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 This is a textbook example of a lack of continued coverage. It is, however, terrifying that such a well-sourced article could be deleted based on that. The rules say delete but I can't bring myself to !vote for it. Closer may interpret this how they wish :)
Toadspike (
talk)
09:30, 6 May 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 number of stubs have been mass-created on light rail stations for the proposed Mutiara line. They are all estimated to be opening in 2030. None of these stubs say anything of substance about the stations, and so I am proposing they all either be deleted or redirected to
Mutiara line en masse. The stations include the following:
Merge before redirecting, some appear to have some information about what is currently on the proposed sites which feels encyclopaedic. TIL they are planning a connection to Seberang Perai.
CMD (
talk)
11:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per Chipmunkdavis. There is almost never a reason to delete articles on verifiable stations when a suitable merge target exists, and the outcome of these AfDs is always merge or redirect, so I don't get why they keep being nominated?
Thryduulf (
talk)
12:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect as per
WP:EDRED, since
WP:N looks to be a concern as of now. As with other metro lines, coverage will expand in tandem with construction, and leaving open the possibility of later conversions into full-fledged articles.
hundenvonPG (
talk)
05:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Trainsandotherthings, you have not formatted this bundled nomination correctly. You just created a list of articles which is not appropriate. It will be very difficult for a closer to close this discussion using the XFDcloser editing tool that we use. Please review the instructions for bundled nominations at
WP:AFD and reformat your nomination. LizRead!Talk!22:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This may come as a surprise to you, but I have never closed an AfD discussion before. It would have taken you all of two seconds to simply say "please use Template:La for the list". In any event, I have done so.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
00:37, 12 May 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.
Don't see any notability and the sources probably come from the school itself. Link rot really hit it hard and when I tried to go to one of the sources, it triggered my antivirus and adblock.
Okmrman (
talk)
23:18, 4 May 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 procedural close as yet another accidential AfD nomination of a talk page where the rationale clearly proposes the deletion of the article. The nominator has subsequently initiated a PROD for
The Dancing Clown itself (I am not sure if even this misfired AfD would invalidate all future PRODs), and someone else has since also tagged it for
G3 speedy deletion (which would render any AfD moot anyway if carried out), so not sure a procedural proper nomination is required yet.
(non-admin closure)WCQuidditch☎✎01:35, 5 May 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: Obituaries for people with the same name, but nothing found otherwise for this film person. Delete for lack of sourcing.
Oaktree b (
talk)
01:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - Bill Delano created this about himself. Aside from it being his autobiography, there is no substantive content.
— Maile (
talk)
01:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per
— Maile . Self-promotional article of a non-notable filmmaker (here are his personal websites:
1,
2). No SIGCOV at all of him or any of his work. Surprised this article has been up for 17 years.
Mooonswimmer18:57, 6 May 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.
Redirect to state list Not enough GNG coverage. Station called itself "KMAX" in the early years on channel 19 and apparently "Tele America" in the early 2000s. But that didn't result in enough sustained coverage.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
08:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge with
List of television stations in Texas#LPTV stations: this is presumably the state list alluded to in the prior !votes. The "merge" here is solely because the list currently does not list any of the services carried by the station, instead showing it as "silent"; other than fixing that up, this is essentially really proposing a redirect as an
alternative to deletion. There's only so much we can truly say if the
significant coverage is lacking and the local content has been minimal; a separate article here is a remnant of the lower standards of 2006. WCQuidditch☎✎19:59, 7 May 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 fails
WP:N and
WP:HISTRS. Two of its sources are blog sites in Persian and Urdu, and the third source includes a passing mention with no mention of an Afghan victory.
MrGreen1163 (
talk)
20:46, 4 May 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.
Many of these sources are not
WP:RS/
WP:HISTRS, this has been a growing issue where many of these pages are poorly sourced as per my numerous other AFD's opened on such. Some are unreliable primary sources that can fall under WP:RAJ for example. As @
Southasianhistorian8 said accurately on
this AFD: "Moreover, we're seeing a trend of editors creating articles based on small paragraphs from select one or two books solely so they can inundate Wikipedia with pages promoting religious heroism."
Noorullah (
talk)
03:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Meh, he is prolly biased cuz he is Afghan himself. 1 Princeton and 1 Cambridge source itself, how is it even poor lol. Unless you're gonna Cambridge (one of the best unis in the world) unreliable. 2 more Punjab university and 1 more Uni of California source. I think it's alright.
Akshunwar (
talk)
07:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Akshunwar, this
[1] "Cambridge source" is indeed unreliable. Take time and see
WP: AGEMATTERS and
WP:RAJ. A 175 year old book could never be cited here, especially with Raj influence. About the Princeton press, I can only see an intro part (that too not related to the article's scope) being cited. And Meh, he is prolly biased cuz he is Afghan himself, is a personal attack. See
WP:PA. Comment on the topic for you're here, not on the person.
Imperial[AFCND]16:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: The sources pass the
WP:RAJ issue as noted earlier. None of the sources are
WP: RAJ in this article and the issues that were initially pointed have been since corrected. The current sources on the page such as Khushwant Singh and Ganda Singh are more then
WP:RS. This page meets all the requirements that were pointed out. Further page 10 by Ganda Singh clearly show the success at Ali Masjid by the Sikh service.
[3]. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Festivalfalcon873 (
talk •
contribs)
22:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: The Sources now Fit WP:RAJ and are from Reputable historians such as Ganda Singh the Primary sources were also replaced with Reliable ones. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Alvin1783 (
talk •
contribs)
20:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Many of the new sources added are still not
WP:RS or
WP:HISTRS at all. Richard Macrory; Not a historian, Mathew, K.S; not a historian, Lal Suri, Sohan; a primary source, "Journal of Sikh Studies, Volume 9"; Not a reliable source, Singh, Khushwant; Not a historian, Hoiberg, Dale; Not a historian.
Adding comment: Some of the content in the article is stating complete lies: I quote "As Akbar Khan stood at the entrance of the pass, waiting for the oncoming enemy, he was informed with dismay that Ghazni had fallen." (Article cited page 43), Source: "On July 7, 1839 'Ali Masjid was lost to forces under
Wade and Shahzada Timur".
[4]
There is 0 mention at all of any Sikh commander.
Second example of the same source:
Article: "Dost Mohammed Khan recalled his son to Kabul once Ali Masjid fell to Col. Sheikh Basawan and Shahzada Timur's army on July 27, 1839". (page 75) Source:
[5] Source is entirely unrelated to this at all.
Noorullah (
talk)
06:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Noorullah21 Hey so for the first one i managed to fix that issue by including the correct citation. The information was actually quoting a source called "Anglo Sikh relations" rather than Christine Noelle.
Twarikh e Khalsa (
talk)
16:31, 11 May 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 unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet
WP:GNG or
WP:SPORTCRIT. I found a couple of sentences about him in a match report
here, but no sustained or in-depth coverage.
JTtheOG (
talk)
19:34, 4 May 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.
PROD removed. There is no evidence of notability for this surname. It is an utter
WP:NNAME and
WP:NOTDICT fail; there are no English Wikipedia or Italian Wikipedia articles about people with the name, nor are there any Wikidata items. The sources in the article don't show notability (dictionaries and name databases), and nothing I could find is any better.
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk)
19:26, 4 May 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.
Inline sources few and unreliable, few no mention of notability by trusted secondary sources. This is the third nomination, however the second nomination generated a few good ideas on why it should be deleted. 2003LN619:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I will go with delete on this one. The sources really are an issue. In the previous discussion, Interested Engineering was outlined as the only relevant source, but that article covers only a single video with an interesting topic. After some searching, I found some more passing mentions of the same type but no in depth coverage one would expect for GNG. At least the basic details would need to be covered by some other source than youtube itself to meet the GNG. --Tone19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree. The listed sources in the article seem really out-of-place and don't discuss the entire subject, only a few notable videos. 2003LN601:17, 5 May 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.
Draftify/merge. Mostly routine coverage that can be covered in his main article. Because he his a front runner in the Libertarian primaries, it probably makes sense to keep this page as a draft as the campaign will be notable if he becomes the Libertarian nominee.
Esolo5002 (
talk)
19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect So mention the polls in the main article, that's not justification for a standalone page when there's so little content. Split when warranted.
Reywas92Talk20:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect Blatant use of Wikipedia as political campaign announcements. See 2022 article
Chase Oliver, from which this article duplicates much. This one is complete with his campaign logo. Note that his website link goes directly to his campaign video.
— Maile (
talk)
01:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I wasn't referring to you at all. Just the fact (or coincidence) that there are two articles that make it look like this candidate was using Wikipedia two years ago to run for this year's campaign. And that Wikipedia probably needs to merge them together.
— Maile (
talk)
03:24, 5 May 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.
Fails GNG. Fancruft for a fictional character. Sources in the article do not meet
WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article contains a significant amount of original research and unsourced content (eg:
Grace Ellis#Storylines). Once the unsourced and original research not much is left other than material from promo interviews.
Source eval table:
Comments
Source
Cast announcement, promo, fails WP:IS, brief info on character
1. "Cast announced for brand new BBC One drama Blue Lights as filming begins". BBC Media Centre. 14 February 2022. Archived from the original on 24 February 2022. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Bennion, Chris (2 April 2023). "Blue Lights star Sian Brooke: 'We're reflecting the reality of policing – good and bad'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 6 April 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS
3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Allen, Kelly (10 April 2023). "Blue Lights star Sian Brooke 'talked at length' with PSNI officers for role research". Belfast Telegraph. Archived from the original on 19 April 2023. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS
4. ^ Jump up to:a b Layton, Mark (17 October 2022). "Exclusive: 'Blue Lights' creators on taking BBC police drama from script to screen". Television Business International. Archived from the original on 17 October 2022. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS
5. ^ Jump up to:a b Sian Brooke (Blue Lights Actress) On This Morning [18.04.2024] (Television production). This Morning. 18 April 2024. Archived from the original on 1 May 2024. Retrieved 1 May 2024 – via YouTube.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS
6. ^ Jump up to:a b Cormack, Morgan (27 March 2023). "Blue Lights' Sian Brooke explains personal family inspiration for role". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 28 September 2023. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS
7. ^ Jump up to:a b c Tate, Gabriel (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights star Sian Brooke: 'Policing is in a very odd place at the moment – it's been shocking to hear'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 15 April 2024. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS
8. ^ Jump up to:a b c "'Blue Lights' star Siân Brooke on Belfast, breaking records and a highly anticipated new season". What's On TV. 15 April 2024. Archived from the original on 15 April 2024. Retrieved 18 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS
9. ^ Jump up to:a b c Gordon, Naomi (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights star Siân Brooke hints more character deaths could happen". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 23 April 2024. Retrieved 2 May 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS
10. ^ Jump up to:a b c Szalai, Georg (15 April 2024). "'Blue Lights' Star Siân Brooke on How the BBC's Belfast Police Drama Has "Hope at Its Heart"". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 17 April 2024. Retrieved 1 May 2024.
Brief mention of character, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject - the character - directly and indepth
11. ^ Hilton, Nick (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights review: Series two may be first rate, but there are still too many police dramas on TV". The Independent. Archived from the original on 18 April 2024. Retrieved 2 May 2024.
Season review, mentions characters in plot summary, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV
12. ^ Jump up to:a b Hibbs, James (16 April 2024). "Blue Lights season 2 review: Police drama's return is even more assured". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 24 April 2024. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
Brief mention of character, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject - the character - directly and indepth
13. ^ Sigee, Rachael (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights review: This is the successor to Happy Valley". iNews. Archived from the original on 16 April 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
Brief mention of character, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject - the character - directly and indepth
14. ^ Nicholson, Rebecca (1 May 2023). "Blue Lights: this thrilling cop drama is one of TV's best shows". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 December 2023. Retrieved 1 May 2024.
Redirect per above source analysis, not enough coverage of the character, potentially become notable through planned two additional series but unlikely.
Indagate (
talk)
19:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Per
MOS:PLOTSOURCE. the plot/storyline sections do not need to be sourced, and it isn't uncommon to leave citations out of the lead either so I don't understand the claims of original research (
Examples). The articles do count as independent as they talk about the character in depth through interviews - if the subject was not notable, the interviews would not have been arranged, and they are being arranged by sources independent of the show. Additionally,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this article is in no way different.
FishLoveHam (
talk)
22:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Plot sections don't normally have refs, but can have notes / refs to indicate where the plot comes from, in this case the episode. An independent interview requires all people involved to not have a connection to the discussion. What do you mean about
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? That's an argument to avoid and you're the only person to link to another article.
Indagate (
talk)
12:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect unless more sources relating to significant coverage of the character exists (see
WP:FICT). The reception is just taking tidbits out of reviews for the show, not anything in-depth about the character.
Spinixster(trout me!)11:58, 5 May 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 The campaign of a candidate for a minor party's nomination who came fourth is very, very unlikely to be sufficiently notable for a standalone page. I'm not seeing anything to convince me otherwise.
AusLondonder (
talk)
18:18, 4 May 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 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.
Subject does not have the
WP:SIGCOV to meet the
WP:GNG. The most previous AfD resulted in the keep outcome but that was in 2020, when notability thresholds for television stations were much looser than today.
Let'srun (
talk)
14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Community consensus is clear that television stations and channels must meet at least
WP:GNG therefore requiring significant coverage in secondary sources. This was a short-lived, low-power station with no indication of notability. No secondary sources at the article and I'm not finding anything else significant.
AusLondonder (
talk)
16:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Suffice it to say, it is obvious from the way the first nomination played out that the
2021 RfC that affirmed GNG as the actual notability standard in this topic area and consequently rewrote
BCASTOUTCOMES was still in the future. FCC records, databases, and the station's own website are not GNG sources (especially the station website, a non-
independent source) and cannot be the only sources in any article — and as usual, this is the usual
run-of-the-mill 2010s-started LPTV where the chances of there being the required
significant coverage are also virtually zero. WCQuidditch☎✎17:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Per Wcquiddich and the impossibility we could ever source this station's actual schedule; this was a clear 'run for fun' distraction for a mainlander who retired to the islands. Nate•(
chatter)18:49, 4 May 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 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 per
WP:LISTCRUFT and
WP:NLIST. I did not need to search very far to understand that some team names are shared, but in no way is that notable. Nothing appeared on radar, and it just seems like a clash of copyright that is handled at the business level.
Conyo14 (
talk)
00:24, 5 May 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. While no commenter supports deletion (which even the nominator does not explicitly ask for), views are split between keep and redirect. This has been relisted more than enough times already.
DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!08:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect and Merge to
Beetroot, where several recipes are mentioned; agree with nom it's not really notable in itself. This one can be added at Beetroot as it's reliably cited.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
10:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, as there seems to be enough sources available, particularly if the scope is broadened slightly to include the use of beetroot as a supplement to other baked products (for reasons of extending the shelf-life, for example).
Klbrain (
talk)
13:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I thought all of our "cake articles" (and "salad articles") had already passed through AFD but here is another. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I stumbled across two sources today that discuss this cake as a style of chocolate cake, and it made me remember there are multiple terms in English, depending on what variety of Englis -- beetroot vs. beet, for instance -- which complicates things when searching for information. And there may be some history around Red velvet cake. I'm waffling a bit, but right now I'm thinking rather than redirect to beetroot (or to chocolate cake), we can keep.
Valereee (
talk)
19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
11:55, 4 May 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: Already been AfD'd, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk)
19:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete No indication of significant coverage via my cursory look. Also should be salted. [This should not go without a consensus]
X (
talk)
19:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
11:55, 4 May 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: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of
Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails
WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --
Meligirl5 (
talk)
17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm familiar with a "Soft Delete" but can anyone define a "Soft Keep" for me? Do you mean "Weak Keep"? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
11:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The subject's claim of appearing in numerous films lacks verifiable evidence, thus failing to meet WP:ARTISTS. The available coverage appears to be routine per WP:ROTM and lacks the depth required by WP:GNG. —
Saqib (
talk |
contribs)
15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The Courier-Journal article wasn't routine, and by what sources we have, Hassan was in these films, noting that the sourcing of the related film articles was light (thus my 'Weak Keep'). I suspect however that her appearance in some of them was exaggerated to make it appear she was a lead when she wasn't.
Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab •
Gruntwerk16:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as no evidence of any notability, The Courier-Journal is great however unfortunately it's no where near enough to establish notability, Not sure if her roles have been major or minor but either way I cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR and GNG. –
Davey2010Talk15:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NACTOR says "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films" and we know she was in several notable films (i.e., films with articles). If you're saying the subject fails NACTOR, are you saying these linked films should be reviewed in AfD?
Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab •
Gruntwerk16:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The "Partial filmography" in the article links to five notable films (currently adjudged by Wikipedia) and I suppose it's our opinion as to whether her roles were significant in them. It's part of why I say "Weak Keep" as I don't want to overjudge.
Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab •
Gruntwerk17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's hard to say whether she fails NACTOR #1 but personally I would say she does and despite the The Courier-Journal link imho she still fails #2 too, FWIW all of her roles could've been one-bit/minor roles so article linkage doesn't mean anything here, (and leading on to your last point nicely) There's just not enough info to determine whether she meets NACTOR #1 or not but either way I would obviously say she still fails #2, Thanks. –
Davey2010Talk17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In NACTOR, it says #1 or #2. The subject doesn't have to meet both criteria to pass it. I accept that we would need to judge whether the roles are significant but as it was difficult, source-wise, to drill down on these films, I don't want to rush to judgment, thus my "Weak Keep". I still say the key here is to look at the film articles and see if they should be kept.
Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab •
Gruntwerk17:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I've checked the articles and their sources as well as looked online -
The Gold Bracelet is just about notable with the rest not being notable so imho one notable film and one notable paper cite is still not enough irrespective of what role she played, I guess the article can be redirected to The Gold Bracelet if really desired,
You're welcome. If you've searched these articles before now then why the fuck are you here questioning their notability ?. Go nominate them if you think they're not notable.
Also for future reference go read
WP:BLUDGEON. You've !voted keep so as such you don't need to reply to every single delete !vote regurgitating the same line again and again. –
Davey2010Talk18:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see the need for you to be cross with me here. I have been professional and I expect the same in return. The fact that the articles exist show that they are currently presented as notable subjects, whether they deserve this determination or not. I may well prod the articles in question, but for the time-being, they cannot be dismissed.
Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab •
Gruntwerk18:09, 9 May 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.
WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not
properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. This was previously deleted in 2019 per
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Ferrier and then got recreated in fall 2023 after his death, but this version is still referenced almost entirely to
primary sources that aren't support for notability at all -- even the one footnote that's technically citing a newspaper is still just his paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds, not a journalist-written news story about his death, and virtually everything else is content
self-published by companies or organizations he was directly affiliated with, while the one potentially acceptable source (LitLive) is not enough to clinch passage of GNG all by itself. And for notability claims, there are statements (a minor literary award, presidency of an organization) that might count for something if they were sourced properly, but there's still absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper
WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. And the French interlang is based entirely on the same poor sourcing as this one, so it has no GNG-worthy footnotes that can be copied over to salvage this either.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Both the English and French articles are based entirely on
primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles or press releases on the
self-published websites of organizations and companies that he was directly affiliated with — only one source (LitLive) is GNG-worthy at all, and one GNG-worthy source isn't enough. People don't pass GNG just by using primary sources to verify facts, people pass GNG by showing third-party journalism and/or books that cover said facts as subjects of news and analysis.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While every opinion after the deletion nomination has been a bolded 'keep', I am still not suitably persuaded. Further discourse regarding the 'quality' (in Wikipedia terms) of the French sources appears to be needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
11:48, 4 May 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. On balance, the Delete arguments carry more weight, but they do not rise to the level of a rough consensus to take any action, including redirecting. Improvements in sourcing made to the article during this monthlong AfD bring hope that by the time the page is eligible for renomination, that would not be necessary.
Owen×☎00:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Redirect to
StarPlus would be an acceptable
WP:ATD but experience shows me it would likely end up in an edit war over the next year. The issue is not that the series exists, but the referencing. Notability is not based on
WP:ITEXISTS. It is based on secondary "RELIABLE" sources. In this case, the sources cannot be considered reliable as they fall under
WP:NEWSORGINDIA. No bylines and churnalism. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This is an interview with the actress about the actress and only mentions her role,
This is an interview with the director which is not independent nor does it have editorial oversight,
This is a brief announcement about it losing a time slot, and
This is about an actress and only verifies she plays a role in the show, not in-depth about the show itself]. As previously stated, there is enough to verify its existence but
WP:ITEXISTS couldn't be used as a valid argument. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
17:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This
[17] interview is of the actor (hero) and not director, also can you explain what do you mean by "editorial oversight" because this article is based on the interview taken by the media house itself with the actor. Thanks.
Imsaneikigai (
talk)
18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sure. Editorial oversight is about fact checking. Interviews like this are not. Similar to you asking me a question and me answering, there needs to be editorial oversight where there is not in this case. I could say that I am a billionaire but without editorial oversight, there is no way to verify that. Regardless, it is not indepdnent and none of this is significant. AGAIN, it only VERIFIES the existence of the show, not establishes notability. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay but how can you say that there is no reference that denies
WP:NEWSORGINDIA? because there are personalised interviews of the cast with the specific media house like Times of India and The Tribune!
Imsaneikigai (
talk)
18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure if I understand what you mean by "no reference that denies NEWSORGINDIA." The references you just pointed out are not independent and only brief mentions so there is no need to even evaluate them under NEWSORGINDIA because they couldn't be used to establish notability regardless. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
18:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I was about to tag the articles/references i was talking about. This
[18] the interview of one of the main cast about the track with The Tribune, second
[19] this tells about the development a particular cast member has put to fit in role. Also this reference
[20] tells us about the production phase of the series and is reliable as per
WP:ICTFSOURCESImsaneikigai (
talk)
18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is becoming
ad nauseam and seems to be
grasping at straws at this point. I realize you have a passion for this as the creator the page, but these have already been addressed. Interviews are not independent - PERIOD - It does not matter that they verify. One of the references is about an actor losing weight for the show. It only mentions him as having a part in the show, not anything about the show itself. The BH articles clearly falls under NEWSORGINDIA if you look at the byline. This I know you are familiar with as you talked about bylines above. Not sure what else to tell you at this point. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes GNG as far as the basic skeleton of the article, but the plot summary needs to either get better sourcing or needs to be switched to a two-sentence logline. Nate•(
chatter)22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Question - Can those voting !Keep possibly point out the references that show notability that do NOT fall under
WP:NEWSORGINDIA? I am seeing nothing but. I will gladly change my !vote if someone is willing to show me what I do not see. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. A number of the 'keep' !votes are on the weaker end, and I think CNMall41's question 6 days ago is a reasonable one. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The series only ran for approximately 2.5 months. Despite being featured on a notable channel with a notable cast, the main issue with this article is its references. While it may meet
WP:NTV, it certainly does not pass
WP:GNG. & I agree with CNMall41's viewpoint, as it raises a valid point.
ManaliJain (
talk)
12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hey @
ManaliJain, I have just updated and sourced the plot as well as cited the cast with sources which I feel are sufficient to determine significant coverage and verifiability. Also I have removed no bylines references as well. Please check. Thankyou.
Imsaneikigai (
talk)
17:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: First, I dont think duration is the parameter for notability because there are many Indian Series which have lasted lesser than the series or similar than the series like
Pracchand Ashok (39 episodes),
Sherdil Shergill,
Lag Ja Gale etc. Secondly, I feel the article has enough reliable sources and has constantly been updated with regards to the problems suggested above by User:CNMall41. There are enough sources with bylines like these
[21][22][23][24][25] and also there is no churnalism because every media portal has taken separate interview with the cast or have written unidentical content on the series with establishes verifiability. Thirdly, if we look most of the Indian tv articles are mostly similarly referenced and I have searched Bollywood Hungama articles and every article has the same byline "Bollywood Hungama News Network" thereby certainly ensuring that not all articles are paid articles. I think every region has its own policies of journalism and litter leverage can be given on these aspects.
Imsaneikigai (
talk)
07:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Last comment I have to this AfD. As stated previously, these only verify the existence. Verifiability is not notability. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
22:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect to an article listing the channel's original media. Having reviewed the citatitons identified by Imsaneikigai, none of them include significant coverage of the subject itself, comprising either softball interviews with actors or promotional pre-release coverage. What we need are critics' reviews, or articles that otherwise comment on the substance and significance of the show; this is lacking after three relists. signed, Rosguilltalk15:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: No objection to a consensus Redirect to
StarPlus. Sources show the subject exists, they do not have
WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from neutral non-promotional reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found primary sources, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV. //
Timothy ::
talk17:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep:
WP:HEY, article substantially improved since nomination, with bylined articles published in rather reliable media covering the production, so that deletion is quite unnecessary in my view. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)18:36, 12 May 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.
Deprod by @
MSMST1543:. There are lots of press releases available, with announcements similar to what's already cited, but nothing
in-depth about the company itself. I do not believe this article would be able to meet
WP:NCORP.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
14:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
11:45, 4 May 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 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 refs, nor could I find sufficient reliable sources to add. Potentially ambiguous term, doesn't meet
WP:N. Some
WP:ATDs (redirect) mentioned in last AfD, though I wouldn't agree as the term is ambiguous, and I would be reluctant to merge completely unsourced info.
Boleyn (
talk)
07:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - This article is my start. I thought it got deleted last time. I can't argue with the DICDEF rationale against it, other than to say that it's a concept that needs an explanatory link, both for its military and political uses. Do as thou wilt.
Carrite (
talk)
16:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I have found numerous sources describing military/political organizations as "paper organizations" (
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7) but nothing analyzing the term. I don't think there's much to build a Wikipedia article out of, but with some more digging, a sentence or two could potentially be added to the Wikitionary entry.
Mooonswimmer18:52, 6 May 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.
Redirect to
Barlaston#Parish council. I agree with the nom in that it is not a notable entity and merging in entirety and then covering all future elections I think might be a bit
WP:UNDUE. As it's already covered on the proposed target article, I think a straight redirect will suffice and is appropriate. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)08:11, 4 May 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 firmly disagree, we have content about this topic so it benefits us to make that content easy to find. If the topic was notable enough for an article it would be at this title, so this is a search term people will likely use to find it, and the presence of the redirect will discourage recreation of an article.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect per Thryduulf's rationale. I was on the fence between that and a straight delete, but it's probable it may serve usefully as a search term on occasion, while the presence of a redirect may, as noted above, discourage recreation. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)08:18, 4 May 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 article should be retained as it documents the Zimbabwean notable rising rapper M.G Hkh, and many others may be interested in his profile too.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TakuChiwanza (
talk •
contribs)
That essentially amounts to a
WP:USEFUL arguement, which is general not considered to be good.
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.
Strong keep, bar for coverage is clearly met with over 500 newspaper matches (see
[34] and
[35]). The component club has existed since 1926 and is home to Olympians and World Championships medallists. Also, when nominating an article, please add relevant WikiProjects to the talk page so that it will be properly categorized by the
WP:ARTICLEALERTS bot. --
Habst (
talk)
16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The first match from the London Evening Standard is about a murder in a park this group runs in? Do you honestly think these kind of mentions establish notability per
WP:ORGCRIT?
AusLondonder (
talk)
16:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
AusLondonder, some of the sources definitely establish
WP:ORGCRIT. I agree that the London Evening Standard murder coverage isn't significant, but that still leaves over 499 matches to analyze. For example,
[36][37] is more than a mention. Thanks, --
Habst (
talk)
17:16, 4 May 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.
WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not
properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for YouTubers. As usual, YouTubers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass
WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but three of the seven footnotes here are the subject's own
self-published content about themself on YouTube or their own website, and one more is a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization they've been directly affiliated with, all of which are
primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Meanwhile, the other three footnotes are a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themself in the first person (which would be acceptable as verification of additional facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger sourcing, but is not itself contributing to passage of GNG as it still represents the subject talking about themself); one brief glancing namecheck of their existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than themself, which isn't support for notability; and just one source that's actually represents third-party analysis about Khadija Mbowe in any meaningful sense, but is too short to singlehandedly clinch passage of GNG all by itself if it's the only strong source in the mix. Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when an article can be sourced better than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: When creating the article, my main rationale for notability wouldn't be based on inherently being a YouTuber, but I've rather tried to find enough
WP:SIGCOV. Here are some other sources that mention them (
[38][39][40][41][42][43], although I'm aware some of them are passing mentions). --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think any of those count as SIGCOV for a biographical article, they're either very passing mentions or listicles without any depth to write an article from.
AlexandraAVX (
talk)
06:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article does not qualify for an inclusion in Wikipedia. As said by the nominator, it is decorated with lots of primary sources that neither prove notability nor show significant coverage, per
WP:GNG.
ZyphorianNexus (
talk)
23:54, 4 May 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.
Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets
WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP, or SIGCOV meeting GNG. //
Timothy ::
talk05:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Timonthy, can you please help me in improving this article. I am still looking for reliable sources for this article. I am editing this article again, please let me know whether it meets Wikipedia criteria or not.
GrooveGalaxy (
talk)
05:34, 4 May 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.
Unreferenced article. I couldn't find any significant coverage on the web; it's tough to search for them as their name is shared with a few other groups, but by including band members I found only a very brief Q&A on sfgate.com and an album review on aural-innovations.com, neither of these seem like
WP:SIGCOV and nothing in the article suggests notability per
WP:BANDInDimensional (
talk)
22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist but it's looking like No consensus right now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The thing about NMUSIC is that it says artists who meet one of the criteria may be notable, not that they must be notable or must have articles. If you have a nationwide tour but fail to generate any press, that's practically the definition of failure to be notable. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)02:42, 11 May 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 keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. But a Merge and Redirect may make sense. Please start a discussion on the talk page if you support this option. LizRead!Talk!04:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Long-time unreferenced article. I am not sure if there is an overall concept/topic of 'lion mask' or sources to show its notability.
Boleyn (
talk)
16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This
does seem
to be a recognized
motif in art. That was just from the first few hits for "lion mask" + "motif" on Google books, there are quite a few more. I wouldn't oppose it being merged into something but there does seem to be discussion and analysis of lion mask motifs. Admittedly there isn't a lot of useful content here, but something can be said about the topic.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: if we're going to keep it, could we at least find some sources to cite? This article has gone entirely unreferenced since its creation almost twenty years ago. Any decent sources would at least demonstrate that it's a distinct topic worthy of inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia. This AfD would seem to provide a good opportunity to locate some.
P Aculeius (
talk)
11:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I've found some additional sources, and incorporated them. There's still room for expansion, but I think the article clearly meets the criteria for keeping.
P Aculeius (
talk)
14:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review the new sources added to the article recently. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:48, 4 May 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 - now expanded and sourced. So it's not very easy to source the article, but we can understand that a party that emerged in 1988 and whose importance declined significantly by 1991 would not have a lot of google hits. With access to news sources from 1988-1991, there would be more material. However the PdA 1944 had representation in the cantonal legislature up to 1992 and should thus be considered as notable. Moreover PdA 1944, as it existed as the Basel section of PdA prior to 1988 had legislative presence in earlier periods. --
Soman (
talk)
10:32, 4 May 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.
Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets
WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine local mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP. Coverage found is mainly about the closing and possible replacement. //
Timothy ::
talk03:45, 4 May 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 GNG. The sources used are not entirely reliable and enough to show notability. Some sources only make a trival mention of the subject.
ZyphorianNexus (
talk)
00:14, 5 May 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 subject appears to fail to meet the GNG or any suitable SNG. Running a before using Google News results in only a list of quotes from the subject. When filtering out quotes leads to a single website which only attributes another quote to the subject. Broadening the search to Google generally only provides links to social media, links to purchase books authored by the subject, and links to listen to subject's music. Page creator found 2 sources,
[44] and
[45], both of which are
press releases and so are ineligible for establishing notability. I do not believe there is any suitable redirect targets. —
Sirdog(
talk)
03:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - I've verified the above and not found anything different. Global and Mail looks like it might be an RS, but it clearly marks both these pages as press releases.
Jonathan Deamer (
talk)
05:34, 4 May 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 draftify. This article is not ready for mainspace and shouldn't have been moved. Coverage is pretty routine. However, I am of the opinion that once a vote occurs it will almost surely meet the
GNG. This AFD will almost certainly be open by the time the vote occurs.
Esolo5002 (
talk)
22:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify, While a vote has occured, I feel that many parts of this article could be kept elsewhere. At the same time, I feel like the vote to table the motion itself could be kept on
Motion to vacate the chair#Filing against Mike Johnson (2024). I would be open to bringing the article back if additional votes to remove Johnson are held, and/or if he is removed from office.
Talthiel (
talk)
00:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe Merge/relocate content?
this could all be explained in varying detail between the following articles:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete This article lacks a fundamental underlying coherent concept. Its just a refbomb of random papers that happen to use vaguely similar terms.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
17:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - unlike the other deleted articles, there is at least a reason this could exist, but this article has no coherent whole. It's more of a
synthesis.
Bearian (
talk)
17:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this has no more justification than
Eastern European identity. Theoretically, a proper article might be written about both (not sure what it would look like, but I wouldn't exclude the possibility a priori). But in the current state, this one deserves as much
WP:TNT as the previous.
NLeeuw (
talk)
02:45, 3 May 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.
Teague fails
WP:NBASIC and
WP:GNG; I couldn't find any reliable sources with significant coverage of him, besides a Russellville, Arkansas mayor (which obviously isn't this subject). ~
TailsWx (
🐾,
me!)
02:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per MoviesandandTelevisionFan's source and no doubt we could find a third one for GoldRomean's search too. This would satisfy GNG and NACTOR
Me Da Wikipedian (
talk)
21:36, 5 May 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 No independent coverage. Interesting, we get to vote to delete one of the very sites we're editing on. But rules are rules.
X (
talk)
22:52, 6 May 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't meet
WP:FILMMAKER or
WP:BIO. The subject has coverage only for winning a private island. No other significant coverage on his works or states any importance for an article.
𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁09:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete the only significant, secondary, independent sources are all rehashes of the same story and cover Lopes in the context of the competition he won. Simply participating in or winning such competitions, lotteries, and game shows does not make one notable. Per the CBC article, Lopes "makes video content for businesses by day and is a DJ at clubs and private parties by night". He is far from being a notable filmmaker or DJ, with 0 coverage of his "works".
Mooonswimmer18:42, 6 May 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 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 Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You don't know the problem because you only started in Afd on the 2 May 2024 and you've never written any large articles of consequence to discover the problem. The reason its a problem is because the English Wikipedia has a much higher standard of notability requirements that most of other wikipedias and that includes the Hebrew Wikipedia. The reason for that is the paid-editing hassle that began in 2008 and ran for many years before it was fixed, that eventually led to much improvement in the BLP notability criteria, to a much higher standard than other Wikipedias. So that is reason for it. So for that editor to turn up, who hasn't edited any length on Wikipedia and doesn't know criteria is a real problem. While anybody can turn up and !vote, the statistical chance of somebody from the Hebrew wikipedia, coming to en Wikipedia, selecting this article and then coming to the Afd, minutes after I posted it, is almost zero. It does not happen. It indicates canvassing, orchestration, which is illegal on Wikipedia. It indicates that the group is working against Wikipedia, breaking the Terms of Use, and its is unfair and downright crass. scope_creepTalk17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
For the same reason described above. Having 50k editor on another Wikipedia doesn't for squant in Afd. The editor took this stance in a previous Afd when the same spurious argument was made, a quantitive rather than qualitive argument. Numbers of reference do not count and haven't counted for more than decade, unless its
WP:THREE. Its an argument to avoid in Afd,
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. scope_creepTalk17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out.scope_creepTalk16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to
WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creepTalk17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creepTalk07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creepTalk17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Scope creep, seconding that. As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this.
X (
talk)
18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Well-known activist. The very fact that he has been interviewed repeatedly by the mainstream press is convincing evidence of notability. Non-notable people are not sought for interviews. Moreover, there is no rule against using the content of interviews in BLPs. The strictest rule is
WP:ABOUTSELF which allows such material.
Zerotalk14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your a bit out of date, aren't you. Certainly your allowed to use interviews in biographical article, but per consensus there must be other supporting coverage. It is a list of interviews and nothing else. Anybody can get interviewed by anybody and make a list of interviews. scope_creepTalk14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for posting these @
Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.
Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under
WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.
None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a
WP:THREE exercise. This is a
WP:BLP tha must pass
WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia.
WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creepTalk19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from
WP:NCORPWP:ORGIND and
WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing
WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG
Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
North8000: The article mixes
WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on
WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its
WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creepTalk19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Thanks for posting these @
Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.
Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a
WP:SPS source.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under
WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.
None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a
WP:THREE exercise. This is a
WP:BLP tha must pass
WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia.
WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creepTalk19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:
Ref 17
[68] Another interview. Its not independent.
Ref 18
[69] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of
WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I've removed the
WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per
WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in
WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. scope_creepTalk14:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages (that can be considered contentious or have issues) that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this.
Nonetheless, I must admit this is one of the strangest AFD's I've come across. So many things here feels convoluted and fishy.
X (
talk)
18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Since it's come up a couple times there's one thing which I'd like to address (given that I moved the article into article space.) which is the multiple prior rejections at AFC. I've done a few thousand NPP reviews and I'd guess taken more than 100 articles to AFD so I'm no pushover. I'm also an AFC reviewer, but ~95% of the reviewing I do is NPP. (I didn't use the AFC tools available to me for the move on this one.) The official AFC criteria for acceptance is that it has a reasonable chance of surviving an AFD. There has been considerable discussion of this at AFC talk, including concern that some AFC reviewers were declining based on criteria other than this. And the relevant AFD criteria is wp:notability which requires that it pass either a relevant SNG or the sourcing GNG. The SNG criteria has not been invoked leaving the sourcing GNG as the criteria. And this requires typically 2 GNG references. The first AFC decline/ draftifying in essence said that they looked at a sampling of about 10 (of the many dozen references) and there weren't GNG references in that sampling. The criteria is that it has GNG references, and a look at only 20% of the references does not determine that they don't exist. The subsequent reviews not only did not make such an analysis, they simply referred to the first decline in essence saying "no change since the first decline". IMO it has suitable GNG references, and much stronger than the typical standard at AFD, which is the basis for my actions, just trying to do the correct thing. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
18:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comment/response. However, I've asked you earlier in the thread to care to list at least 3 sources which you've found/consider the best? Regards.
X (
talk)
22:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there is a clear majority of editors who want to Keep this article, there are editors who believe the sources do not establish GNG with SIGCOV so this isn't a slamdunk close. If editors arguing to Keep this article could find more significant sources, this discussion might be closed relatively soon. But this is not a Vote Count. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Both for what should be happenning here and also for where I want to invest my scarce wiki minutes, IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist, rather than an analysis of my review. For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start:
[79][80][81] . Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You seem to have made a quantitive versus a qualitive argument in this comment and the last comment. Wikipedia strives for quality at every level and for some reason, you decided to support this article even when 4 other AFC editors in good standing decided it was junk. You have rationalised somehow that those other editors didn't make a proper
WP:BEFORE review, before declining which is both disengengous and a failure of
WP:AGF. Your essentially stating they have a lower standard of reviewing at AFC than yourself, yet you can't identify here what is good source amongst all these low quality sources and offer 3 paid for PR sources as though they valid, the best there is. It is an extremly poor argument for a supposed NPP reviewer in good standing, that fails
WP:AGF in disparaging four good editors, one of which is myself who has written close to 750 articles (you have written 17 small article) and has almost twice the number of edits as you. Current consensus regarding
WP:THREE, which changed last summer at a
WP:RFA and is now considered best practice, is three
WP:SECONDARY reference. Even though you happen to provide three reference for other editors to examine, which are extremely poor. I don't have confidence in you as an NPP reviewer. Lets looks at these references:
[82] This has video shot by the Shine company, where Dror does an another interview. It is classic PR where he
WP:PUFF's himself up. That is not independent.
[83] The images come from Leaplearner which is Dror's company. It is PR and is not independent, failing the criteria.
[84] The images here have been provided by Dror. Its states it clearly. It is more PR and is not independent. His business partner states: "Hussein tells ISRAEL21c. “People like us have a responsibility to do something big." That is not idependent either. Its is a busines PR article. Its may be non-profit but it still not independent. scope_creepTalk17:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree with many many elements in your post, include IMO mischaracterizations, ad hominem approaches and many which I consider to be out of bounds regarding Wikipedia behavior. It's not my MO to pursue such things. I'm not going to engage further on that and am content to let others decide on this. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
One quick exxtra note, having images supplied by or credited to the person in the image is common, not something that deprecates the published piece that it is used in. North8000 (
talk)
12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The article feels as odd as this AfD, to be honest. From a business point of view, I'd be a clear delete - I agree with scope_creep's analysis of the
WP:THREE sources presented by North8000. It does seem like he could be a notable protestor, but the best-looking links I can see are either Youtube videos or interviews, not significant coverage. And there looks like some paywalled articles I can't access which might be significant coverage. I wouldn't have accepted this at AfC, it needs a complete re-write, it reads like it's written close to the subject, it's badly source-bombed, but it's not clearly not notable. I'm really not sure how to !vote here on notability grounds but notability isn't clear from the time I've spent parsing it, but if you made me make a decision about this one I'd draftify it.
SportingFlyerT·C04:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
From where did you get the idea that interviews are not significant coverage? How many non-notable people are regularly sought for interviews? Moreover, what someone says about themself in a interview is covered by
WP:ABOUTSELF.
Zerotalk07:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Interviews aren't significant coverage for
WP:BLP's. Interviews can't prove notability for BLP's and that has been consensus for more than a decade. They are
WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't know where you get this idea that is both misleading and disengenous that WP:ABOUTSELF seems to trump
WP:BLP and
WP:BIO. It is a complete of misreading of policy and completely out of date. I've done 1000's of Afd and I've never read anybody making a statement like that. Never seen it mention once. More so, concering your comment above, We live in the age of internet and youtube where folk with millions of followers get interviewed on the most banal things and that is seen by quanities of people that even in the golden age of mainstream press in the 1940-60's, could never compare. It is a false argument. There is no analysis here to show Dror has lasting notable, by secondary sources, the standard way of measurement of notability for people. It's Dror showing up at the camera and talking, for every reference. Its all surface and no depth. scope_creepTalk08:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Almost all applications of WP:ABOUTSELF are to primary sources, so that's not a valid argument. (Anyway, that is about the reliability of the content of the interview, which is different from the reliability of the interview itself.) As for interviews, it is not the mere fact of an interview that proves notability but the independence of the venue and the reason for the interview. If a journalist goes to an event and interviews whoever happens to be there, that obviously does not indicate notability. Nor does an interview sponsored by the interviewee. But if a journalist specifically seeks out a particular person to interview for publication, that is an obvious case of notability indicated by an independent reliable source. The independent reliable source in this case is the journalist and their news outlet. Notability is also indicated if the journalist's report emphasises the notability. So it is incorrect to just dismiss interviews out of hand; instead they have to be examined for their circumstances. I don't see any such examination here. For example, dismissing
this as non-independent as you did is wrong unless Judy Maltz works for Ami Dror. By the way, your signature is ugly and visually annoying.
Zerotalk10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
So your saying the newspaper and the journalist in this case are somehow exceptional and should be reliable in this instance, even though time and history has shown that argument to be be wholly false, in any number of ways, i.e. subject to human vagaries of corruption, incomeptence and all the other problems that beset humanity, human bias and political favour. There is no basis argument for that on Wikipedia. This is another curious and unusual fringe argument that I've not seen. For me, its never been the channel nor the venue that is important but the source that provides the information and whether another source reflects that information, making it uniquely idependent of the first, that is important in
WP:V. That is whole reason for
WP:SECONDARY sources. The argument has been reinforced at every level in my whole Wikipedia existance, right back to 2005. Its has no validity. scope_creepTalk11:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I only time I seen that argument is in talk pages when its been used to support using some information like the date of birth taken from a twitter message or linkedin profile, not for a mainstream BLP article. scope_creepTalk11:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You are making a logic error in confusing the reliability of an interview article (which means the interview is correctly reported) with the reliability of the interview content (which means the person being interviewed told the truth). There is no contradiction in a reliable interview article quoting the interviewee telling lies. The notability tick is placed if the interview article is reliable. Articles by journalists in respectable newspapers are one of the sources most commonly accepted as reliable in WP. In this example, as Haaretz has always been considered reliable, this is assumed to be a reliable report. Whether the things that Dror told the journalist are reliable is irrelevant for notability and thus irrelevant for AfD. (I would be happy to cite Haaretz in our article with attribution to Dror, but that's another argument.) Incidentally, I was already an admin when you joined WP so you won't get anywhere with the longevity argument.
Zerotalk12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That is complete nonsense. Yes, its true that newspapers are generally a good source, I use them all the time, but that covenant only holds when when there has been research by the journalist to construct the article not to turn up and ask a few questions of the interviewee and convey it verbatim. To say such a statement makes me question your competence. It is a not question of reliablity anyway. I never questioned that aspect in all the comments above. The problem is independence. There is not a single piece of information here that doesn't come directly from Dror. Thereis no filter. There is no analysis or verification from any other source as far as I can see. scope_creepTalk07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In fact you have no idea how much background research was done by the journalist for that article, and you brought no evidence for its unreliability. You just asserted it.
Zerotalk08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You seem to be attempting to put words in my mouth, for the second time. I never made any mention of reliability in any argument. The problem is there is no corroborating evidence to show this individual is notable, nothing. Its all comes from him talking. All of it. Its a question of independence, not reliability. Interviews don't add up to squat. I can't make any progress with you. I suspect your involved somehow with your Freudian slip above, saying "our" article. Your views are diametrically opposed to the majority of folk who write content of Wikipedia and expect to work inside consensus. I'll not make any other comments to you, from this point forward. scope_creepTalk14:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Just to avoid the context creep which might be starting, here was the context of me mentioning those three sources. "IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist.....For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start:" So it was nothing more than that, it was not explanation of my own overall opinion on "whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist" North8000 (
talk)
12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
When I see
WP:THREE invoked I always assume it's because the three sources presented clearly pass GNG, which I do not believe was the case (they all just sort of quoted him.) As I noted I'm not really sure where to fall on this, but if there are three that stood out which clearly pass GNG, I'd be happy to switch my !vote to a keep.
SportingFlyerT·C07:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Just clarifying, I did not bring up that essay, nor say that my assessment was based just on those three. It is based on going through a few thousand articles during NPP reviews and taking about 100 to AFD. GNG sourcing in this article is far stronger than a typical kept bio article; conversely criteria and application advocated by someone here would have about 3/4 of Wikipedia's bio articles deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Your insulting comment is doubly out of line.
WP:BEFORE refers to person doing the AFD which is you. Secondly, I never said that anything that you could derive that statement from, even if it was applicable to me (which it isn't). You need to ease up on things regarding other editors here, to put it mildly. North8000 (
talk)
16:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I completely disagree with that statement on 3/4ths of bios being deleted based on these "stricter" standards. The sourcing for this particular article just isn't that great.
SportingFlyerT·C17:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Those are all interviews with the subject, they don't pass the secondary prong of
WP:GNG, and only Ref 3 is different from the one North8000 presented. They're also all business interviews, which can be solicited by subjects for marketing purposes (not insinuating this is the case, and
WP:NCORP doesn't apply because it's a biography, but similar precautions need to be taken here). If he passes
WP:GNG, it's likely because he's been covered independently as a protestor.
SportingFlyerT·C17:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Omert33, Ref 3 (Haaretz) is mostly an interview with 2 short paragraphs of texts followed up by primary elements, it's just him talking about himself and his activities. Ref 32 (Shine News) is also more of the same. Ref 33 (Calcalist), is even a more prevalent interview, from the starting paragraph. Ref 30 (Israel21c) is also like the rest here.
X (
talk)
18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SportingFlyer: The "3/4" was just my off the cuff guess. On your last point, I never said that the GNG sourcing on this article was great, just stronger than average. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
18:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Both of these are passing mentions and Techcrunch is trash. Nobody uses it except UPE editors. Both of the again are not independent, more evidence to show that it all comes from Dror. scope_creepTalk12:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Gonna keep this short since we're at the 7-day deadline, but I find myself agreeing with
scope_creep's source analysis more than anyone else's. The sources presented by
Omert33 are passing mentions or not independent. Interviews usually are not independent from the subject, and they lack the kind of analysis and critical assessment we usually find in
WP:RS. A final thank you to the closer who decided to reopen this to let me !vote. To the nominator, consider a renomination with a source assessment table if you choose to renominate this.
Pilaz (
talk)
15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, I am not convinced by any of the 'keep' arguments above. There's some vague waving at GNG by a number of participants (importantly, note, this does not include North8000, who has engaged in meaningful discussion regarding GNG to justify their position), but when asked to present sources that meet the GNG standard, I agree with scope_creep's analysis of any such sources presented in response. Beyond that, there are a number of straight votes (eg. היידן, Sofiblum) and other arguments to avoid that I'm sure will be discarded by an experienced closer (eg. "a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel", "A known activist and the article has enough references"). I also do not accept that being interviewed contributes to GNG (they are acceptable sources for information, yes, but do not contribute to assessing notability), and community consensus at deletion discussions in recent times has generally also found in this manner (
WP:PRIMARY explicitly notes this consensus in a footnote). I agree with North8000 that this should be judged against GNG rather than NCORP, although I understand scope_creep's point that there is a strong mix of CORP about this article - but ultimately it is a biography and I agree with North8000 more on this.
Daniel (
talk)
08:06, 12 May 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. After a 2008 PhD, she has no non-student publications in astronomy (there is one on social media monitoring with many authors and low citations). She does not appear to have a subsequent academic career of any note, and instead has been working for Meta (for which she has no significant publicity). Her best first-author student paper, "Water ice on the satellite of Kuiper belt object 2003 EL61", has only double-digit citations, not enough to make a case that she was such an exceptional student as to be notable through her student work. So although I agree with the A7 decline (the bar is very low for that) I do not think she can be notable through
WP:PROF nor through
WP:GNG. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:29, 4 May 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 delete. Ultimately,
User:BusterD is correct, sources must be present in the article or brought into the discussion. A "There must be sources" attitude could be used to justify an article on any subject imaginable. We have to deal with information available now, that exist during the course of this discussion, not at a hypothetical future time. This deletion doesn't disallow the future creation of this article should adequate sources be located. LizRead!Talk!00:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, I think
WP:NATHLETE is not the appropriate policy because de Lisocky is not a track and field sportsman, road racer, or cross country runner. De Lisocky is a gold medalist at a major international competition, so I do believe that we can be confident that contemporary coverage must exist. Finding those newspapers / other sources may be difficult, but we have to at least put in an effort. --
Habst (
talk)
13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Geschichte, how is the Pan American Games relevant to this deletion discussion, because the athlete did not participate there? I agree that the Pan Ams are also a major international competition, but there is no rule that there has to be only one major competition in the world. For someone from Colombia, the Bolivarian Games are certainly one of the biggest competitions an athlete could win outside of the Olympics (which he also competed in). Thanks, --
Habst (
talk)
12:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It is relevant because you claimed that he is a "gold medalist at a major international competition", which is an
uncorroborated claim made by an anonymous person on the Internet, i.e. you. The
South American Games also has sailing and is a lot bigger in scope than the Bolivarian Games.
Geschichte (
talk)
10:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Geschichte, thanks for your response. Both the
Pan American Games and the
South American Games are also major international competitions, but their existence does not invalidate the fact that the
Bolivarian Games are, as well, a major competition. To qualify this with a source, see Rengifo, Lisandro Abel (2022-06-26).
"Juegos Bolivarianos: ¿sí tienen la importancia que dicen?". El Tiempo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-05-02., which asserts that the Bolivarian Games are crucial to advancing to the Olympic Games and are a major competition. That isn't an uncorroborated claim; it's sourced to reliable news sites. --
Habst (
talk)
14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect to notable event. More unsourced Lugnuts nonsense. A series of articles written solely to populate a list on an Olympic event page. Just because it's true doesn't make it notable. Those who disagree are required to bring sources to prove that assertion of notability. All these stubs should be sourced sufficiently or redirected to the event.
BusterD (
talk)
20:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BusterD, thanks, what do you think about a procedural keep because the nomination used an invalid criteria (
WP:NATHLETE is intended only for track and field / cross country / road racing athletes, not sailors)? --
Habst (
talk)
14:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Correctly pointing out the nominator used an imprecise shortcut doesn't help the subject meet notability by the correct guideline. The nominator's assertions are 1) doesn't meet the criteria for specific notability, 2) doesn't meet general notability, and 3) only applied source was a bare mention. These assertions go unrefuted in this process. The correct SNG link is
WP:SPORTSPERSON, and that guideline (amended specifically to deal with lightly-sourced Lugnuts-type creation) tells us at least one reliable source is required which directly details the subject. Can anybody present one?
BusterD (
talk)
15:02, 10 May 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 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 a song, not
properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing
WP:NSONGS. As always, songs are not automatically entitled to have their own standalone articles just because they exist, and have to show and reliably source some claim of significance -- but the main attempt at a notability claim here is that versions of the song appeared on albums that had gold certification as albums, which is not in and of itself evidence that the song has its own standalone notability independently of those albums, and the article is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that are not support for notability, with not a whit of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about the song in media or books shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the song from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for
soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
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 former mayor, not
properly sourced as passing
WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to pass conditional notability standards based on the depth of substance that can be written about their careers and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it -- but this, as written, is basically "mayor who existed" apart from a section that advertorially bulletpoints a generic list of "achievements" without really saying or sourcing anything whatsoever about what he personally had to do with any of them, and minimally cites the whole thing to one
primary source self-published by the city government that isn't support for notability at all, one unreliable source that isn't support for notability at all, and just one hit of
run of the mill local coverage upon his death that isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix. Trois-Rivières is a significant enough city that a mayor would certainly be eligible to keep an article that was written substantially and sourced properly, so I'd be happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to the necessary resources than I've got can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more substance and sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Here's a decent French newspaper account of him being on the job for 10 years
[91] and a Radio Canada piece about him, 50 years after he was elected
[92]. I think we have enough for basic sourcing, with sustained coverage over the past half century or more.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:49, 26 April 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.
Deletefor lack of viable press and statistical content other than subject's death.
Ernesto Wong, another recently deceased sports figure, nominated for the same reasons. Changing to Keep after digging up of sources.
💥Casualty• Hop along. •21:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Is
dailysportscar a good source? If you take his name in Japanese and search for it in Google Books and Google News a bunch of results pop up. Dude was born in 1941 so there is probably more coverage of him on paper than digitally.
as-web.jp is also a good in-depth source.
Polygnotus (
talk)
19:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep good sources on the Japanese article as noted above. Also
[93] Odd that this was nominated the day after his death, but from his obituary in
Chunichi Shimbun: "1960年代後半から高橋国光さんらとビッグレースに参戦。スカイライン2000GT-Rで通算4勝を挙げ、フェアレディ240Zで日本グランプリを連覇(71、72年)。90年代にはN1耐久シリーズや全日本GT選手権にも参戦した。" Lots of other obituaries in outlets in Japan (from what I can dig up on noticeboards, it appears obituaries in national publications count towards notability?) including
this particularly indepth one.
Here's a piece from
芸文社 [
ja discussing his car in the 80s. It appears there's a feature on him in
the 2022 issue of RacingOn magazine. Another
piece from 2019. Agree with Polygnotus that there's likely a lot of coverage that has not been digitized since Japan is only now partially undergoing digital transformation.
DCsansei (
talk)
10:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per DCsansei. What's with the trend of nominating long retired Japanese race car drivers, less well known in the west. This is now the third I have to put my vote in. Japanese Wikipedia shows that he has a well accomplished career being the 1994 Super Taikyu champion. A database listing on JAF
will prove this otherwise, thus passing
WP:NMOTORSPORT.
SpacedFarmer (
talk)
17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply
additional comment: IIRC, he was one of the works Skyline GT-R racers of the early 1970s (though not as notable as Takahashi, Hasemi and Kurosawa), thus he is bound to be notable by that association. Additionally, he is known for being one of those in Nissan's celebrated 50 consecutive race wins (by C10 Skyline GT-R) they like to promote. Thus, this is another.
SpacedFarmer (
talk)
12:25, 10 May 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 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.