record in Europe already exists, we do not need a list of every single match. Considering also that the reader can learn what happened in those matches from the equivalent season articles AND from seasonal competition pages. I understand having smaller lists for clubs that don't usually play in Europe. For example,
Burnley's article contains only a few matches, each of which are especially notable. But like most big English clubs, Liverpool play in Europe almost every single season; making most matches almost as notable as any domestic match. A
discussion to delete this list reached no consensus just over two years ago now; but I truely believe redundant lists like this have no place on Wikipedia.
Idiosincrático (
talk)
22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep – Due to the club's relevance worldwide, I don't see any problems with a list of international matches existing. This is complementary information and can be easily verified.
Svartner (
talk)
11:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect to
Liverpool F.C. in international football, I don't know why we need two separate articles, there is plenty of room in the main one to house the list. You say in your nomination, unnecessary and redundant collection of matches I completely disagree with that, further more, the information in the main article clearly shows it's not redundant and appears to be historically necessary. You haven't even posted any policy based argument in your nomination either.
Govvy (
talk)
12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep this is an absolutely valid
WP:SPLIT. Most teams will list all of their European matches on their "X team in Europe" page, so deleting this would basically mean that the most followed clubs wouldn't be able to have information about the matches they've played. I don't support a merge, either - the parent article is almost 100Kb as it stands.
SportingFlyerT·C15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't merge. The proposed merge target is already long, already has a bunch of tables in it, and it's a FA. People who want this information can easily just click through to this article; it's not going to become some kind of weird content fork. There's no reason to merge this. --
asilvering (
talk)
18:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete and no not merge. The featured article
Liverpool F.C. in international football covers this topic adequately and in an encyclopedic way, but a list of every match played ever is a clear violation of
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As such, a merge would not improve the encylopedic value of that FA, but just bloat it with unencyclopedic content. This is an encyclopedia, not a football fandom site. If this table is added to the FA article then it will leave that article at risk of not meeting the FA criteria by having a clear
WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not at all a violation of NOTDIRECTORY, every club has these and they're exactly what you'd find in the back of old footballing encyclopaedias. It makes no sense to delete this only because it's large enough to have its own page.
SportingFlyerT·C14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you explain why you think it fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY? This isn't a directory. That would be if it emulated the yellow pages, or listed upcoming TV broadcasting, or something. These are historical events. --
asilvering (
talk)
17:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:OSE, just because other articles violate
WP:NOTDIRECTORY or
WP:NOTSTATS too, that does not mean this article should too. An entire list of hundreds of matches is a clear violation of these both, as it's entirely a stats article for every result which violates Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. We're not a database mirror or fandom site.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
18:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I was leaning towards delete, especially as I nominated this list for deletion the first time around. But after reading SportingFlyer's reasoning above I think this list should be kept. He's right, these statistics are what you'd find in the back of old football encyclopedias. Indeed, they're in the back of many of my Liverpool books. I don't think the list should be merged with the main article, as it will be far too big then. A separate list is a better solution.
NapHit (
talk)
20:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. The first AFD was closed as "No consensus" and right now, that looks how the 2nd AFD might close as well. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If a club has appeared in Europe, the list of their European matches exist somewhere, whether on the club page, the club in European football page, or in Liverpool's case, a validly split page dedicated to the topic. I don't understand how other users are coming to the logical fallacy that this is a directory.
SportingFlyerT·C20:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Reply@
Joseph2302: you should type into google is an encyclopaedia a database Wikipedia itself is certainly a database, where as the policy what wikipedia is not, saying it's not a database is really false to itself. Wikipedia at times is a joke in a way, I always wonder if it will last as it always asking for lots of donations! :/ Regardless and back to topic, there are millions of articles on wikipedia that are collective data. Regardless in cell form as numbers, matches of football, baseball, Ice hockey, NFL, it's full of it. You can't single this one out. Nope, you'd be deleting every page on wikipedia if you want to go that route.
Govvy (
talk)
21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is ridiculous. Every single team that has played in Europe has one of these tables somewhere. Liverpool's is just the one that's been WP:SPLIT.
SportingFlyerT·C22:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Let'srun: I can't see how you can apply NOSTATS as a delete argument. The stats are explained in
Liverpool F.C. in international football, therefore
WP:NOSTATS is technically an invalid delete argument as clearly stated by the fact on NOSTATS it says. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. So they are explained in the previous article. As for NOTDIRECTORY, that's kind of a grey area really, are you considering the list of matches a directory? The question it asks on that topic Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. Liverpool football club is certainly a notable topic, so is Liverpool football club in Europe, how about their games, there are many in the list that are highly notable. The main problem with the list is that each row needs a source. So again, how much thought did you put towards wanting to delete the article?? Regards
Govvy (
talk)
10:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. So it is a magazine which has existed,
published between 2003 and 2010. It was
acquired by Forma (
sv:Forma Publishing Group) in 2010 and merged with Leva to LevaPS!, which in turn folded in 2012, according to
sv:Leva!. It's not a hoax (now that the vandalism about being the best-selling magazine in Sweden has been reverted, anyway) but I'm not entirely convinced we'll find the sources to build a good article. Would be very happy if someone would succeed though. /
Julle (
talk)
16:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, on verifiability grounds. I think it might be notable in the broad sense of the word, as in there being enough public interest in the topic to justify an article, but without sources there isn't much we can do. /
Julle (
talk)
21:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am struggling to find sources that discuss Grapevine in depth. Per the article's own description, it was "a [d]isk magazine for the Commodore Amiga published by the [d]emo scene group LSD." (my bold emphasis added). A publication by none other than those involved in the demoscene would have a high bar to clear in order to count as notable. Predictably, the few sources I can dig up refer to it passingly, and some old Amiga magazines did look at Grapevine, but from what I saw, they were reviewing the disk magazine's issues, not writing about its importance or influence in the Amiga community. The only thing that can save this article is if others happen to find more information about Grapevine, and in depth, which I could not. FreeMediaKid$23:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Probably this magazine was popular among the few users who clung onto the Amiga, but the OS had been dead for five years when Amiga Active was launched, and I found no evidence as to why the magazine is notable. Simply put, this article does not pass notability muster and is a
permastub. FreeMediaKid$22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Note AmigaOS 3.5 was released in October 1999 (the same month the magazine was introduced), so at least this part of the AfD nomination is not entirely true (there were few updates even before that - eg. new Installer utility and support for drives bigger than 4 GB). The article in question mentions a connection to former CU Amiga staff, maybe a simple redirect to our
Commodore User article may be the best course of action here (the article subject is mentioned there and I may be able to find a proper source for this information).
Pavlor (
talk)
05:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Pardon my ignorance. Having fiddled with
Amiga Forever for months now and uploaded dozens of Amiga-related items to the Internet Archive, I should have known better. I would have come across as less hyperbolic with language like, "The Amiga was long past its prime by 1999," and I have heard of AmigaOS 4 (it amazes me to know how such a formerly popular OS as the Amiga would receive continued support long after its original manufacturer had folded, and that was 30 years ago). FreeMediaKid$23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable award show sourced mainly to the parent company
Bollywood Hungama. Sources I find are all unreliable or just verification of winners. Would redirect but we know how that goes so suggesting a redirect as an
WP:ATD here in case full deletion is not in order.
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Bollywood Hungama. A
WP:BEFORE search turned up no independent and reliable sources for the event itself on the web, Google News, Google Books, Yandex etc. Since there is a lack of independent, reliable sources with SIGCOV, the article fails
WP:GNG and the supplementary essay
WP:NAWARDS. However, a redirect could be made to Bollywood Hungama and a brief mention could be added there for the award.
The Night Watch(talk)15:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The 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 poster on the Wikipedia subreddit surfaced this as This page has very purple prose and this person doesn't exist. It's a fake name used by chinese artists that massproduce oil paintings that appeal to people who don't know much about art and are psyched to have a real oil painting. The sources seem sus. The prose is very sus. I look forward to being proven wrong and finding out this is a Very Important Artist but my gut says otherwise.
jengod (
talk)
18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Leaning toward delete. I've been looking into this too, I get no results for him (or his birth name) on various 20th century newspaper databases. The sources cited are art auction related and Worthopedia seems like it might be user generated content. All three references have wording similar to the Wikipedia article, suggesting there's some plagiarism going on here possibly although it's unclear in which direction. For example "His life can be described in a few words: a big passion for painting and art and a great love for Paris" appears in both Wikipedia and the Worthopedia reference. Not sure what's going on exactly but it does not make this source seem credible. I will keep tabs on this to see if anyone can find better sources. --
Here2rewrite (
talk)
19:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The only results I've been able to find have been of very low quality, and the sources the article itself uses are of dubious quality (as has been noted). No idea about claims of non-existence, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reputable biographical sources. If anyone does have citations that would meet standards I'd be swayed, but as it stands the article has too many issues and too little grounding for it to be worth keeping.
Occo5903 (
talk)
22:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Looking into the previous
AfD, as well as the largest contribution
here, it seems like this is possibly a real entity. However, this does not seem to pass
WP:N, since there are barely any 3rd party sources referring to this artist. In addition, his website (
Wayback link) seems to refer to "Antonio De Vity" as a *studio* name, which is supported in the plain text, as the "born Umberto Marone" statement.
ChunyangD (
talk)
22:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete A rather odd situation in which there seems to be quite a lot of citogenesis involved, to the extent that I'm not sure to what extent this is a real person or not. If this person -- again, if he existed -- were notable, I'd expect it wouldn't be such a struggle to figure this out.
CoffeeCrumbs (
talk)
23:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Cited sources are garbage. The
Victoria Gallery & Museum has one of his works, but that only proves that he existed, not that anything written here in this article is true. Perhaps it is only a studio name as ChunyangD suggests.
Gamaliel (
talk)
01:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Is there maybe an article that talks to this flavor of fraud or misinformation to which a listing to this name could/should be added? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me)
01:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete- Could not find anything in google books, newspapers, scholar and news. No third party seems to have reported on him, not even niche art websites. So he may have been a painter but not notable. Only auction houses are interested in that guy.
Changeworld1984 (
talk)
14:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: This article feels more like speculation than fact. The sources are shaky, and I'm not convinced the subject is even noteworthy.
Waqar💬17:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm unable to find any significant coverage of the subject, that would indicate that either
WP:BIOWP:CORP or
WP:CREATIVE are met. The sources cited in the article are either unreliable (
[1][2]), contain only very brief mentions (
[3][4]) or were written by the subject:
[5]. My own searches have only turned up more of the same, e.g.
[6]SmartSE (
talk)
17:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Support Mentions of "Harlette de Falaise" are almost exclusively to
Herleva, who was known by this name. Mentions in references cited in the Harlette article appear to be to a brand rather than a person. This is confirmed by a search at Companies House – Harlette is a limited company, not a person.
[7] This article appears to be a work of promotional fiction.
Robminchin (
talk)
20:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and other comments. I started looking into this after the recent unsourced additions; I also found that the existing sources referred to the company rather than a person, and am unable to find anything about her from reliable sources.
Naomi McGill appears to be the owner of various Harlette companies, and indeed old revisions such as this one list Naomi McGill as if it's an alternative name for the article's subject.
I wondered if the page had been hijacked from being about the fashion brand itself but it appears it's always been like this.
Ligaturama (
talk)
21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete For the reasons mentioned above. I would also like to thank
Robminchin for pointing out that this is promotional fiction, because I tried to look for sources (as well as looked at the sources added in the recent COI-editing spurt), and found no reliable sources other than the historical figure, which is not the subject. Harlette, in the modern sense, appears to be some sort of business pseudonym, as the Arab News source (citation 4) has no mention of a Harlette whatsoever, but it does mention a "Nayomi", which is a similar name to the Naomi McGill mentioned in the Sunday People sources, as well as the Parliament submissions that the COI editing keeps trying to add. Even then, the real person, Naomi McGill, appears to not have the credentials she claims. The COI editing claims about Harlette having a PhD in Space Telecommunications from Kings College London (which are attempted to be proved by the Parliament submissions) are also bunk, as the university doesn't appear to offer - or to have ever offered - any sort of degree with the name "Space Telecommunications." Therefore, this shouldn't be a BLP at all - this article, for all intents and purposes, is a hoax. There is no Harlette de Falaise, as the article purports.
Even if there was an attempt to remove the fabricated parts of this article, and make it just about the real person, Naomi McGill, there aren't any reliable secondary sources that prove notability as a BLP. There are only short promotional blurbs from various news outlets, such as the PR Newswire piece. Therefore, I support deleting this article.--
Panian51321:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep but make the article about the company or brand, rather than the person. I think the references establish notability for the company or brand. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I attempted a cleanup of this article in September last year, it struck me as promotional/non-notable then but I erred on the side of leaving to improve. Thanks for the good work and nomination.
Jdcooper (
talk)
22:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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: Populated & legally recognized places presumed to be notable; don't see any reason this should be not legally recognized given the significant number of people who (from the photo) appear to be living in it. Article is mostly original research but contains useful information. If you really want proof it exists
this discusses a wildfire happening there.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
17:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
KEEP Added 2 archived references to the above article – Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan website showing population of Osakai per
2017 Census of Pakistan plus Dawn newspaper reference given above by Mrfoogles. Meets
WP:GEOLAND now...
Ngrewal1 (
talk)
21:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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 very little to indicate that the subject is notable. The subject heads a 25,000-member union and has held a string of minor government-related positions. There is no independent RS coverage on which to build an article about the subject.
thena (
talk)
16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Zero coverage in media about this union person; sourcing used now is largely about lawsuits that mention this person. I'm not seeing notability. Head of the union perhaps could be notable, chairman of the elevator safety board isn't. We don't have sourcing to confirm notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
16:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak merge:
This covers him, but not significantly, given it's more interested in other things.
This I cannot access. There are several sources, mostly dead links and bad ones, on the Illinois Elevator Safety Board, discussing the organization giving $10,000 to a politician who appointed him somewhere, but that can be merged.
The really strange thing, though, is that he appears to have possibly won a World Peace Prize? See [worldpeaceprizewashington.org/journals/ here]. But the formatting is terrible, it's unclear how official or important the website is, and it doesn't actually say whether he won it or not, besides the fact that the biography in there appears to be written by him, thereby not providing significant coverage.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Apart from the numerical majority of "delete" comments (5:2) there is the more important fact that deleters have given a number of policy compliant reasons, whereas both the keepers have just relied on
OTHERSTUFF.
JBW (
talk)
21:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Does not meet
WP:SALAT. This list is distinguished from other lists such as
List of Generation Z slang by the cultural dominance of the baby boomers. It's impossible to imagine this list ever being complete because its scope is not constrained to a particular decade or subculture. ⇌
Jake Wartenberg16:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - This article is comparable to the
Glossary of Texas A&M University terms or the aforementioned
List of Generation Z Slang and does have a clear scope (being years Boomers have been alive) and can be attributed to multiple subcultures. I find the argument that "it's impossible to imagine this list ever being complete" weak because if someone takes the time to develop it, they will finish it due to the existence of numerous reliable sources
Microplastic Consumer (
talk)
17:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please see
WP:Other stuff exists, where the existence of other similar articles is not a justification for the existence of this one. Moreover, this is not a glossary. The entry at
wikt:glossary defines one as "A list of difficult words or specialized terms used in a particular book or document, or in a particular domain of knowledge, with their definitions; a list of glosses (explanatory annotations)." This is merely a list of slang words claimed to be used by old people. Besides the inclusion criteria issues I alluded to above, that's what a slang dictionary is, with the only exception being restriction to a vague timeframe or something.
35.139.154.158 (
talk)
21:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete the sourcing is too bad; BuzzFeed and BusinessInsider listicles (or "descriptions" that say the terms pre-date 1960). If there were better sourcing, I would support a re-factoring to be about "slang from the second half of the 20th century".
Walsh90210 (
talk)
23:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Walsh90201. These sources are very bad, BusinessInsider and Buzzfeed are just mediocre listicles, not reliable or useful sources. One is titled "20th-century slang terms", not terms used by Boomers specifically. Just because a term was coined or was used in the '60s doesn't make it "Boomer slang". Calling
Flip-flops "thongs" is still in use by many. Searching for "submarine races" does give some results that corroborates the definition, but it doesn't appear to have been widely used. A quick search for "slurg" has zero sources that this was a even real term besides some articles about "50s slang", which would mean it's not "Boomer slang". "Skinny" is also still in use; if it was first used in WWII, what exactly makes it "Boomer slang"? Just a vague, awful list here that I don't think can be salvaged.
Reywas92Talk14:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete We have the appropriately N terms already in the categories
Category:1950s slang and
Category:1960s slang; not only do we usually not classify trends under 'media names' for generations to begin with, we wouldn't do it under derisive nicknames either (Baby Boomer slang would be much more appropriate here). Nate•(
chatter)23:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While I'm sure this list seemed like a good idea when it was started in 2015, it is no longer practical to keep it updated. According to Wikidata, there are about 1000 non-binary people with Wikipedia articles. This list only includes about 200 of them (including some that probably don't belong, like
Prince). The number of notable non-binary people is growing at a rapid rate and I think this information is better handled via Wikidata and categories (the same as we handle other genders). By only listing a small fraction, we are giving the false impression that there are a much smaller number of notable non-binary people than there really are. If you disagree, please elaborate on how you think this list can be realistically kept up-to-date into the future.
Nosferattus (
talk)
16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak support: Seems reasonable to handle the same as other gender identities. Is it possible to redirect to
Category:Non-binary people (even though it's out of the article namespace)? The downside would be that there's no central list: categories organize things as trees, and it's impossible to view an actual list of all the people. But that may be inevitable. If wikidata gives a list view, maybe it's possible to link to wikidata somehow?
Mrfoogles (
talk)
16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Under that same logic, there are a lot of lists that should then be deleted. There are plenty of lists on Wikipedia that I would consider to meet the logic laid out in your standards, such as the ones other users have already mentioned.
And, yes, we have category listings but those are really a difference of formatting. One is a list on a singular page and the other is a directory that leads to a list. See, Lists of Women (
/info/en/?search=Lists_of_women) which leads to several sub lists with a formatting that exactly matches the list whose deletion is being proposed.
Annabelledempsey97 (
talk)
19:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. We maintain a list of the 1,025 Pokémon, so why not the
roughly 900 pages in
Category:Non-binary people? That's a large but not intractable number of entries, and not even close to the largest
stand-alone list on Wikipedia (I've personally touched
List of women authors which includes over 8000 entries). Updating the article to include all current English Wikipedia biography subjects in that cat (excluding the dozen which are fictional, like
Toad) is a perfectly feasible task for a motivated volunteer with a spreadsheet. There is
no deadline. –
RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (
💬 •
📝)
19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If it's helpful at all, I got an LLM to spit out
a SPARQL query, which retrieves the relevant data for whatever set of article subjects are correctly tagged as being non-binary humans in Wikidata (875, at time of writing). –
RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (
💬 •
📝)
20:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
RoxySaunders: That's a good start, although there are also 46 gender identities in Wikidata that are subclasses of non-binary. Plus we need references for all of them (or at least the living ones, which is most of them).
Nosferattus (
talk)
23:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Does not meet WP:GNG. None of the reference links work. The airlines never commenced operations. This has been tagged for notability since 2011.
Wikilover3509 (
talk)
14:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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 redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (
talk)
05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There’s a shortage of independent reliable sources on the page about the topic which show that the standards of inclusion per the
WP:GNG. There’s nothing much I can find otherwise.
JMWt (
talk)
13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
as an ATD we could redirect to
Wimbledon Championships where much of the content is replicated. My difficulty is that this could be misleading (Wimbledon is a place outside of the tennis championship) and it seems an unlikely search term.
JMWt (
talk)
13:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - There is a lot here and this was a very popular radio broadcast. I listened to it in the evening for years and years. Perhaps it should be an all-encompassing article on Wimbledon on the radio? Now it's handled by "Wimbledon Radio."
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
07:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - There are sufficient independent references although the article probably needs to be reduced in length to remove some of the unsourced material which is more than a decade out of date.
Rillington (
talk)
10:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Sources 2&3 in the article seem to meet the
WP:GNG with multiple paragraphs of independent coverage in each, combined with [
[8]] I think there is enough to meet the notability guidelines. Some cleanup is needed but
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.
Let'srun (
talk)
18:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: This was a huge deal back in the day. The topic is pretty significant and well-covered, but it could use some cleanup to bring it up to date.
Waqar💬17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Could not find any reliable coverage of the book. Only sources here are
Goodreads (see
WP:GOODREADS) and an article about the film. Nothing of value to save here. I say redirect to
the film's page where more info about the novel could be added as I'm sure it is at least mentioned in some detail in articles about the film.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions)
13:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Dinis Lopes
never played in a professional league match and doesn't seem to pass
WP:GNG or
WP:SPORTBASIC. After many searches, I was able to find some routine coverage but no
WP:SIGCOV.
Sapo was probably the best source but it only really confirms that he signed a two-year contract and that he used to play for Pedras Rubras.
Record is basically the same as Sapo above.
Mais Futebol has a transfer announcement, this time about him signing for Salgueiros, but it contains no significant coverage. Lastly,
Labor is another transfer announcement with only minimal coverage of Lopes.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)12:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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: significant coverage does not appear to exist and fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Both portuguese and english sources have been searched for
Mrfoogles (
talk)
15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete because it lacks sufficient verifiable sources to establish notability, making it difficult to confirm the significance of his contributions or achievements. --
RodrigoIPacce (
talk)
17:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Sources do not seem to be findable and the current article is only sourced to databases, and also doesn't really say anything. Oddly enough, there's an identically named man on the portuguese Wikipedia who is entirely unrelated
here.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
15:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Pedrinho Rodrigues never participated in a professional league match and seems to fail
WP:GNG and
WP:SPORTBASIC as far as I can tell. I've searched his common name and full name, including in conjunction with clubs that he played for, and can find nothing other than database sources.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)12:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: This article is based on nothing. There's no proof that this person is notable. I looked everywhere for info and came up empty-handed.
Waqar💬17:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep also : Not sure why there are profiles, but there appear to be
Il Sole 24 Ore covering his return from America,
il Fatto Quotidiano covering Italy 2030, what appears to be a
book review I'm not sure of the independence of. Along with another book review, these are the only independent reliable sources the book has. Given a couple news stories about him and a number of sources on his books, it seems reasonable to write a short article. He seems to be notable for maybe the Italy 2030 project and his popular books?
Given the large number of sources, I wonder if it's possible to show they pass
Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? That would pretty much resolve this debate, because this article would obviously contain the books. And given he has his own news sources, it seems reasonable to also discuss him.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This appears to be a novel theory that has seen close to zero uptake in the field so far. I can only find a single reference to the concept and/or paper
[24], and that is a passing mention in an unreviewed preprint. This is not at all surprising because the paper was only published a month ago. Someone is trying to use WP as a publicizing platform here. There is as yet no notability basis for this topic. -- Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This is an hypothesis by one author and it has not gained any consensus by the scientific community. The two papers are primary sources and should not be used alone.
Graham Beards (
talk)
11:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete One guy's idea with no discernible influence (in other words, not even noteworthy as an idea people have taken the trouble to explicitly reject). Not what Wikipedia is for.
XOR'easter (
talk)
17:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Work by a single author. Independent of whether the 2024 work is going to end up as notable, to date there is no evidence that it is. The second 2019 paper has been cited 9 times and is already in
Living systems and
Life, perhaps others. Move anything useful to one of those.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I deliberately used anything useful to not make a judgement here about the validity of the work. I see that you have removed the 2nd paper from those pages -- it was there when I voted. I must abstain on what useful aspects go into other pages as it is well into my incompetence.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
16:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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 Fails
WP:NMUSIC. No chart activity or notable label work, the usual namedropping of famous artists in attempt to establish notability, and promotional-sounding sources. Never mind the horribly written article with all proper names in lowercase.
💥Casualty• Hop along. •09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I can't see how his music comfort you made itself notable before raising the artist to prominence, promotionally raising a music to stream 20m views on YouTube. The sources sounds advertorial —announcement of new album/release. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!01:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable chef. All sources in the article are primary and the only credible source which is a BBC report mentions the subject in passing. Before search did not yield anything useful.
Ednabrenze (
talk)
09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Business person not eligible for an article. Media sources used in the article are from blogs which are unreliable. A before search brought press statements issued by their business entities with passing mention of them. others found are interviews written in news article formats which extensively quoted their onw words
Ednabrenze (
talk)
09:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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 an Iranian ballistic missile. The article is clearly written from a fan or someone with a pecuniary or otherwise disallowed interest in the matter, which violates WP:NPOV. Alongside this, the article relies on Persian sources, which would challenge WP:MOS. These sources are biased and the majority are from Iranian state-sponsored news sources and agencies, and the author had designed it this way. The article also has a large amount of grammatical and otherwise errors. I would have liked for the article to remain with a NPOV and grammatically correct form, however at this point I believe that it is too far gone.
DeadlyRampage26 (
talk)
08:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: The article's tone is a little odd, but it's okay to like missiles. Also, googling the subject immediately gives a number of reliable sources, which are also in English:
Current article may be bad but if it's bad enough to delete the article can honestly just be blanked and restarted as a stub. Maybe delete everything cited to state-sponsored news, condense the rest, and leave it at that?
Mrfoogles (
talk)
09:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as there are plenty of sources. It’s daft to object to Iranian sources about an Iranian missile. Deletion is not cleanup so if the tone and language need to be improved, anyone can go ahead and improve them.
Mccapra (
talk)
10:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: The article's a bit rough around the edges, but deleting it seems excessive. We can probably salvage it with some careful editing and better sources.
Waqar💬17:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Available sources appear to be primary documentation, press releases, or copies of this article. It doesn't seem significant enough to pass
WP:NSOFT.
Ligaturama (
talk)
09:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge to
Blues Brothers. Doing a search, there is some newspaper coverage but I didn't find enought to convince me that the subject meets GNG. I'll add a source or two so there will be some cited content. Regards,
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
23:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (
talk)
05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Several reviews on ProQuest: One in Library Journal (ProQuest ID 196790216), one in Choice magazine (PQ 225716546), possibly reviewed (I can't see if it's an actual review or just saying This Book Was Published, but it says it was a review) in College & Research Libraries News (PQ 203713400), full review in the New York Review of Science Fiction (PQ 2152382677). And that was just a light search on ProQuest, I would guess a few more if I was more thorough, but this is enough for GNG and NBOOK.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
05:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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 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.
@
JTtheOG: I don't see this as a matter requiring AfD. You could just simply move "Sul Ross State University Lobos" over the redirect "Sul Ross State Lobos".
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
20:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
For the record, I completely agree with this recommendation and approach (I created this article, now a redirect, in the first place).
ElKevbo (
talk)
22:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I was the nominator for the first creation and my review still stands. No coverage since that time can be considered reliable enough to show notability. Based on the willingness to push this down Wikipedia's throat, would recommend SALTING or we will likely wind right back here in a few months. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
18:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Written like an advertisement, no references cited, no indication of notability. These are long-standing issues (5+ years) with no attempts made by other editors to fix. Ultimately, this could probably be deleted and merged into
Monarch Pass. GSK (
talk •
edits)
04:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The book notes: "Monarch Pass, c. 1936. People have been skiing the mountains surrounding the valley of Monarch Mountain since 1914. Monarch's first unofficial winter season was in 1936, when James Kane and the Salida Winter Sports Club brought a Chevy truck engine up Monarch Pass highway. Other skiers instrumental in the initial opening of the area were Thor Groswold, Sven Wiik, and Charlie Vail. By 1939, the club applied to the US Forest Service for a permit to cut trails, construct a lodge, and erect a lift. The first run cut at Monarch was Gunbarrel, an expert trail with a 30 percent slope. During the first official ski season of 1939–1940, season passes cost $1. Rope tow revenues netted over $50, with 25¢ day tickets. Ownership of the resort changed multiple times, with each change resulting in additional lifts, more terrain, and a base lodge. Stability returned to Monarch in the 1990s after a turbulent decade throughout the 1980s when the area filed for bankruptcy. In 2006, the Mirkwood Basin opened to skiers and riders willing to hike."
The review notes: "Monarch is rare in the ski-resort world, running on 100 percent natural snow (about 350 inches annually) leading to the resort’s motto “We don’t make snow. Mother Nature does.” The resort’s base elevation of nearly 11,000 feet helps keep the snow fluffy and frequent. And most of the more difficult trails remain un-groomed, providing a true backcountry feel with the ease of chairlift access. And for anyone looking for more than a backcountry feel, there are 130 acres of hike-to terrain."
The review notes: "I first discovered Monarch Mountain in the winter of 1995. I was on my annual pilgrimage from the Front Range to Crested Butte for its ski-for-free weekend when we pulled our old Subaru Outback, bottoming out under five ski buddies and gear, off U.S. Highway 50 into the area's dirt parking lot for a pee break. ... Somewhere between cheap lift tickets, nine inches of fresh pow, nonexistent lift lines, and steep shots like Gunbarrel and High Anxiety that filled back in after every lap, I fell in love with Monarch Mountain. We ended the day in the Sidewinder Saloon, Monarch's only bar, for an après-ski scene that embodied all of the comfort and camaraderie a down-home, slopeside watering hole should. Though I didn't realize it then, that chance stop sold me on the beauty of Monarch and reminded me why I love skiing. Fast-forward 16 years, and nothing much has changed at Monarch. It now sports a terrain park and new steep lines and tree runs that came with the 130-acre expansion into Mirkwood Basin, but those improvements only built upon the fundamentals: deep snow, few crowds, and an unpretentious group of hardcore skiers and beginners alike."
The article notes: "For this special occasion, deep-winter getaway, a retro theme seemed apropos, with “most snow” and “funky factor” used as criteria for mountain selection. Monarch Mountain, circa 1939, which has been getting hammered by storms all season, won out. Modest in vertical rise — just 1,162 feet of elevation gain between its 10,790-foot base and the 11,952-foot peak – Monarch packs a lot of punch and fall-line skiing into an area slightly larger than Aspen Mountain. At the start of an early January storm that would drop 35 inches in less than 24 hours, we set out from Aspen for a deceptively long drive given Monarch’s close-as-the-crow-flies location (like Crested Butte) in the central Rockies."
The article notes: "Monarch ski area is busy. Pass sales more than doubled in the past three seasons. Skiers have flocked to the Chaffee County ski area, with visitation reaching more than 210,000 in 2022-23, up from 140,000 when Bob Nicolls led his investment group to buy the 800-acre ski area in 2002. "
The article notes: "This project has been years in the making. PowderMonarch LLC, which owns Monarch Mountain ski area, filed its application for the expansion on Oct. 6, 2021. Monarch is also one of the oldest ski areas in the state, having first opened to the public in 1939, according to the Forest Service’s environmental assessment of the project."
The article notes: "The ski area had built itself on grit. Locals in 1936 formed a sports club on the mountain, powering a shoddy rope tow with a six-cylinder truck engine. The pass was finished over the next few years, spelling greater access and higher popularity. ... All the while, Monarch has resisted the industry trend of glitz and conglomeration. Possibly on deck for the future: a terrain expansion on the mountain’s backside, along with another lift."
The article notes: "Monarch Mountain has come a long way from a one-run wonder to the 75-year-old beauty it is today. When Monarch opened in 1939, it was constructed by Works Project Administration workers and featured a 500-foot rope tow driven by a gear box from an old oil derrick. Today, Monarch features six chair lifts and 54 runs plus nearly 1,000 acres of back country skiing opportunities."
LeBlanc, Pam (March 2021).
"Colorado Ski Gems". Austin Travels Magazine. Archived from
the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
The article notes: "I’ve always bypassed Monarch, assuming it didn’t have enough terrain to keep me interested. I was wrong. The cozy, 800-acre ski area doesn’t have any on-mountain lodging. The closest is the no-frills Monarch Mountain Lodge a few miles away, where you can get a room for about $100 and a free shuttle to the ski resort. Nearby, you can explore restaurants and shops in town, swim laps at the Salida Hot Springs Aquatic Center downtown, or detour over to Mount Princeton Hot Springs Resort after a day of skiing and plop yourself into a pool of steamy water right along a riverbank. Monarch Mountain officially opened as a ski area in 1939, but its off-the-beaten path location means it’s less crowded."
The article notes: "For more than 80 years, this central Colorado ski area along the Continental Divide has drawn powderhounds. Its fairly modest size — 800 acres and a 1,100-foot vertical drop — is counterbalanced by 350 inches of average annual snowfall that can stay untracked for several days past a storm, plus guided snowcat skiing on 1,600 additional acres of advanced terrain. Experts also love the hike-to, backcountry-style runs in Mirkwood Basin. Recent required thinning of pine-beetle-stricken trees has opened up more gladed skiing across the mountain. (Denver-based Meier Skis sells custom Monarch models using some of that harvested wood.) Many guests opt to stay in the artsy, riverside town of Salida, 20 miles east."
Keep per
Cunard's fine research. Sadly we have many articles needing editing improvement for 5+ or even 10+ years, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable.--Milowent • hasspoken15:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment It would help to add to the Arsenal season, however that would negate any redirect to
Club Atlético Independiente the other team in it. Maybe adding a sponsorship section on
Zenith Data Systems with a snippet there? I am still not sure of a redirect. But there are sources, a few on the article, one Guardian source in the external link. Maybe some other sources out there. It could be possible for some basic GNG pass here. Not sure know. Guess I am running at an abstain vote here.
Govvy (
talk)
10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Doesn't merit a redirect.
GiantSnowman19:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the
notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one
through PROD and the other
through AfD.
Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. –
Teratix₵02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 are no sources establishing
WP:N. The definition is based on a 2016 blog entry apparently by the main contributor to the article. The rest of the sources appear to discuss the Ogg and MP3 codecs, their history and merits - but not the topic of the article (the link for the last source that might have contained some information does not work, but the site does not appear to be a good
WP:RS). The article was
WP:BLARed in January of the 2016, but restored per the Articlefy (without prejudice) result of an RfD
WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_31#Oggcast. The article was
WP:PRODded in January 2012, so going the AfD route.
Викидим (
talk)
01:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - this article lacked notability at the time of creation and the passage of time has only made that more clear.
Brandon (
talk)
06:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: no non-blog available sources other than things used for original research; even if the term was notable it could easily and more appropriately be under OGG.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
08:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This feels like more of a snobby and complex
WP:HOWTO about how to listen to non-notable podcasts made that way on purpose because of a bizarre hate of an industry standard file format, and only one of them has a bluelink (and moved onto acceptance of MP3 long ago). I'm not saying Ogg is a bad format at all, just that this is a niche that nobody for a high-quality open audio format is searching for (people talking about the format they're listening to when MP3 serves that purpose just fine and plays on anything). Nate•(
chatter)20:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
