You know how sometimes it's hard to tell if a subject is barely notable and low profile (for now, anyways) or not notable at all? That's the problem with this article. I dream of horses(Hoofprints)(Neigh at me) 22:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Article has been unsourced since it was created in 2006. This group fails WP:BAND, no significant coverage found in reliable sources. None of the members are notable, they haven't released any albums, or won any awards. Their initial claim to fame is based on them playing with Phish during a 1991 summer tour. Isaidnoway(talk) 22:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: per WP:BEFORE, subject passes WP:BASIC. And this article has persisted since 2018. AFD Nomination seems intentional or any paid agenda. B-Factor (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:INHERITED. Nothing shows he is notable outside his relationship with Gautam Adani. Lorstaking (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The subject holds multiple notable positions in notable organizations, and the sources are reliable enough. Citations can be implemented.Lalu Faizy (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Holding positions in notable organisations does not make one notable by association, see WP:INHERITED. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
These are very poor sources for establishing notability, as all of them are Indian news organisations, which are known to release press releases or paid articles without any disclosure, as outlined in WP:NEWSORGINDIA.
Your first source is sourced to india.com which is written in a promotional language. Same thing with the second source, your third source is only a DD footage of his speech at Uttrakhand GIS 2023, your fourth source also appears to be a paid article given the promotional tone, and your fifth source is only a coverage of the speech he made at GIS 2023. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:INHERITED. None of the references above establish WP:GNG. Dympies (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The article is live since 2018, and the article has maintained a certain level of notability over time. Since it's creation, the article has been developed with reliable sources, and although it may have room for improvement, its longevity demonstrates to met WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE when it was initially published. Regemoso (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Articles that have existed for far longer than this get deleted regularly at AfD, keeping an article only because it has existed for some time has no basis in policy. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Do we have a possible WP:ATD here? A redirect to Gautam Adani? Or would that be irrelevant to that article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Subject played one season of professional lacrosse. I found this piece (continued here), which appears to be WP:SIGCOV at first glance but really only amounts to about six sentences of independent coverage of Cranston. There is also this and this from his post-playing career, which is why I decided to put it up for discussion. JTtheOG (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable performer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. All references are mentions of subject in articles about podcasts/live appearances, no significant coverage found in Google News. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Subgroup of an ensemble that currently does not have a page. The Singapore Wind Symphony may be notable from my research, but the percussion ensemble is not. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
delete no evidence of notability. --Altenmann>talk 18:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete - sounds interesting, but there aren’t enough sources to make even a stub. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. The Drum: A History (2012, Scarecrow Press) gives it a brief mention as a notable ensemble on page 186. It's not in-depth, but a fact that the ensemble even gets a nod in an academic book about the history of the drum is a clue that the ensemble may be notable. This is an article about the group winning an international percussion competition. This is an interesting article promoting a Berlin concert; although it clearly wouldn't be considered independent. It's possible foreign language sources exist about the group given they have toured to Europe as well as in Asia. Perhaps something in the Berlin press for example? 4meter4 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete Elephants are sadly abused in many ways, but the fact that this happens doesn't make it a specific notable topic. If anything there can be a sentence at Elephant polo saying they are forced to play other sports, but these sources don't justify an article here. Reywas92Talk 21:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously-unreferenced BLP about an academic and chemist, and have added one reference. I cannot find other coverage, however, and on the basis of what I can find, cannot see that notability is demonstrated. I accept I may be missing coverage in Arabic. Please see the commented-out section headed "Additional contributions by professor Thanun Pyriadi since 2006 up till now": I do not think that anything listed there pushes the article into notability (and it is unreferenced anyway), though would be pleased if other editors can demonstrate otherwise. I do not think there is an obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
A disambiguation page is supposed to list unrelated topics with the same name. This does neither of those - the topics aren't unrelated (all being of the same class of video game) and aren't all called Train Simulator unadorned either. What this really is is a mistitled list of train simulators, which is wholly redundant to the longer list at Train simulator* Pppery *it has begun... 19:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Move to Train Simulator per WP:DIFFCAPS but keep; Microsoft Train Simulator appears to be called simply Train Simulator at times, so there are at least two potential primary topics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Based nearly entirely on unreliable sources, with no lasting significance or impact. nableezy - 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Lebanon. nableezy - 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
As some ISBN numbers seem to be invalid I am not sure this is notable enough to be a separate article. No objection to merging into Lazistan Sanjak or elsewhere as an alternative to deletion Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete along with all the other spurious creations by this editor. Unverifiable is about the politest thing you can say about it. Mccapra (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep I do see Indonesian articles such as [3][4][5] which demonstrate the club is covered in the media on a consistent basis, but I'm struggling with the language barrier. SportingFlyerT·C 18:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete along with all the other spurious creations by this editor. Unverifiable is about the politest thing you can say about it. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Skudaslazuri - did you use an LLM? If so please could you explain how you used it - for example what was your prompt?
If anything is worth keeping from this article I have no objection to it being moved to Laz rebellion (1832–1834)Chidgk1 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete along with all the other spurious creations by this editor. Unverifiable is about the politest thing you can say about it. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG as there doesn't seem to be any coverage outside of discography listings and user generated content/social media sites. The one extant source does not mention the subject, and there are no additional sources on the subject's page on the Indonesian language Wikipedia. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Here we have something of a puzzle. Baker describes it as a post office; google searches produce a railroad liability case from the 1910s in which a girl boards a train here, though the earliest topo I could find, from 1963, shows no trace of a rail line. Another hit is for a grain elevator, and that is still there, or some similar business. But that's it, except for a single house next to the facility. It's very rare for a rail line to evaporate that entirely, so I'm not utterly convinced that these hits all refer to the same place; but all in all I'd say there is a lack of evidence for a settlement here. A rail station seems the best fit. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
List has no clear criteria for inclusion. And if we were to include every saint from the four Churches mentioned in the table, then it would be far too long. I've created a new article (Lists of saints) which should serve as a directory for lists of saints, so I believe List of Saints should become a redirect to that. ―Howard • 🌽33 15:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
If this does get deleted, can we not delete the history and just put the new one over it/histmerge? I would rather not delete a 23 year article history if it can be avoided. Or redirect is fine too just keep the history. No opinion on the proposal itself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
why does the history matter? ―Howard • 🌽33 15:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
With pages this old and with this many sub pages, there's an extremely high likelihood this has been content split to some of the other saint lists at some point, so it would need to be kept historically for attribution reasons. Also historically interesting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I can't answer if it should be either. ―Howard • 🌽33 16:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
weak delete: Source three is likely a RS. the rest don't seem to be... Source six is about his wife. This [6] is a brief listing, I don't think we have enough to confirm notability needed for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
This article is most likely based on original research. There are no reliable sources about a distinct "Maronite flag." The white flag with a cedar is simply an earlier version of the Flag of Lebanon. Syphax98 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The page has multiple sources. Request is just being done by user who does negationist edits to anything Maronite. [7]Red Phoenician (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Also, user failed to notify me of the proposal. Red Phoenician (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
The sources don't talk about a distinct "Maronite flag". --Syphax98 (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
And please just talk about the sources and don't try to label me. I could do the same thing by pointing out the nature of your contributions (we are discussing it here), which are clearly associated with ethnonationalist ideas, deprecated here on Wikipedia. I am active on the Italian-language Wikipedia, not here. Here on the English-language Wikipedia I am limiting myself to these topics, because I was surprised by how much certain users have imposed certain clearly POV ideas in recent years. --Syphax98 (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Three of the sources distinctly talk about a Maronite flag. Please review all the sources before making claims. Red Phoenician (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The crwflags website couldn't be considered a reliable source. The Lebanese Armed Forces website does not refer to any "Maronite flag" and calls this version "العلم اللبناني في الفترة الانتقالية (1918-1920)" ("The Lebanese flag in the transitional period (1918-1920)"). The Minbladeh website (also non reliable anyway) makes no reference to a "Maronite flag" and defines this as the "Flag of the region of Lebanon after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (1918-1920)". Some sources refer to the fact that this version was used widely by the Maronite community (which was the main religious community in favor of the formation of an independent Lebanon"), but sources rarely refer to it as the "Maronite flag". The article itself refers to the fact that this flag was designed by Shukri El Khoury and Naoum Labaki, active in the Mahjar (an Arab cultural association); the activity of these two intellectuals was never aimed at creating a separate Maronite identity, but rather an Arab and Lebanese identity that transcended religious boundaries. --Syphax98 (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
This article reads like a FANDOM page in its entirety. It fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it does not explain why this specific plot element is encyclopedic and is almost entirely plot summary. It is also already heavily detailed in Time Lord#Regeneration, rendering an article length treatment unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep/Speedy Keep: It very much does not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it explains how the process came about out-of-universe, and how it has changed. It could be way better, and needs better referencing too, which would need a separate article, so the topic does not its own article. Also, this AfD is doubly strange, because even if failed the above parameters, it would still be a redirect and not deleted; and that the latter section is sourced mostly by primary sources and is way too overly detailed (and needs heavy editing to be encyclopedic). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Time Lord#Regeneration per WP:NOPAGE. As a sub-topic of the concept of Time Lords as a whole, it should (and already is at great length) be covered as part of that article rather than split out. When you take away the massive amounts of overly detailed, in-universe plot information, then there is no need for this to be split out from the parent article, and that parent article already covers the concept of Regeneration in great detail. Rorshacma (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Time Lord#Regeneration. There is some material in "Conceptual history" that should be included at Time Lord. The Regeneration (Doctor Who) article is long and well-developed (over 10,000 words), but there are entire sections with no inline citations to secondary sources. The material in sections like "River Song's regenerations" is backed up only by the in-text citations to the episodes of Doctor Who, which are all fictional primary sources. Those sections can't pass WP:NOTPLOT without original research. Rjjiii (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
At least portions of that section could be sourced to [8] and [9]. McYeee (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
The actual process of regeneration is discussed less there than the significance of Doctor Who becoming a shapeshifting entity, thus making things largely about The Doctor. I am not convinced this indicates notability for the regeneration process itself, as reincarnation as a plot mechanic surely was not invented with Doctor Who. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
By "Doctor Who becoming a shapeshifting entity", do you mean "regeneration being introduced as a power the Doctor has"? If so isn't that coverage of both the character and the plot device? Why should we see such coverage more primarily about the character?
Reincarnation as a plot mechanism certainly predates Doctor Who, but the particular use of it "was very much uncharted territory. Up to this point, most changes of actor had either been simply ignored on-screen, or been done by hastily bringing in new characters to cover for an absence" (ibid). The LA Times makes the point that regeneration is different from what we see in other media as well: " Can you imagine if James Gandolfini had been replaced as Tony Soprano every few seasons?"[10].
If your objection is that every source that's about regeneration is also about the Doctor, then doesn't this mean that divergence should be deleted because ever source about it is also about fields (i.e., scalar fields, vector fields and, more generally, tensor fields), that rigor mortis should be deleted because every source about rigor mortis is about death, and that presidency of Abraham Lincoln should be deleted because every source about it is about him? I suspect that your answer is "no" for at least one of those, I can't see what makes this case different. McYeee (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. While this might be notable, SIGCOV and OR are major issues. I can see this, much shortened, as a section of the Time Lords or such, but right now this is fancrufty trivia that begs for WP:TNT treatment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Cannot find anything in Google Scholar and hard to tell if the linked source is enough to justify the article Chidgk1 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Anthony Bryer seems to be reputable but I am not an academic so I don’t know whether that sourcing is enough. Bryer was writing in the 1960s but a lot of the stuff which was unpublished in his day should now be available by searching for "Trebizond" at https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=Trebizond&_sd=&_ed=&_hb= so has anyone studied and published a more modern work based on the primary sources? Also the Ottoman archives are available as far as I know, so should not they be cited in some more modern secondary source? And why does the article not exist in Turkish Wikipedia? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Aha at the end of page 202 Bryer says “the attack on Trebizond never materialised” Chidgk1 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete as I am unable to find sources in Turkish. The creator has a record of creating battle-related article with unverifiable sourcing which get deleted at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Very PROMO, only sourced to their website. Nothing else found, no sourcing seems to talk about this outfit/company. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Zero indication of notability, zero independent sources, apparently created for the purpose of promoting Reflection Pictures Studio (part of a walled garden of drafts and articles promoting that company – they are not mentioned in any source, so it is anybody's guess where the claim comes from that they were involved in the production.) bonadeacontributionstalk 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
No independent coverage of this individual that I could find (some interviews, but interviews are primary sources and fail WP:SECONDARY, and self-published coverage). Article has been tagged as unsourced since January 2024. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: No sourcing found for a poet with this name, an obituary and stories about a drowning. I don't see critical reviews of any of the works listed either. Otherwise, article is all primary sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and more specifically WP:WEB. Unremarkable video that became a meme in one country, not notable enough for inclusion. A BEFORE search just gave me very few relavant hits due to the common nature of the title, so if there's anyone (particularly any Greek editors) who can find anything to improve this then fantastic, but otherwise I don't think it should stay.
The article itself is minimal, with the photo used in the article not actually at all relevant and merely a photo of a church in a town near where the video was filmed, for example. CoconutOctopustalk 11:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The article is cited by two independent sources, as the policy of General Notability clearly states. If your before search gave you even a few relevant hits, I don't see why it shouldn't be notable. These hits are still "relevant". The fact that it is "a meme in one country" doesn't stop it from been notable in the English Wiki. After all, the English Wiki is more "global" due to the fact that almost anyone speaks English in our modern, globalized world. To be frank, I can assure you that the Greek wiki is somewhat "conservative" to articles editor percieve as "non-notable". The Greek version was flagged with speedy deletion while it could have just noted as PROD. Thankfully, even the fact that it is just nominated for PROD gives me the opportunity to engage in conversation and defend the article. Thank you, and yes, I mean it😉Μητσίκας (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia not a comic book. This is not a significant event that should have an entry in this encyclopedia. Fails all notability rules. Mekomo (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
It suceeds all notability rules. Also I doubt you understand what a comic book is🤔Μητσίκας (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete. There is no mention of this place anywhere in searches and impossible to verify. This might be a hoax given that it was created by an editor with only 18 edit count since 2007. Mekomo (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I can only find obituaries with this name, nothing about a place with this name. Poor sourcing doesn't help either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Sourcing here is only about funding, I can only see items about them redesigning their logo. None of which prove notability. PR items don't count. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure about the notability of this person despite being one of the Polish football goalkeepers with the most clean-sheets in Poland national football team. This is no longer considered free pass and Bako must meet WP:GNG only to have an article. I have checked corresponding articles on other languages, especially the Polish one, but none of them provide any significant coverage of him. I was told that the Polish Wikipedia is still inclusionist when it comes to sportspeople, but not sure about football players even if they have not participated in major tournaments. Regarding secondary sources, all I found were interviews as well as news of manager appointment. Onet might be the exception I found, but after translation, it was Bako saying about himself; GNG requires news coverage of someone else talking about the subject instead.
I wonder how long this article survived in mainspace without significant, major updates for 17 years, seeing that none of the previous revisions had any sufficient source either. Although it is quite possible that offline sources exist, given the generation of this former footballer, we can't assume that to be the case. If we can't find any decent source at all, a redirect to Poland national football team#Most clean sheets would be alternative to deletion.
Speedy keep Not a great nomination. Jarosław Bako made a whopping 35 appearances for the Poland national team and spent time abroad in the first tiers of Israel and Turkey including a two-year spell at one of the major Turkish clubs, Beşiktaş. This vita itself indicates notability. I didn't dig through newspaper archives or search for offline sources which are sure to exist for a player who mostly played in the 1980s and 1999s but I found online articles at laczynaspilka and wmzpn.pl. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Footballer who played very few games in the J League, 14 of them and not full games either. It would need good, significant coverage to meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. No usable sources in ja:wiki. Geschichte (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
When 18 games in Mexico's second league is all he has done, the article would need good, significant coverage to meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Without it, deletion is the outcome. The problematic creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Playing just 18 matches is a weak claim to notability. This is one of the most common birth names in Spanish-speaking countries, so it's possible to find namesakes while searching on Google, failing WP:V too. ⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆ 11:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable hospital. No sources with significant coverage, and I found none online. (all are about the stabbing, which would make the event notable, but not the hospital itself) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Notability isn't inherited, fails WP:NCORP. The redirect was removed twice, so putting it up here for discussion. Suggest restoring the redirect and protecting the page from re-creation. - The9ManTalk 09:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
This article has absolutely no references and through my online searches I cannot find any reliable ones to add. The page has been abandoned for ten years and I think the subject is niche enough to not warrant its own page. Jolielover (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Comments: there are a few potential sources here for example, but I’m not sure if there’s significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete as per above, doesn't meet WP:GNG for an article in its own right and only has a passing mention on the Union J article, so don't think a redirect is necessary. Orange sticker (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to 2004 Fallujah ambush, the redirect target for the other 3 victims of the ambush. Coverage of Helvenston is in relation to the ambush or subsequent events. Otherwise he was one of thousands of individuals killed during the Iraq War. His notability is due only to the ambush, therefore delete per WP:BIO1E. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - He is known for more than just one event – he was on a reality TV show and was a credited Hollywood consultant, and was the subject of a dedicated LA Times obituary [11]. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect: as above. I don't see notability outside of the event. 20 years later and there is no sourcing to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
"No sourcing?" The LA Times source has been added to the article, and there is notability outside of this one event. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS although notable at first sustained coverage died off quick. There has been no expanded reports on the incident. A crash of a heavy aircraft with fatalities under 10 has no notability in itself.
@ me in the below discussion when you comment so i can get the fastest response or see your comment ASAP. Lolzer3k 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete - Not a scheduled flight or a passenger flight (these are generally considered automatically notable), and it appears to have been a military flight or military-operated flight, in which case a shootdown isn't notable, it's fortunes of war. - The BushrangerOne ping only 06:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete - I created this article when it was said that this was a civilian cargo plane, but since now it is practiacally confirmed it was a military one, and since no important figures were killed, and there were no particular consequences nor continued coverage I think we Can delete it. - SignorPignoliniTalk 06:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jay D. Easy (t) 20:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per norm. EBLDP (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep This won't be kept, but the only issue with it is really that the coverage window was too close in time to the accident. Articles like this show that there may be further coverage, in which case I would have absolutely no problem restoring this article. SportingFlyerT·C 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I believe this event meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines:
Significance: The incident involves a military aircraft, and any military engagements resulting in casualties often have broader implications for regional stability and/or international relations. This particular event is noteworthy given the ongoing issues Sudan is facing.
Media Coverage: There has been significant media coverage of the incident, which explains what happened in the incident thoroughly. Reliable sources have reported on the details of the event. Some citations which I easily found are here, here, here, and here that discuss the incident in detail.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 05:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep There's nothing WP:ROUTINE about this story or its coverage. Per Hacked, this article details a significant event, for which there has been WP:SIGCOV. Although the coverage seems to have died down, it think it's still too soon for deletion.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Boulder Bridge exists, as does Ross Drive Bridge; I see no reason why we should have a one-line stub simply because these are listed on the NRHP together; even if expanded out this would still be a content fork of the two sub-articles. Hog FarmTalk 05:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to the 2007 article Boulder Bridge which encompasses both as a U.S. National Register of Historic Places listing. The author who created this one in 2015 probably didn't notice the NRHP article was already in place. — Maile (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. This is here in case someone is searching using the formal NRHP name. Normally it would be a redirect, but as the nominator points out, there are two separate articles for Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge, and it's not clear where a redirect should point. (I had split the articles in 2015 since the two bridges are unrelated other than both being built in Rock Creek Park in the same decade; they carry different roads over different creeks.) It may be better to treat it as a disambiguation page. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
That's actually a pretty good idea. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Here is a possible solution.
(1) - Keep the article named simply Boulder Bridge created by West Virginian 10-22-2007 It is technically correct in content and sourcing. And it's formatted correctly.
(2) - The article named Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge was created by Antony-22 10-22-2015. It is named correctly, but only contains one sentence and no sourcing.
(3) Need tech advice on how to do this, if it can be done.
Might be a good idea to first delete Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge.
Move Boulder Bridge to the title Boulder Bridge and Ross Drive Bridge, while keeping its editing history.
Since I've never performed such a article swap before, we need help from an admin who can perform this swap. — Maile (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
As I said above, the two bridges are fairly unrelated and it wouldn't be appropriate to cover them in a single article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Clarification for everyone on how these two came to be listed as one. Please see NRHP Nomination Form. It was listed that way by the National Register of Historic Places. — Maile (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We have 3 different Redirect target articles being suggested here, can we agree on one that is the most appropriate? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I ran across this trying to source unreferenced Missouri articles for the ongoing unreferenced articles drive. While the essay WP:NAIRPORT suggests that municipal general aviation airports are likely to be notable, that essay does not carry the weight of policy and I'm not finding any substantial coverage for this at all. This from MODOT looks substantive at first, but actually only 4 sentences is about this airport and the rest is about general aviation in the state as a whole. Newspapers.com searching in Missouri for this airport turns up coverage of airports in Alabama and Memphis, but only a statement that a large crowd turned out for a BBQ pork dinner about this airport and a second brief statement announcing a fly-in at the airport in 1961. I know these municipal airports are usually notable, but I don't see a WP:GNG pass here due to the only coverage a fairly thorough WP:BEFORE is bringing up that isn't registration-type listings are the four sentences from MODOT and the two one-sentence passing mentions. The NAIRPORT essay does not carry the weight of policy. Hog FarmTalk 05:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Shelby County as an ATD. BTW, Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer (yes, I know it's an essay but still) and WP:GEOLAND tells us that artificial features related to infrastructure need to pass WP:GNG which this does not. So if the redirect target doesn't work for folks, then delete... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of airports in Missouri, which is a much better target than the county itself. There's just the bare minimum of information about this unattended turf runway that I could find, but I think we're just a source away from being able to restore it if someone comes across this later. SportingFlyerT·C 20:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Agree on this, din't know it was there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect per Sportingflyer and Alexandermcnabb. I agree that List of airports in Missouri currently appears to be the best target that allows us to get the most information to the reader. I suppose there's a non-zero chance this may prove to be notable, but I'm also not convinced it warrants a stand-alone page when we have a fully functioning list we can add the information to. If a future editor does end up expanding the articles on Shelbyville, Missouri or Shelby County, Missouri and finds that they have enough for more than two sentences on the airport, then I have no objection to changing the redirect target. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Shelby County per previous comments. While WP:NAIRPORT says that municipal airports are "likely" to be notable, WP:NBUILD is a better policy to follow in my estimation, and this airport is not mentioned in secondary sources aside from cursory and WP:ROTM mentions in aviation databases and local news. For what it's worth, I've been AFDing and PRODing obscure Texas airports on an on-off-but-mostly-off basis, and it doesn't take much to establish notability—features in aviation magazines or local news stories that focus on the airport will do it—but this airport doesn't seem to reach even this low bar. Carguychris (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Carguychris - I tend to think that this would be better handled at the article for whatever governmental entity operates the airport. In this case, the article states that the airport is operated by the City of Shelbyville, Missouri. What are your thoughts on this? Hog FarmTalk 23:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. I didn't notice that. Carguychris (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There seems to be a consensus to Redirect but we have two different target articles proposed. We have to get that down to ONE. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:30, 15 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)
Delete (1) It would be better to cover this minor administrative detail at Tamil Nadu#Adminsitration and politics. I'd suggest a merge to there except that nothing in the current article is sourced and some of it is the sort of stuff that is potentially dependent on when the article was written - and I'm not sure the subject is important enough to merge without messing up the balance of the target article. (2) In any case, this sort of generic title, attached to an article covering one state of one country, is never appropriate. It may well be that other states and countries have second grade municipalities too, so the article would have to be moved to Second grade municipality (Tamil Nadu) were it kept. For this reason, a redirect would also be inappropriate. Elemimele (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete, my comments about Second Grade Municipalitie apply equally; (1) It would be better to cover this minor administrative detail at Tamil Nadu#Adminsitration and politics. I'd suggest a merge to there except that nothing in the current article is sourced and some of it is the sort of stuff that is potentially dependent on when the article was written - and I'm not sure the subject is important enough to merge without messing up the balance of the target article. (2) In any case, this sort of generic title, attached to an article covering one state of one country, is never appropriate. It may well be that other states and countries have first/second grade municipalities too, so the article would have to be moved to First grade municipality (Tamil Nadu) were it kept. For this reason, a redirect would also be inappropriate. Elemimele (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Nominating page for deletion for the following issues per WP:DP.
1. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content
The article contains large amounts of puffery and reads like an advertisement. Majority of the article is a list of speakers at conventions, mentions of their books, and external bare urls to their blogs or other websites.
2. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes
The article does not list sources for claims of speakers at various conferences. Several existing sources are primary sources.
The article makes false and misleading claims, engages in original research with no sources, and presents their subjects in a promotional manner.
Example 1, stating that "James O'Keefe – journalist whose investigations have exposed corruption and malfeasance in major taxpayer-funded institutions, including ACORN, Planned Parenthood and NPR". James O'Keefe is a far-right activist that uses deceptively edited videos to attack mainstream media sources and progressive sources, and whose videos exposing corruption have been verifiably proven false, as in the case with the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.
Example 2, stating "Ben Swann – Emmy Award-winning journalist" but not including any mention that he is a well-known, notable conspiracy theorist.
Example 3: stating "Stefan Molyneux – host of Freedomain Radio" but not mentioning how he is best known as a white nationalist.
3. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
I cannot find reliable, non-primary sources for the large majority of the claimed speakers at these conventions.
4. Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
Majority of the individuals listed fail notability requirements. BootsED (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more than the nominator's opinion here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
This article hardly addresses issues, and is apparent from the get go with the introductory paragraph rehashing info that can be found in many other articles on nudism such as Nudity, Naturism, and Nude recreation, etc.. The article on Nudity especially has multiple sections dedicated to issues, in regards to its legality, cultural acceptance, and child development. The terminology section is totally unnecessary for an article about the issues related to a concept as it does not address any terms related to issues, only the history of naturist related terms themselves. Diversity in nudist clubs is not relevant to its issues unless those issues are stated, discussed, and sourced, which they are not, and would be more appropriate on articles covering specific cultural attitudes towards nudity as shown in https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Nudity#Cultural_differences. The other issues and legality sections are short and can be moved elsewhere, other articles about nudity and naturism have subsections covering particular countries where these tidbits may be more relevant. Micahtchi (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Anything useful and not redundant here can be merged with one of the existing articles mentioned.--MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. I poked around Talk:Naturism and apparently Issues in social nudity was intentionally spun off from Naturism in as part of an effort to reduce the size of that article. I don't think that has any bearing on whether or not to keep this article, but any editor wanting to move content from this article back to Naturism should be aware of the issues there. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 16:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I saw this before- what I got from it at the time (in the 2000s, so a while ago) was this person made a whole bunch of nudity related articles (that were too specific or unnecessary and were deleted or merged into articles like naturism and nudity, and seemed to get into a lot of fights about them too...). I think the reason it exists was because of old beefs and (in my opinion) an apparent desire to be first when it comes to writing these articles. I got this mainly from the original author's talk page. Micahtchi (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This article has been PROD'd before so is not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep Discussion as to whether and how the article can be improved, or whether an earlier split should be reverted, or whether parts of the article should be merged elsewhere, are appropriate for talk page discussion and not AFD. The article has at least some appropriate, not duplicated, referenced content so deletion at this stage is not appropriate. Thincat (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to the Good Article Nudity. The latter is much better written, having gone through the GA process. — Maile (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Welsh Centre for International Affairs. As WP:ATD-R. Where the proposed target article covers the parent org ("WCIA") with which this charity org ("CEWC") was reputedly merged/amalgamatedin 2014. And its website also redirected to that of the parent. We may as well do the same (merge/redirect). Otherwise, similar to the nom, I'm not convinced that there's sufficient coverage to establish independent notability or support a stand-alone article. Guliolopez (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for a Merge/Redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:14, 15 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)
Marked for notability concerns in 2013, and a complete lack of inline citation. The external links provided are primary (government) sources. A search for sources yielded namesakes. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
POV forking and WP:UNDUE; the article is based on the opinions of far-right politicians such as Axel Kaiser. Also WP:OR?? JPerez90 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Please define what do you mean when you say "far-right". Do you mean that he's right-wing, but more enthusiastic than others? How would that make him an unreliable source? Or do you mean that he's racist, white-supremacist, or something similar? That would be something else, right, but I would like to see a specific reference of that, not just a generic label that seems to be applied at random. Cambalachero (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Far right, the opposite of far left. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Which, of course, means nothing. The article of Kaiser now has a reference of a book that calls him far-right, but again, only that, a label, without any specific racism, supremacism, or wrongdoing attributed to him. Calling someone "Far-right" seems to be becoming like Fascist (insult) nowadays. In fact, if we check that source, it says that Kaiser is far-right... in the middle of a grand conspiracy theory about how the far-right (the only kind of right-wing politics there seem to be) is out there to conquer the word, destroy the left, abolish democracy, and enslave the helpless working class. I have my doubts that can be considered a reliable source to begin with. Cambalachero (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: This appears to be SYNTH, I don't see the sources saying these various bullet points are related. Article draws conclusions that don't seem to be there. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The article should make more clear that the "relato K" concept has been used in several books and hundreds of articles in the press. I'm working on it. It has been used even in the context of the Spanish-language Wikipedia by an Argentine historian (in relation to hundreds of articles on Argentine history). I quote this Argentine historian and provide the citation:
"En 2014 dirigí una Enciclopedia Histórica Argentina que editó Clarín. Revisé varios cientos de entradas de Wikipedia referidas a la historia argentina, desde los casi ignotos guerreros de la independencia hasta conocidos personajes de la historia más reciente. Son contados los casos en que no me topara con una intrusión o manipulación con el clásico sabor del relato K."[1]
I tried a translation: "In 2014 I was in charge of an Argentine History Encyclopedia, published by Clarín. I reviewed hundreds of articles related to Argentine history, from little-known fighters for independence to well-known personalities of more recent history. There were few cases in which I did not find an intrusion or manipulation with the classic taste of the K narrative (relato K)." AwerDiWeGo (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete or possibly merge with Okunev culture. The first paragraph is about a "discounted" theory which probably doesn't deserve its own article. The second also is not deserving of its own article and can be merged if it isn't already in the Okunev article (I only skimmed it). PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Article seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: [12] is definitely SigCov. This book also uses it as an example. (I also found 3 perhaps–slightly-questionable sources: funding, funding, research. I think the last source is unfortunately just a ton of trivial mentions. Depending on how one reads the "trivial coverage" part of NCorp, the funding ones may or may not be SigCov as they both have in-depth and independent coverage of what the company does.) Aaron Liu (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete. A WP:BEFORE search didn't find many useful sources, aside from his resignation at NSFAS. Article also reads like a resume. Procyon117 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. high profile South African businessperson. Passes WP:GNG with sustained coverage in multiple WP:RS. Former CEO of Firstrand bank and Telkom. These are some of South Africa's largest and best known companies (WP:WORLDWIDE) and he received a lot of direct coverage because of this. Article is not in great shape but WP:NOTCLEANUP. Coverage in WP:RS[13][14][15] (South Africa's highest paid banking CEO). Also includes negative coverage: [16][17][18]. More: [19][20][][21][22][23][24][25] ("Nxasana, who has been CEO since April 1998, has seen the company through a number of challenges, including the successful initial public offering on the JSE Securities Exchange, South Africa, and the New York Stock Exchange.").[26][27][28] His opinions were viewed as important by mainstream papers [29][30][31][32]. Here's some coverage by Harvard Business School, so he gets the Anglosphere tick: [33]. I can find more references if needed. Park3r (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Per Park3r. However, the article is in bad shape, voting keep without improving the article won't take us anywhere since someone might AfD it again tomorrow. dxneo (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A more comprehensive analysis of the sources provided would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 15 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)
Page devoted to a bus stop with no detectable notability or reliable secondary source coverage. Propose that articles be deleted in favor of a consolidated route map on the Metroway page. Each bus stop does not warrant its own page, though, especially considering most of them are simply a small standard bus shelter or sidewalk sign.
I am also nominating the following articles on non-notable bus stops on the same bus line under the same nomination:
Redirect to Metroway#Stations. Amount of infrastructure does not determine notability - availability of sources does - but I can't find any sources discussing these in any detail. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Fails notability. he never played for the national team. looks like he played for some European clubs but they are not top clubs, mostly in lower divisions. if you google his name you rarely can find anything. Sports2021 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Can't find anything supporting notability through WP:SPORTSBASIC. nf utvol (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: The provided references do mention the subject, but most are related to local sports coverage, player signings, or match reports, without providing in-depth coverage of his career, achievements, or impact in the sport. Thats said, fails WP:SIGCOV and so WP:GNG.--— MimsMENTORtalk 17:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I couldn't find any sources witch prove notability. In the article is written that he played in Switzerland for TV Endingen. I have access to the database of the Swiss handball federation and I couldn't find him and no Source which mentioned him that he played in Switzerland. I think this fact with Switzerland is made up. 🤾♂️Malo95 (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 00:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the article, here are a couple book reviews from SAGE: [34] and [35]. Best.4meter4 (talk)
Keep: Would seem to pass AUTHOR with the reviews given above, needs a bit of a rewrite though. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)