Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 02:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC).
Odd fork of Vehicle registration plates of China. Another editor redirected it there, but was reverted with the (dubious, in my opinion) reason that "zh wiki has two separate articles". Most of the content here duplicates Vehicle registration plates of China and I can find no compelling reason to keep a fork. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge or Redirect to retain the functionality of the language switcher from zh.wp. The xtools reports for the zh articles are pretty interesting: the vehicle registration plates article is slightly older, but the civilian vehicle registration plates article has fifteen times as many inlinks and sees three times as much traffic. Both have similar numbers of edits and distinct editors. This isn't an argument for or against any course of action here, but the fork is somewhat mystifying. Folly Mox (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Vehicle registration plates of China. Technically a merge is okay, but the overlap here is massive, making a merge unnecessary. For instance, most of the "civilian" article consists of the list of prefixes by province, which is already included in its entirety in the main article. I consider the "civilian" article a content fork and it should not be kept. Toadspike[Talk] 08:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect. Massive overlap. This is a plausible topic, but it is untenable with this cross-article organizational issue. Redirecting does not remove significant content. The article can be restored when editors decide to treat this is a proper spinoff, when they figure out what to put where and how to summarize what was left at the parent article. The current state of things is not helpful to readers.—Alalch E. 15:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. There are two different nominations here. And my own recommendations are slightly different for both. Neither especially cut/dried. In terms of the:
CEWC Northern Ireland title, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this should also be merged and redirected. To Council for Education in World Citizenship. Also as WP:ATD-R. Where the target would be updated so it is no longer a DAB page. But an article covering the "parent" org. I propose this because while, per nom, I do not see that the "CEWC Northern Ireland" org has/had independent notability, the "parent" org perhaps does. Much of the content at the Northern Ireland article could be merged to Council for Education in World Citizenship. With that title (no longer DAB) expanded to cover the concept as a whole. That org being the subject of significant coverage (as the primary topic) in at least one book and several journal articles. Indicating possible notability. There's certainly enough coverage for more than a stub (covering the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland "branches" of the org)...
My 2x cents anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. User:LibStar, this is not a proper bundled nomination, you might have tagged CEWC-Cymru but this nomination isn't formatted properly. If you wish it to be included, please review WP:AFD instructions for multiple page nominations. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I will nominate CEWC-Cymru separately now. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There has been discussion but the only outcomes proposed are Deletion and Merge/Redirect with a consensus for neither. Here's hoping that a few more days might bring some more opinions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: as a former WDF World Championship runner-up and World Masters semi-finalist, there appears to be a great deal of significant coverage of the subject in Welsh (Llanelli Star, South Wales Echo) and other (Liverpool Echo, Aberdeen Evening Express) papers, but a lot of it is hidden behind a paywall. If I can get access to these papers later in the week I'll assess the coverage and update my vote; if anyone else has access to them it may be worth a look. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Registering a keep vote in light of the below comment, but will update further if I get granted access to the newspaper archive for the aforementioned articles. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 21:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Significant coverage here and although my BNA access has expired, here's a story titled "Top of the World: Marshall James", which is almost certainly sigcov. He was second-best at the world championships! BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Is a six paragraph article that summarises a six year career really "significant coverage"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Is a 300+ word article on the then-second-best darts player in the world, as well as what appears to be a feature on 'Top of the World: Marshall James', count for notability? Of course it does. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
You keep describing him as being the "second-best darts player in the world" and this is just categorically not true. Are you seriously suggesting he was better than Phil Taylor? Two articles do not make significant coverage, especially when one of which you have admitted you have no idea what it even is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
You keep describing him as being the "second-best darts player in the world" and this is just categorically not true. – I'll admit I'm not super familiar with darts, but didn't James finish as the runner-up at the World Championships? Wouldn't being runner-up at the World Championships be second best in the world? And two articles can absolutely be significant coverage; the general notability guideline says that's all that's required for notability (two pieces of coverage). What do you think the odds are that a story titled, "Top of the World: Marshall James", is not significant coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
He finished runner-up at a (not the) World Championship and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing of note ever again. Does a darts player from Llanelli having potentially one article in a Llanelli newspaper, and a six paragraph article on a darts website, really count for notability? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Does having significant coverage from two independent outlets for a runner-up at a World Darts Championship count for notability? Absolutely if you go by GNG, which only requires two significant sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
So, to keep up-to-date. That's one "significant" source. And one source you freely admit you haven't read. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
We're allowed to use common sense. The odds that both the 'Top of the World' source is insignificant and that there's no further coverage of him anywhere is incredibly small, especially given that Ser! has found paywalled articles in four additional newspapers. That you're unable to answer whether you've done any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all for over one hundred darts articles you've rapidly nominated or proposed for deletion is concerning as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Nice personal attack there. Not content with doing it on my own talk page you now choose to do it here too! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Pointing out that you've refused on three occasions to answer the basic question of whether or not you've done a BEFORE search is not a personal attack... BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
You assuming that I haven't, and constantly repeating the claim, is a personal attack. What on earth makes you think I haven't? Because you found that the British library has an article in the Llanelli Post about him from 27 years ago? 🤣 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@ItsKesha:What on earth makes you think I haven't? – because I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you responded that the articles are old, and then I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you responded that I need to AGF – and then I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you told me to get off your talk page – and then here you called it a personal attack, and when asked ... you responded that "What on earth makes you think I haven't? 🤣" – this absolute refusal to answer the question while nominating / proposing hundreds of articles for deletion is disruptive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
OK 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
This is the entirety of the BNA article, content on James bolded:
[D]arts ace Marshall James added another trophy to his impressive collection recently - after winning a world championship. Marshall was a member of the Wales short man squad that won the world championship in Perth, Sydney, recently. Another player from the area Eric Burden was also in the side with the others being Sean Palfrey of Newport and Martin Phillips from North Wales. With 35 countries taking part Wales beat a star studded England side in final by nine legs to six. Wales came away with three gold medals and one bronze. Marshall lost in the semi-final of the Embassy Gold Cup singles on Saturday to world number 1 Mervin King 2-1. Another Welsh player Shaun [sic] Palfrey went on to take the title beating King 2-0 in the final. Marshall was recognized for his achievement this week when he was chosen as winner of the Walter Hughes Cup, one of the Brin Isaac Memorial Fund awards.
I'm not convinced ~4 sentences in an un-bylined hyper-local blurb announcing his darts competition results for that week counts toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Neutral - My main concern here is that DartsNews is not obviously a reliable source and some work needs to be done to establish whether it is or isn't. My real sticking point on any bio article is "can we write a reliably-sourced encyclopaedia article, and not simply a database-entry, about the subject", and if Dartsnews is reliable then probably we can. BeanieFan11 - any views on this? FOARP (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I really need to figure out how to get re-subscribed to the BNA; there appeared to be a decent bit of coverage there (highly likely enough to write a reliably-sourced encyclopaedia article, and not simply a database-entry, about the subject, I'd say)... As for Dartsnews, they appear to have an editing staff. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep - Mostly just on AGF, give-keep-a-chance grounds. DartsNews gives sigcov but feels like a peripheral source even if it is a WP:NEWSORG. There is no BIO equivalent of WP:AUD and local coverage shouldn't be excluded entirely, so I see no reason to dismiss coverage just because it was in a Llanelli newspaper, but it is also borderline for WP:SIGCOV. The real question for me is "can we have an article that isn't just sports-stats", and we just about can. Since the internet archive is now working again (albeit slow) I did a little search there and I see that, except for mentioning him a couple of times when discussing other players, he isn't listed in this book about the top 50 darts players, so I think that safely answers the question of how great this guy was. FOARP (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: How's that search for Welsh sources going? Anything further? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: There's a Welsh rugby player with the same name... I don't see anything about a darts player. The few sources given in the comments above aren't extensive coverage. I don't think we have enough to use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that this character is notable. This article has 10 sources, of all are not reliable and passing mentions. It was recently tagged for notability and there is no help at all. My WP:BEFORE failed to show anything about him. If he isn't fixed, i recommend a redirect to List of Mission: Impossible characters or at worse, Ving Rhames.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear a few more opinions on this article. By the way, the nominator didn't sign their statement but it was Toby2023. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment Doing my usual source hunt. This article on ScreenRant seems to address Luther Sticknell specifically. [1] (Maybe this one in CBR too: [2]) Allowing WP:NOTCRYSTAL, there may be more interest and more sources after this movie comes out if they do kill the character off. So if we convert to redirect, which preserves the previous history of the article, we should prepare for a revert in that event. Now to hit Google Scholar... On first blush, there seems to be plenty of material here: [3]. If someone with a JSTOR subscription or university access can get past these paywalls, it may be possible to add enough critical analysis of this character to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Multiple issues tagged for years with no significant improvement. Was already deleted before by WP:PROD. Yet article came back without sufficient justification. ImcdcContact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Still no comments so far? Initially the article may look like it has significant content. However firstly a lot of it reads like promotional press release content from the company itself and secondly much is unsourced and even the references themselves do not meet the requirements.
Edit:Removed unsourced content
- ImcdcContact 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how WP:NCORP is met given the sources in the article, and I wasn't able to find sources that would be enough to establish notability either. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 10:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
That source may count but would need mulitple sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
This siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so
All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
This article has already been to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. LizRead!Talk! 23:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Update I have now removed all the material that is not supported by the two main sources (separate chapters in the same book), both of have barely a paragraph or less on this siege, and some concluding material from the CIA history of the Balkan conflicts. I have removed material supposedly supported by the bare citations with no long citation, as I can't conduct verification. I have also cleaned up the infobox to remove material not supported by the sources. The image has been removed, as it is obviously just a screen shot from a video on youtube or whatever, and is therefore a blatant copyright violation. Other than some minor additional detail from the CIA history, this is the sum total of what is in the verified sources. Please do not restore unsupported material, I will just delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep the edited down version by Peacemaker as it passes WP:SIGCOV and removes the WP:OR. If there are future problems after this AFD, I suggest a topic ban be imposed on Red Spino and Wynnsanity and some kind of Protection added to the page. I hope the closing admin will continue to monitor the page and pursue that course of action if there are recurring problems.4meter4 (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte👸♥ 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. May you explicate why you believe that this article fails WP:ORG? In the article alone I see three sources (1,2,4) that I believe to satisfy significance, reliability, and secondary.Arguably, the sources are quite recent, but I believe that aged sources are only the requirement for events (WP:EVENT). Pygos (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
The first link is a blog article, the second is an interview that isn’t about the company, and the 4th is also not a reliable news source - it's a blog masquerading as a news website. None of these sources come close to fulfilling the requirements of WP:ORG. - The9ManTalk 11:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@The9Man The fourth source is not a blog. It's news website for TV9 Telugu, a mainstream TV network in India. It's absolutely a legitimate news source made by professional journalists.4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak delete. There are a couple of solid sources, but overall there isn't enough here to pass WP:ORGCRIT. It's a young company. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
BLP of a journalist that seems to me to lack support from in depth coverage in independent sources. Appears borderline so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. There are 10 independent sources in the Hebrew article, which, together, seem sufficient to establish notability. Whizkin (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes but the ten sources in Hebrew are absolutely dire:
1. Is a piece by him, not independent coverage of him
2. Is a passing mention of him in a band he played in in 1988
3. Doesn’t mention him
4. Passing mention in a brief listing
5. Passing mention
6. Doesn’t mention him
7. Doesn’t mention him
8. Interview with him (his first interview ever)
9. Decent, if rather brief, third party source
10. No longer accessible but looks decent.
That’s not enough to build a stand alone bio article on and it does look like the original creator of the Hebrew article was desperately scraping around for any mention they could find. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree that those sources are sub-optimal. Whizkin (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete. OR biography of a professional at work. The Hebrew article is refbombed. Our article is shorter, so there are less references, yet what we have is equally a mixed bag. gidonb (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 20:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment unlike the many other darts players that came here because of mass-rejected prods, this person actually has news articles about him and not just a place in stats databases like the others. [4][5]. I'll comment back with a !vote once I finish my WP:BEFORE. MolecularPilot 06:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
It's just routine reporting of him getting a tour card. 20-30 players do this annually. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. A search in google news found 2 relevant sources but they are from darts related media. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:NGAME and likely falls under WP:FANCRUFT. Summary-only description of the game, with only one reference, which is about the creepypasta, not the game itself. The rest of the article is completely unsourced and provides no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Coverage on Google Books and Google Scholar is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, most of which are about the creepypasta, which I would argue is more notable, though it probably still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nothing at all on JSTOR. Should redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)
Similar issues to MoM, this time with no references at all, also fails NGAME, with nothing at all on Google Books, Google Scholar, or JSTOR. Proposing same redirect to List of Godzilla games. Masskito (talk)
Comment I found one review for Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters. [11],[12]Timur9008 (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep per the sources found by Mika1h. It's weak, but there's enough for this game to pass the notability bar. Godzilla 2 should likely be Merged with Monster of Monsters given their overlap, with any Reception for War of the Monsters covered there. If anything more for the sequel comes up, ping me and I'll change my vote, but for now I feel that Mika1h's assessment is entirely accurate to how I feel on the matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep, political party that had representation in the national parliament of India. Not impossible to source, and as per the number of references it is worth noting that there isn't a lot of 1999 material from Indian press online but WP:NEXIST more sources will exist offline in Indian national news media. --Soman (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
The last sentence of WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface". This article has been tagged as having no sources since December 2009. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
You're misreading NEXIST. Here is a party in national parliament, so it is reasonable to assume that there would exist offline sources available in addition to the available online sources. And lack of sourcing is not a deletion criteria in itself (apart from BLP articles). --Soman (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Non notable Pourosova (aka municipality) mayor. The article has some refs, but all of them are basically interview masquerading as article, WP:PRIMARY. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNGআফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
In any case, it is not ready for the main space. If he is noteworthy, you will certainly be able to find information about him to write an article that is not just an infobox. In that case, move to Draft, improve, and ask for a review. If there is nothing else, delete without delay. 93.65.245.63 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
i didn't written that doesn't mean ge isn't important! there is much info about him on internet but not written in Wikipedia Therealbey (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Still there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Our guidelines for local politicians are pretty strict. A mayor of a relatively small town like Golapganj Municipality is not notable. The news coverage would need to be national or global in scope and not just local to justify an article under GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep vote here in this discussion so I don't think a Soft Deletion is appropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Research shows Milo helped launch a fund called Joyful Ventures to invest in food sustainable companies and co-founded non-profit Mercy for Animals. The mainstream news coverage where his name appears are about the fund launch (and then very little else), and he is only mentioned as one of the cofounders, and there doesn’t seem to be mainstream coverage of Mercy for Animals in connection with him (or in general really). Not clear he has enough mainstream coverage to hit the notability bar. Jenny8lee (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
would a Move to Joyful Ventures be a possibility worth considering? I see some references, some are WP:ROUTINE or passing mentions. [13]Andre🚐 22:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to The Good Food Institute per WP:ATD. As the co-founder of that non-profit that is probably the best outcome rather than deletion. Otherwise fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd redirect to The Good Food Institute but the subject isn't mentioned at that target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.
Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.
Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.
This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name. Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books"). (I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.) Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[14]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheterinterview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radioshow on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:
- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).
- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The first Dagens Nyheter article "Separation är världens sjuka" is a personal interview with the subject including direct questions such as "How did you become attracted to Buddhism?" so it is significant coverage rather than name-dropping.
- The second Dagens Nyheter”Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist:” is an interview with the subject's co-teacher Sante Poromaa which includes relevant coverage of the subject. For example (translated):This means that he (along with his wife [Kanja Odland Roshi]) is now the highest ranking Zen Buddhist teacher in Sweden.
- The Sveriges Radiointerview does not stand alone as evidence of notability but should be considered alongside the other sources.
- The book 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening is a collection of essays on the history of buddhism published by the Sri Lankan government which addresses the subject in the section on Buddhism in Scandinavia.
Nothing in your contribution above, Allllllice, produces some kind of clear evidence of notability. I mean, I concur with your assessment of the "sources" more than I disagree! Yes, "self-made", "related zen centers [announcements]", "primary sources" only supporting existence (I do not disagree she has existed!), one "interview [which] does not stand alone as evidence of notability", and so forth. I submit I cannot, much as I try, fathom the persistence of support here. A zen teacher among hundreds of thousands, yes. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help if I clarify that, since Zen buddhism is a lineage-based tradition based on dharma transmission, to be a "teacher" has a specific meaning. The number of sanctioned teachers is limited (many orders of magnitude less than hundreds of thousands) and even more so for those with the title Roshi. I realise that this isn't evidence for notability in itself, but I hope it is useful as context. Allllllice (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Non-independent sources can be used as references with some caveats, but they do not count towards notability. None of the sources except "Separation är världens sjuka" are both independent and in-depth. "Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist" and " 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening" are independent, but the first one offers no in-depth info on Odland and the second seems to suffer from the same problem (google-books won't let me see everything). We can't seem to get to three sources that satisfy the SIRS criteria. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Three best sources is helpful advice for those looking to demonstrate notability but it isn't a requirement. The criteria at WP:SIGCOV state that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." We have multiple independent sources here and agree that at least one of them is in-depth. Allllllice (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The subject appears to be recognized in international publications as an important Buddhist teacher in Scandanavia. I'm not seeing a particularly convincing source analysis as to why the sources in question don't meet out criteria at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 20:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; as for notability, the release of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay has historical value and a chronological list of those films helps document what has been recognized as a valuable contribution to the history and preservation of film: the page documents that in a clear way. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Whilst the label itself is notable, the list of films that they licensed for release is not. This is just a catalogue, and largely unreferenceable. It's not like they had any hand in the production of any of these films. Catalogues of way more notable reissue labels have already been deleted, see the linked discussion above and many more similar ones. This is just WP:FANCRUFT. --woodensuperman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you but my point is precisely that the list itself has value. I could add references to every item and remove those ”unsourceable” if indeed there are any. Later maybe. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
KeepCyberpower7 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Note: Struck comment from blocked user. --woodensuperman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks; @Cyberpower7 you might want to elaborate if you wish that your !vote receives attention, though. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Exactly how encyclopedic is the listing of their 2003 DVD re-issue of The Railway Children for example? Sure, examples of their really notable releases can be and are approriately included at Anchor Bay Entertainment, but including their entire WP:CATALOG here is WP:LISTCRUFT. --woodensuperman 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
delete useless listcruft. This is not original releases, hence no lasting value. --Altenmann>talk 19:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete This distributor simply does not produce any original content themselves. Nate•(chatter) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I think I must insist here: The history and timeline of the releases of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay is encyclopaedic and no "fancruft", whatever that word is supposed to mean. The fact that the films were obviously not original Anchor Bay productions is totally irrelevant! The timeline and scope are of historic value....https://deadline.com/2024/02/anchor-bay-entertainment-relaunched-1235827165/
new iteration of Anchor Bay Entertainment with the goal to curate a new library of films for distribution, projects that range from new release genre films, undiscovered treasures, cult classics, and remastered catalog releases.
The only thing that could be discussed imv is whether this can be merged back into the article, and I don't think that, sizewise, it should.
Also see GBooks where individual or grouped releases by AC as a project are covered; and open, New Blood: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Horror. (2021) University of Wales Press, p. 115.
Just having a brief look, seeing it's a list and dismiss it as "Listcruft" is certainly not enough. Yes, there's work to be done. But that's not a reason for deletion.Mushy Yank (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
And the sources seem to indicate the topic of the list was covered as a set, meeting Wikipedia:NLIST, by the way. Mushy Yank (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
And I must insist that this is textbook WP:NOTCATALOG. As I mention above, giving examples of individual notable releases in the main article is encyclopedic. Listing every release WP:INDISCRIMINATEly is not, as you can see from the large number of precedents in the other discussions I have mentioned. --woodensuperman 12:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
giving examples of individual notable releases is not what I did (your question above, on the other hand, was about one particular film's release...). The large number of AfDs you listed may or may not be comparable with the present one; but that does not change the fact that my point is that this list is encyclopaedic in my view as offering a timeline of the history of the release of rediscovered film and the sources mentioned by me are meant to prove just that (the quotes are about the topic of the list as a set not about the individual entries and just read the page 115 of New Blood and other GBooks hits, please, thank you). I'm leaving it that that because I have the feeling that I am repeating myself here. Mushy Yank (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we get a more substantial rationale for why this doesn't meet WP:NLIST? I see we have a lot of precedent here, but that's mostly just people saying "WP:NOTCATALOG". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Nominating person again for deletion as this webcomic creator has not been active for a number of years and there are more notable comic creators that do not have wikipedia pages. There are even more notable people with this name that do not have wikipedia articles. Gomanga1 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect – The deletion argument doesn't hold water, but looking through the sources used in the article, I cannot find a single secondary source that says anything about Arnold except listing him as the writer. Nothing in my books eiither. I can't even find out where he's from or what his inspirations are based on these sources, there's not even an interview. Using exclusively primary sources for biographical information is a problem. Aoi House seems to be the primary topic here, with Vampire Cheerleaders also having only one review. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Why exactly does the Delete argument not hold water? You corroborate the argument by your take on sources. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
We have many articles on artists who are no longer active, that is normal for an encyclopedia. Gomanga's claim that "there are even more notable people with this name that do not have a wikipedia article" is irrelevant for a deletion discussion (WP:OSE) because it's fine if there are notable topics with the same name. The existence of those articles would just depend on whether someone has written them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking more participation. Considering a redirect outcome, which of the mentioned articles are being proposed as the target article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect – Per Maplestrip/Mable's suggestion above, redirecting to the Aoi House page as it is the author's primary series seems like it would make the most sense.
Gomanga1 has made few contributions in Wikipedia aside from the contested article.
Delete outright for lack of independent sources supportingnotability. All proffered links are advertorials, trade magazines' routine announcements, and listings. Fails WP:GNG. Fails all WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Something isn't adding up here. If there is enough evidence for independent articles on two works created by the subject; there probably would be enough for WP:NAUTHOR to be proved to save this article. Three critical reviews are all that is needed to prove that SNG. Unless those two works are also not notable, I suspect there may be enough reviews in the Aoi House and Vampire Cheerleaders articles to prove notability here. Did anyone look at the sourcing in those pages?4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind merging Vampire Cheerleaders into this article, instead of getting rid of this article. But the problem remains that none of the sources say anything at all about the author. It would just be along the lines of "he created x from here to then, and created y from there to thus" and that's it... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 20:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
BLP of a human rights lawyer sourced mainly to statements she has made, comments she has offered and interviews she has recorded. Lacks independent in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Syria. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I respectfully disagree. This individual has received significant independent coverage, in my view. Firecat93 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete - these is literally zero coverage in reliable sources about her. Comments from the peanut gallery and advocacy outside of a courtroom are not significant coverage of a BLP. Passing mentions aren’t either. Bearian (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I'm not sure what Bearian means by reliable source. I certainly think the PBS News Hour is a reliable source. As are others therein ... As far as the sources referring to statements from her ... well ... is there a news source out there that doesn't at some point quote the subject? — Maile (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBimtalk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBimtalk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN, is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.
So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Every bit helps! I'd like a little more ideally before I'd be super comfortable arguing for a keep, but this is a good step in the right direction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [15]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an interesting discussion and you all have uncovered some interesting sources. But we still have to have some arguments for a particular outcome. But y'all have another week to consider where you stand on this article or whether you might refocus it to be about the author. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[16][17] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --woodensuperman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The company is notable enough (though the article could use some sources that help establish this fact, like the ones my colleague above found).TH1980 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely to meet NCORP, but could do a redirect to William Lustig as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
The company is not notable (NCORP) the sources are paid and of bad quality not being reliable and independent with deep coverage of the company; 25lucky (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - This and this both listed on the page are neither paid or bad quality. They both seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Unless there is something I am missing you can point out. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891TalkWork 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Single cubesat project of which i could find only a single news article and a few blog posts outside of the project itself Firestar587 (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep I found a few articles as well: [18], [19], [20], [21]. The DN article is a bit below SIGCOV level of the project but together I think it meets WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge with KTH Royal Institute of Technology It's a student cubesat project and not inherently notable. The coverage presented is not getting it over WP:GNG for me in any case. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. It would help if a Polish speaker were to go through the sources in detail and explain what they are. While I see some that look routine, others look plausible, and I'm seeing no pressing need to delete this article. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Wondering if @Piotrus might have a moment to provide some insight, or if they know someone else who does. They're the main Polish speaker I know of, but happy for anyone's input. StarMississippi 00:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi I am suprised this has no pl wiki article. It's creator, @Wikibenchris, is fluent in English, and I expect they should provide the answers we need. I am concerned about OR in this article (ex. the claim of earliest mention is sourced to a 1876 map...). GNG is an issue, the only SIGCOV I was able to locate is this article on a local Polish portal [22]. The article would be fine except OR and GNG issues... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your time @Piotrus. @Wikibenchris unfortunately hasn't edited since before the AfD but I'd see no issue with providing the text should this close as delete and they return to editing and request it to improve. (Not saying it should be deleted, I cannot read any of the sourcing to fairly assess it) StarMississippi 14:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like a lot of work has gone into this, and if any (out of policy) OR could be pruned out, it could be a valuable article. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment is there a possible merge or redirect target for this under WP:ATD? Seems a shame to lose some of this content.4meter4 (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: is there really nowhere we can transwiki something like this? Seems to me to obviously not be a Wikipedia article as such, but isn't there somewhere it can go? -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I'm just going to say keep because nobody wants to delete this who is commenting here. It may be an WP:IAR vote, but having it is better than losing it.4meter4 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Unless someone wants to write an individual article for each of the listed buildings along it, which are all notable in their own right per WP:GEOFEAT, we should desist from deleting information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)