The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DeleteId Tech#id Tech 2 already handles this topic, as stated by PamD. The article doesn't disambiguate much, it just lists the game engines using said software, plus there's only 3, and one of them is a game. I'd say this belongs in a list article, but there's not much to list. MKat your service.09:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Id Tech 2 (disambiguation) serves minimal purpose as it lists only three game engines developed by id Software, which are already covered. To avoid redundancy and improve efficiency, the page should delete, This follows Wikipedia's guidelines, helping users find complete and relevant information without duplication. Yakov-kobi (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, an example of WP:Ignore all rules. The page already has a couple of sources, and one does not expect extensive coverage in newspapers etc. Assuming that this list is correct, it has a relevant encyclopedic role so should be left. I note that there appear to be several other security related pages nominated for AfD by the same editor. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is encyclopedically relevant. I looked around for another article it could be housed at instead, to see if there was a good merge argument, but we don't appear to have any central "watch center", "national security watch center" or similar article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Our article on the NSA says As of 2013, NSA has about a dozen directorates, which are designated by a letter, although not all of them are publicly known. It looks like the correct place for this information would be Directorates of the National Security Agency. But that doesn't exist. We could redirect it per nom, but that would mean losing the information we have in this article. We could merge it there instead of simply redirecting, but the NSA article is already a large and difficult to navigate article - over 1000kb, 80kb of prose. Unless someone is prepared to do a lot of work here, and it doesn't look like anyone is going to step up in the AfD timeframe, I think it's best to leave this where it is. Call this a "!vote for no consensus", I guess. -- asilvering (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I only found news about his transfer to Dynamo Kyiv and his loan to Shkëndija, as well as several articles on fan sites, which, in my opinion, doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. I also don’t see the point in redirecting to the current squads of Dynamo or Shkëndija. Tau Corvi (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am just not seeing any basis for notability for a one-time loan of just over (in Dr. Evil-speak) one million dollars. I can imagine this being merged somewhere as a line, but an article seems unsupportable. BD2412T20:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete or Merge to Polish United Workers' Party#Dissolution of the PZPR in the event that someone wants to do a full treatment of this topic. This article has been here since 2007 and it looks like it's been a stub the whole time. Some Wikieditors have taken an interest in de-orphaning etc. but no one has done the legwork of getting enough sources to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Polish Wikipedia has a longer article. No BEFORE was done by the nom; mine show this topic is discussed in some Polish sources, try the following Google Books query: "Moskiewska pożyczka" 1990. There are even English-language hits - see query "Moscow loan" 1990. This book in English for example mentions it as a "well known example" of something. It seems to be a notable topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How much BEFORE is necessary to know that a million dollar loan is not by itself notable? The Polish Wikipedia article is longer because it contains an entirely unsourced section. BD2412T22:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting just in case anyone wanted to offer any more specific references to establish notability. If not, this looks like a probable Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete and salt I declined this at AfD some time ago as lacking depth of coverage. There are a bunch more sources in the current article than the abandoned Draft:XDC Network, but they don't seem very independent or are just passing mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:User:Stuartyeates, could you link to any previous AFD for this article subject since you mention this in your opinion? I can't find one related to this article title and it can impact whether or not this discussion can be closed right now. Or did you mean to write "AFC", not "AFD"? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails GNG and does not approach ENT. The sources provided are basically just awards noise that doesn’t count for anything and there was nothing for google news except some non-GNG counting tabloid fodder suggesting she was paid for sex by a disgraced executive. This was prodded years ago before our standards hardened but this isn’t at the current sourcing expectations SpartazHumbug!20:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Page Six and Daily Star articles, which aren't a RS, are all I can pull up. Lack of sourcing for this individual. The AVN and Xbiz articles are just lists of winners. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). Fine. But this actress, having received various awards that still have a page on this Wikipedia (so far, until the cancellation of PORNBIO is cancelled or extended further to the awards themselves, maybe), the page about the recipients might be redirected to the most notable they received. Here obviously, the AVN_Award_for_Best_Actress (mentioned in the lead section). So I !vote for a redirect to AVN_Award_for_Best_Actress#2015–2019, where she is obviously listed. If my !vote is commented with "Oh, but we can't really decide to redirect her article to that page, because she has received various other notable awards that also have a page", I won't reply (but I will smile :D).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)09:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No doubt, this wedding is getting extensive media coverage. However, imv, the wedding does not qualify as a notable event and I see no lasting historical significance here so fails WP:NEVENT. All information can be adequately covered within articles about Anant Ambani. WP is not a newspaper so newsworthy doesn't equal notable. And just for information, both the groom and the bride aren't even notable on their own. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Anant Ambani: Even with so many keep votes, I'm still not convinced this wedding deserves a standalone article. WP:ATD? I'd prefer merging it into a BLP for Anant Ambani, as he now meets the GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, neither person getting married is notable, so I'm not sure why getting married is notable. Could be a one liner in the groom's father's article, that's about all. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of notable events where the individuals involved are not notable outside of their involvement in the specific event. Legoktm (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The contradiction in the nomination makes the case clear: this wedding is getting extensive media coverage, which makes it notable. Most weddings do not get massive media coverage, and on top of that even prominent Indian weddings don't get coverage in Western media. But this wedding has coverage in NYT, NBC, AP, USA Today, and plenty more. It's estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on the wedding (CNN) - can you think of any other event that costs hundreds of millions of dollars that wouldn't merit an article?
Policy wise, let's run through the list at WP:NEVENT: Lasting effects: skip; Geographical scope: check, affects most of Indian society, which is wide enough; Depth of coverage: check, as demonstrated above and by cursory Google News searches; Duration of coverage: check, this has been discussed since the wedding festivities started last year; Diversity of sources: check, wide variety of international sources.
So, lasting effects. It's of course hard to tell whether an event today will have "enduring historical significance". The NYT describes the wedding as having "introduced the world to the [India]’s Gilded Age." CNN says, "Attendees dressed the part, streaming past photographers in custom sarees, lehengas and kurtas at an event that may set forthcoming trends in Indian wedding fashion." NBC quoted a wedding planner saying: "I don’t think any wedding in the world or anyone has spent this kind of money in terms of expenses, magnitude, events, entertainment, decor or design."
Keep: The wedding has received (and is continuing to receive) a wide range of coverage in global media from reliable sources, several of which are explicitly projecting long-term impact and effects. The delete votes so far misunderstand what makes an event (as separate from an individual) notable. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me!11:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the more I have a great disdain for these type of media hype, I can't help but point out that this event passes GNG. Coverage started way before the wedding. The pre-wedding ceremonies received extensive coverage as well. And it is very likely that this event will be discussed for years to come in mainstream media, which we use as a barometer for notability. X (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is covered by the reliable sources and references of major news networks from all over the world. Also the wedding is notable as many famous Celebrities around the world attend the event. 223.123.17.252 (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe since people are still searching for this wedding and its festivities, let this page be there as a one stop for all the information. This wedding is still trending, and when it loses its charm (say October 2024) we can discuss its deletion. vishalkhopkar — Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. I see there is a fundamental disgreement over an evaluation of sources in article and presented in this discussion that can't be reconciled so I'm closing this as No Consensus. I advise proponents of Keeping this article move the new sources into the article soon or we will be back here in the near future. LizRead!Talk!23:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that most of the keep votes in the last nomination thought that being a member of a 'royal family' conferred notability. It does not. Neither does the fact that some publications pander to the vanities of these caterpillars on the commonwealth.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The latest acting role isn't even a named character, hardly notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. Some of the Keep arguments in the previous AfD were erroneous. "he is currently 3rd in line to be Pretender to the Greek throne" fails to recognize that the Greek throne is defunct and has been for quite some time. Another argument was "even the divorced wives of the lowliest of Britain’s peers qualify for a page" which is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree. Being on pages of Tatler and Harper's Bazaar doesn't mean he is notable or else we would have to make everyone who is ever mentioned in those pages a wikipedia as well. He also doesn't have a notable acting career. Unfriendnow (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The item that would establish notability would be his acting career. There are only three films which I could find him in (the ones listed on his article). In the first, as the article says, he only made "guest appearances". The second film was not notable in its own right. In the third film, he did not have a significant role. Thus the criteria of WP:ENT are not satisfied, and there is nothing else that would establish notability. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The nominator did not do a WP:BEFORE check especially step D before nominating this article for deletion. Also, any argument that attacks the viewpoints presented in reliable sources or expresses dislike of the article subject is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and has no weight meaning such an argument will be discarded due to having no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
The fact that I find royalty egregious is irrelevant; I am not nominating a serving royal who has attracted coverage from any but the gossiperati for deletion. I do not think that you know what the word 'significant' means.TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you have an axe to grind against a group of people to the point where you hate reliable sources just for covering them mean you should not be editing articles in this topic. From WP:GNG, "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. All the rs I provided above address the article subject directly and in detail. Not only that, per WP:BASIC, multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. The only meaning of "significant" that is relevant here is the one used by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines which you seem to refuse to engage with. Also, you clearly do not know what a gossip magazine is. StellarHalo (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not. StellarHalo provided an adequate display of such coverage in the above conversation. Your sarcasm doesn't do anything for your case, so I'm not sure why you chose to react in that manner. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and I strongly suggest the nominator withdraw. Ignoring the "meet the Greek royals" and similar sources (because notability is not inherited), there are many, many in-depth articles about the subject by independent, reliable sources. StellarHalo lists quite a few and there are lots more. Easily meets WP:BASIC. CFA💬00:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This individual is truly insignificant and the fact that some empty-headed people pay him and similar people attention is neither here nor there. And as for withdrawing my nomination....forget it. The man is not notable in any real sense. As per the article, all he has done is be born. See WP:NOTINHERTED. I have a better claim to be notable.TheLongTone (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG as per the articles cited in the article and the additional articles found by StellarHalo. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply if reliable sources have written about the individual, even if those reliable sources' interest is because of the article subject's family connections. Bondegezou (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the reasons listed above. The candidacy appears to be supported only by the candidate's personal opinions and dislikes rather than a solid source-based argument. Sira Aspera (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D.S. Lioness: The subject is covered in many in-depth independent, reliable sources about him. He meets GNG/WP:BASIC. It doesn't matter if the coverage is only written because he is a member of a royal family. WP:NOTINHERIT means notability is not presumed just because they are related to someone notable. If they meet GNG, it doesn't matter. CFA💬17:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than half of the sources I posted above are about the subject starting his acting career. Also, what makes you think coverage of a subject's lifestyle is not in-depth? Again, your and other delete votes here are based on personal standards of notability instead of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This means that your arguments have no weight and will be discarded.
As has already been said, it does not matter why multiple reliable sources choose to cover a particular subject. As long as the subject has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, then he is notable enough for a separate article as far as Wikipedia is concerned per WP:GNG. StellarHalo (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the person is at beginning of his career, he does not has done something big, he may be notable in future, but he is not now as of yet. fails Master rollo (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you can post your vote, but it is likely to be taken with a grain of salt by the closer if you don't cite a policy or explain your rationale. CFA💬21:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see, he has acted in 3 flims only, he is a member of the former royal family that ruled greece , he fails per WP:ENTERTAINER. we need more than sources to prove his notability maybe an prominent award or some worthy contributions in some field can justify his notability, if we are going in that case there are many royal members around the world that has significant coveragebut still are not worthy to have a page. Master rollo (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Established notability through acting work and title. Several in-depth sources are good as well.BabbaQ (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
That you downplay a major hull loss with loss of life and make utterly ridiculous comparisons with incidents of less gravity on another talk page is further proof of how ludicrous this IP’s argument already is, which consists of nothing more than WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND and POV pushing as seen by your uncivil comment further down this discussion. Borgenland (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, please make note of WP:RAPID and since this is a commercial airliner crash with fatalities and a net hull-loss, all adds up to keeping this article per WP:AIRCRASH. Also, what exactly do you mean by "no continued coverage"? As I write this, the accident occurred only hours ago, how is sustained coverage even supposed to be determined here? GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohsin Khan (producer) from the same author, this fails WP:GNG as the sources are all press releases and interviews. I'm not too familiar with the Indian press, but the only other sources I can find online for this person seem to be at the same kind of level.
Speedy Delete: All I can find are paid press releases and no notable coverage. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT at all. I've went through the discussion on author's talk page raised by @Belbury. It seems like author has COI with the subject through this agency called "Celewish" anyway. He only claims that he did not get paid by the agency. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁15:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Keep; Salman Khan's film aren't the usually cancelled or shelved, especially in past few years., And I disagree with WP:TOOSOON, as Brad Pitt starrer F1 (film) is set to release in June 2025, while Sikandar is confirmed to release in March 2025. I suggest review on this. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the review that you suggest. The news sources that I linked suggest that shooting has begun, passing the first part of WP:NFF, but I wont give a bolded opinion because I think that our standards for anything to do with the film world are too lax. I would say that same if I was commenting on the Brad Pitt film. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare the two articles, F1 has a much more developed production section, with significantly more information, more sources and more than enough to show the production itself is notable, meeting NFF. Ravensfire (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: This does not meet WP:NFF as there isn't enough to show the production itself is notable. A handful of standard publicity pieces and basic information doesn't meet that criteria. Move to draft until the production section is better developed with good sources. Ravensfire (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Find some neutral and non-churny sources, please; the 'poster' image (which isn't even a poster) is also out because it was literally ripped off the film's Twitter account. We also can't concievably compare the production track of a large-scale Hollywood action film about auto racing to whatever this is (that we don't have a plot to, mind you). Nate•(chatter)23:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The F1 (film) comparison is useful in showing the kind of sourced information that we'd need to meet WP:NFF—details about the production history and distribution. Right now it's primarily announcements about development and pre-production since production only began recently. hinnk (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This is another case of a movie article created way ahead and has not even reached post-production stage. Too early to have an article in namespace. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: Not a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion WP:DEL-REASON. WP:TOOSOON is an essay that does not supersede the notability guideline/criterion for future films WP:NFF. Principal photography is confirmed in multiple reliable sources. [5], [6], [7] and [8]Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question the expansion you've done clearly shows that the production itself is notable, which is what I look for in upcoming film articles. Thank for that. I will be striking my draft comment and adding one to keep the article thanks to your efforts. Ravensfire (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep but move to Hawk Tuah Girl and make it primarily about the meme rather than the person. This is one of those strange discussions where everybody essentially agrees (or at least doesn't disagree) on that facts but reaches different conclusions about the outcome. There's agreement that there is enough sourcing. There's agreement that this source concerns an otherwise low-profile living person who is only known for one event. There's agreement that this doesn't mean that the event itself (the 'Hawk Tuah' meme) can't be notable even if the subject isn't. The !votes are pretty much equally split and pretty much equally policy-based, so that doesn't get us anywhere. The only path I can chart through this is to base the outcome on the following observations:
There is no consensus for outright deletion
There is a consensus that if the current subject is notable, she is only notable for one event
Editing the article to adjust its scope would address this and is therefore preferred to deletion
I created this article first and it's already in drafts and was submitted to AfC. Edit history proves I created the draft first. It's current in draft space. user basically copied my draft Comintell (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Comintell did create first at the article is now a copy-paste of that draft Draftify no longer makes any sense. Also I agree if kept it should be as "Hawk Tuah" not Hailey/Haliey Welch, and as BullDawg2021 has accepted Comintell as the creator it would be best to delete this as move Draft:Hailey Welch to Hawk Tuah to keep creator attribution. KylieTastic (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her name is Hailey Welch, and I created this page fitst and submitted through AfC. Draft:Hailey Welch
The user paraphrased much of my draft, and changed the name because my draft already existed. THIS is incredibly disingenuous.
To clarify. If you read my draft, I think you will see that Welch DOES qualify for notability, specifically because of sustained significant coverage over the last month, and her pivioting into a career and getting mentored by Shaq. I can't believe this UtherSRG basically copied my draft and moved it to mainspace with a spelling error in the name Comintell (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Super suspicious that this article says "Often misspelled as Hailey Welch" When All reliable sources cite her name to be Hailey WelchComintell (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your source for this? My article was much more detailed. You literally copied the same flow of facts as I did. What source spells her name this way. Every single reliable source says her name is Hailey. Sure I will assume good faith, but you shouldn't have been permitted to create this article Comintell (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the both of you: there are established procedures in place to preserve the page histories and authorial credits. If this article is kept and you continue the article improvement process, both of you should receive the appropriate credits for things like DYK, etc. I suggest you put aside your differences and work together, not against each other. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absurd as it may seem, the phenomenon has started to gather coverage in reliable sources and move from mere Tiktok gag into a Let's Go Brandon-style cultural moment. Here's eg Slate, 7News, Rolling Stone. That said, this likely belongs under Hawk Tuah, not under Ms Welch's name. Jpatokal (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if the meme is receiving media coverage, one single TikTok meme is hardly enough to provide notability for a person. WP:1E comes to mind as this person really has no other claims to notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: There is not only the fact that the nominator is correct, there are two "competing" drafts, both containing overlapping information. Since it is WP:TOOSOON both draft creators should work together in Draft space to create one draft which may become appropriate to accept when the subject meets WP:BIO which I am not persuaded thsat it does currently 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, @BullDawg2021 I'm sorry that I got so protective and frustrated. Even assuming good faith, this was a frustrating experience for me and I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive or un collaborative. Comintell (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the purely clerical issue here: there seem to be two pages here, Draft:Hailey Welch (created 2024-07-02T20:47:03) and Haliey Welch (created 2024-07-02T21:54:54). The overlap between both articles is fairly significant. I don't know to what extent one was copied from the other, but it seems like this may be worthy of later consideration in some other venue (assuming this is kept, otherwise there is no point). jp×g🗯️06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable for making a joke on a street interview? This is the epitome of people notable for only one event. It's possible the event (the joke itself (Hawk Tuah)) is notable, though even that is too soon to tell imo. ato—mic06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: There are two issues at play here, whether the "Hawk Tuah" event meets WP:GNG (based on the amount of reliable sources garnered, probably yes) and whether Ms. Welch herself is notable (probably no, it's hard to dispute that this is WP:BIO1E). If you're suggesting that this article be deleted entirely, please clarify your stance on both these points. Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creating an article for the notable controversy or Hawk Tuah event will solve this problem. Clearly, this is a problem of WP:TOOSOON for the subject, as well as WP:BIO1E. In such a situation, there is only one way out–having an article about the popular word, "Hawk Tuah", and the influencer (not yet meeting WP:ENT) will redirect to the article. We don't need to argue on an article and a existing draft; it isn't necessary here. Who can/will create the event's article, and save us this stress? Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The person herself obviously falls under WP:TOOSOON (WP:1E), but an article about the phenomenon/trend is much more suitable. There's definitely enough coverage in WP:RS for this. I think a lot of people voting delete here are simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many TikTok trends (no exception here) do receive lots of reliable media coverage and do meet WP:NEVENT/GNG. I hope editors start to realize this — it's not 2010 anymore. CFA💬01:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is notable. Publish the story, under EITHER title to eventually be personalized if she becomes more famous. Thank you, either way likely a Hawk Tuah page is indeed coming to Wikipedia, especially if this story expands further. Thanks again, can't wait to see the page that IS coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.137.161 (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well-cited, subject is notable. I get that memes are not the most encyclopedic topic, but this one definitely meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. 162 etc. (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about this subject. I watched the original video, the interview, and read the sources. There is literally nothing there. Her entire claim to fame consists of expressing her enthusiasm for fellatio. That's it, nothing else. I watched her entire interview that was published the other day, hoping for something, anything, that I could glom onto and say, that's something we should have an article about. There's nothing. She likes to use saliva as lubrication during oral sex. That's the entirety of her notability. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, and she seems like a very sweet young lady, but how do we write a biography about this? We can't. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I didn't like it. I said there's nothing encyclopedic about the subject. The entire article is a promotional advertising campaign for Welch by her management team who are trying to capitalize on a five second joke she told on social media. This has the longevity of a mayfly. She isn't notable for doing anything. Yes, the video went viral, but Welch was only one of a dozen random subjects interviewed by Tim & Dee TV, which itself isn't even notable. There's nothing here. Nobody will know who she is next week. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles written about her by The Guardian, Vanity Fair, People, Forbes, etc. etc., will certainly still be there next week. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.162 etc. (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warhol was right: "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." Welch even alludes to that in the Guardian article. There's nothing here to write about. "Haliey Welch is a young woman who was randomly interviewed in the middle of the street and made a joke about fellatio. A video of her went viral, and she was soon approached by an agent who sought to capitalize upon her sexual-themed joke by making clothing with her name on it." That's what we're doing now? Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of this coverage calls her 'Hawk Tuah Girl'. Unless she starts a show, becomes a musician, etc, and receives coverage unrelated to Hawk Tuah, this is WP:1Eato—mic23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas's prediction "Nobody will know who she is next week" (above) is commendably free of hedging, obscurantism, waffle. Let this AfD run on until next week, and then reconsider. The article will then live or die; either way, this AfD (with its miscellaneous expressions of indignation) will survive "for ever". -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The early filmmakers of the 20th century and the former journalists of MTV News would like a word. The topic of media preservation is one of the most depressing ever. Nothing lasts, everything fades away. Consider, if you will, the Silurian hypothesis. In the far future, nobody will ever know you or I existed. People like to think they are making their lasting mark on the world, but it's a bedtime story we tell ourselves to keep the terror of the dark at bay. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've kind of got two subjects there: 1) Haliey Welch and 2) the Hawk Tuah meme. There's already a lot of good coverage and it's highly likely coverage of one or both will be lasting. There's something notable here. Similar memes and figures that come to mind are The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger and Jenn Sterger. Tiffany Gomes, aka the "Crazy Plane Lady", is still getting coverage a year after her initial internet meme moment. Surprised there isn't an article about her. Probably should be. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sterger and Catherine Perry (who later gained fame in WWE under the ringname Lana) were among a group of friends called the FSU Cowgirls, known for wearing skimpy clothing and cowboy hats to football games. She first came to attention when she was shown during a 2005 Florida State–Miamifootball game televised on ABC Sports. On seeing the shot, announcer Brent Musburger commented on-air that "1,500 red-blooded Americans just decided to apply to Florida State.""
Point being? Jenn Sterger actually went on to become a notable person in her own right. If she and her friend were only known as "the FSU cowgirls", a subject that has no article on the encyclopedia, neither she nor her friend would have articles either. Sterger has an article because she gained further notability as a journalist, television personality, and model, enough to justify a BLP page. This article is just the short story of how someone's impromptu joke became a viral moment and she quickly cashed in and got to hang out with a few celebrities as a result. Vanilla Wizard 💙15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RTredwell, yeah, thanks for your explanation. That was my thinking. Obviously Sterger has had something of sustained notable career, and it's too early to tell if Welch will. But it's worth noting that the article for Sterger was created on February 11, 2006, before she had had much of that career, and after she was known almost entirely for being a memetic hot chick who happened to get on national TV at a football game. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and adding that if this page is kept in any form, it should be exclusively about the meme, not the person. The person is not a suitable subject for a biographical article. This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. The meme itself is highly unlikely to have any enduring notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙02:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also feel like it's worth noting this may be a rare example of a situation where WP:NOTNEWS (WP:ENDURING) is actually potentially applicable in a deletion discussion. A significant percent of what's here is just a description of the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, just listing out every time the subject has appeared near another celebrity in the last few weeks. There's not exactly a lot of encyclopedic material to salvage here. Should also mention that not all of the sources in the article are quality sources. There's a handful of reliable ones, but TMZ, Times of India, Dexerto, and Distractify are not. I'm not convinced a page about the meme itself is justified. Vanilla Wizard 💙04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think the meme is unlikely to have any enduring notability? What makes you think you can predict what will be popular in the future? It's impossible to predict the future. RTredwell (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I agree with LilianaUwU's comments below that draftifying can be an acceptable outcome, too. I don't think this page is ready to be in mainspace. But it is not impossible that the meme/catchphrase could be article-worthy at some point in the future, and there's no harm in incubating it in draftspace as a work-in-progress. The page will need a lot of reworking, anyways; there seems to be little disagreement that the page should just be about the "hawk tuah" phrase — this cannot exist as a BLP page about Haliey Welch. Consider this a delete as first preference, draftify as second preference !vote. Vanilla Wizard 💙00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. or merge into an article about the meme itself if it does not meet notability guidelines for a biography. The meme has gained massive coverage and notability, and this article cites numerous reliable secondary sources. Thousands of people are looking up Hawk Tuah Girl daily looking for a Wikipedia article on the subject, they should be provided with one. RTredwell (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether we like it or not, she is notable per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Extensive and continued media coverage as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that said... I'd be down with the idea of having an article on the meme rather than the woman behind it, considering BLP1E and all that. The meme has gotten loads of coverage and will be remembered. So... perhaps draftify, maybe? LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We are not here to judge worthiness; we are here to judge whether a topic has been the object of multiple, independently-published, instances of significant coverage in sources which are presumably reliable. This fits the bill. GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hawk-Tuah I think it's pretty clear that WP:BLP1E applies to Hailey Welch's article since well they are famous for one thing and one thing only as of the present day, most of the coverage is in the context of the meme not the person itself and I think we should have a article about the meme rather than the person themselves. Sohom (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone considering whether to keep or delete this page, should look at the original draft, Draft:Hailey Welch which has been expanded is formatted properly.
As my draft was updated to note, she is in talks to get a reality TV show about her life, and further, the Hawk Tuah phrase origins are disputed, with many sources citing that Welch is garnering interest as an individual and public figure. I was just saying. Comintell (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe recreate this if the news is somehow still obsessed with her in a few months. I'm pretty sure there's just going to be a deluge of articles for the next few days and then none at all. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This girl is essentially Bhad Bhabie/"Cash Me Outside Girl" (who unfortunately also recently made tragic news) for Zoomers instead of Millennials. She is more notable than some other articles.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk)02:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hailey has a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources (see USA Today, Rolling Stone & The Guardian) and has already collaborated with Shaq and Zach Bryan. She gained online virality in a similar fashion to Gorilla Glue Girl, Bhad Bhabie, and Jenn Sterger - with Sterger also discovered from a passing comment made in a vox pop. While WP:CRYSTALBALL is always a fair argument to suggest she won't forever be notable, it can also be used on the contrary, as this may just not die down any time soon. If there is still not enough supporting evidence for Welch to have her own article, then the video should be the subject instead, e.g. "Looking for a Man in Finance" and Chewbacca Mask Lady. But not delete. --Mechanical Elephant (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please note that WP:BLP1E lists three criteria, all of which are required for deletion. Please address the actual criteria rather than merely WP:VAGUEWAVE "per BLP1E". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a clear BLP1E situation. The coverage of the individual is because of the video, the person absolutely is still a low-profile individual (assuming she's going to successfully parlay this into wider fame is impossible to say at this point), and point three doesn't particularly apply to this (if it's about the meme, she would be a footnote in the article.) "Subsequent" developments like her finding representation or starting her own company are still in relation to being the "Hawk Tuah Girl". The best you could argue is the meme should have its own page, but this bio ain't it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk20:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think at this point there's clearly enough references and global news articles defining her as a notable person, and just based on the interviews she's done over the past week or so, she's clearly got plans to stay in the public eye. I would suggest a cleanup however. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the page until enough time has passed to assess whether sustained notability exists beyond the initial viral meme phase. The focus should be on documenting the Hawk Tuah meme rather than emphasizing Hailey Welch, unless she achieves broader recognition and is demonstrated to be notable through continued media coverage. Ynsfial (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, the person is likely to remain a low-profile individual, and the event (a TikTok interview that went viral) is not significant. Zacwill (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only was she known for her catchphrase, but she also received over a million followers on TikTok insanely quickly. Especially with her capitalizing on the meme. As the other "Keep" votes noted, she is like Bhad Bhabie in which she became known for her catchphrase. Yoshiman6464♫🥚14:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follower counts aren't relevant in notability discussions, and Bhad Babie's bio article is primarily about her musical career. Maybe we can revisit this discussion if Welch becomes a successful musician or something. But it seems like Hawk Tuah's time in the media spotlight has already come to an end (at least for now, who knows if she'll be relevant again in the future). That the deletion discussion lasted longer than her fifteen minutes of fame should give us some pause. Vanilla Wizard 💙18:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But which outlets are still pumping out multiple articles about her per day? The Daily Mail? TMZ? It's been roughly a week since any reliable outlet mentioned her, and even then, there's only been a handful published in the last two weeks. Her day in the sun is over. That doesn't mean she'll never be article-worthy, but she certainly isn't yet. Vanilla Wizard 💙17:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:TOOSOON, some articles about disasters or events that are recent I haven't seen a notice about this.
For WP:SINGLEEVENT, (this may not count) articles about the Super Bowl, the event only happens on those days pacifically. And the players involved in the football game may not return to the Super Bowl.
Delete. Periodically, an article like this comes along that illustrates the absurdity of the WP "notability via sources" idea, by which I mean the idea that the existence of sources is a sufficient condition for an article. The growing corpus of non-encylcopedic content across WP should convince all of us that sources are instead a necessary (but not sufficient) condition and that editors' jobs require added judgements of things like accomplishment to assess the encyclopedic value of the articles that should appear here. (Otherwise, going forward, we should just let AI slurp-in all sources and auto-create articles.) I think it should be clear that there's no encyclopedic content here and, that at a minimum, we would look to WP:ONEEVENT for a softer delete that would not rule-out recreation if this person actually makes notable contributions in the future, as opposed to being forgotten about, once the novelty of her comment runs its course. 128.252.210.3 (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is considered a notable contribution? Would you classify a music group that had a 1 hit wonder and never heard from again as notable? The very definition of notable is "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable." She definitely qualifies for that, she got her attention, and obviously she is still getting it, by using her new found fame. Just like others, being famous for being famous is sadly notable in these times. Pirhounix (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to Pakistan–Saudi Arabia relations per WP:ATD. I tried really hard to find references about this seemingly notable topic, but unfortunately, there is limited coverage, which I suspect is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I think there could be some coverage in the Arabic language or academic coverage, which I couldn't find due to lack of access. Therefore, a redirect is the best option. 2A01:CB06:366:2B00:D0D1:2CFB:B267:3962 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit13:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - does not meet notability in any way, and we are not a news outlet, although I won’t oppose a very selective merge. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Blaze News meets the notability criteria under WP:ORG and WP:N. It has significant coverage in reliable sources and plays an important role in providing news in its region. Removing this article would diminish the breadth of knowledge on regional news organizations, particularly those significant in Kerala and India. Jigar1984 (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DeleteScoop (website) publishes press releases and has pretty much no standards. They're absolutely useless for notability and should only be used where primary sources are appropriate. The name doesn't help but there does appear to be no independent coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This individual lacks notability on his own. His entire article centers around his associations with Tony Kakkar and Neha Kakkar, rather than highlighting any significant achievements or contributions he has made independently. Also, the references are about Tony Kakkar and Neha Kakkar. Fails WP:ARTIST. Charlie (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have looked into the page and added some further touches, and I also believe that the article subject meets the notability criteria at this point in time. I vote for declining and removing the deletion request. ~User:Roi.Frvr14:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No notable independent wrestler. She worked on small independent promotions. She had a few matches with big promotions, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Most of the sources are just WP:RESULTS with no in-deep coverage of the wrestler HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough in RS to keep the article; this is all I can find [13], rest are match reports. Tried using a search listed under Wiki Wrestling [14], none turn up. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stay: Viva Van currently works for Ring of Honor & AEW so that should be enough notability for her page to stay, it could also be in the hopes of her someday capturing a ROH TV Women's title or a AEW Women's or AEW TBS title or even a New JapanWomen's or New Japan Strong Women's title or Wonder Ring Stardom Women's title while still in the indy's if given enough time or she could even soon or someday sign with WWE, so I think that that should be enough for her page should stay around. Because she also is still a very active indy wrestler today. (She also was trained by Rikishi and probably is apart of the Samoan / PolynesianHeritage / Bloodline. Which could do good if she we're to someday join WWE as well. She was also apart of the ROH TV Women's title tournament, so that should also be enough notability for her page to stay.) 71.65.161.223 (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even that, most of the article are just WP:RESULTS, with no focus on her. Most of the article looks like wants to present the wrestler as notable by comparation. "made her debut for Thunder Rosa's Mission Pro Wrestling in May 2021 in a Triple Threat match against Impact Wrestler Masha Slamovich ", "Van was defeated by CMLL Veteran Estrellita." "June 2019, Viva teamed up with WWE wrestler MVP", like namedropping. Also, Reddit is not a valid source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing enough independent and significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG. The vast majority of the sources are match results, blogs, interviews, or are non-RS. Working for a certain promotion does not grant inherent notability. Let'srun (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Sources found are just lyrics websites or wiki mirrors. I don't see charted singles or any type of reviews for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Friday Night Boys as there does not appear to be significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I think a redirect would be preferable over outright deletion as this is a viable search term with a viable redirect target. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Couldn't find much reliable coverage on this topic to justify WP:GNG. The only source in the article doesn't mention the name "Himna kosovskih junaka" or "Hriste Bože", which is another common name, it only mentions the lyrics, quoted by a single source in a passing mention. 🔥Jalapeño🔥Stupid stuff I did09:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This list article comprehensively fails WP:LISTCRITERIA on the basis the article is a list of inter-wiki links to Norwegian Wikipedia.
Looking at the linked articles on NO:WP, they seem to just consist of a table of shooting ranges with name, municipality and the lat/long (which links to GeoHack).
So what we have is a list of links to pages on another wiki, which would themselves fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY here.
This is fine on no.wp if it meets their GNG. On en.wp it does not.
There's no encyclopaedic content there worth importing to en.wp which would help this page meet WP:GNG. I don't see how this page meets (or could ever meet) notability unless it could be rewritten to cover some unique or special feature of Norwegian shooting ranges that marks them out from ranges anywhere else in the world (if such a feature exists, which it probably doesn't).
I don't think any argument can be made that the no.wp links are just placeholding until equivalent articles can be created on en.wp because I can't see how a page like this would past LISTCRITERIA on en.wp. It's interesting and useful information... but for some sort of geo project. It's not encyclopaedic content. Hemmers (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have articles that do nothing but link to articles on other language wikis that would not be approved as an article here. Reywas92Talk13:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article does not meet the required standards. There is nothing special about being an award-winning content creator on YouTube! There are hundreds, even thousands like him! Do they all deserve an article? Of course not! The article is purely promotional about the person. — Osama Eid(talk)08:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is no evidence of notability. The previous AfD was closed as a soft delete. I searched for reliable, independent sources with significant information but found nothing to establish the subject as notable. GrabUp - Talk07:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree: no evidence of notability. Despite that, I have made a couple of corrections to overcome the absurdies about his age. Athel cb (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hardly any coverage for this fellow. Few reports of his death, but that's not notable. I don't see much we can use here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I did an outside search, and there are a lot of sources containing his name, the BAFTA win also makes him pass ANYBIO, He has created notable films too, if this reason is not too plausible, probably Merge will be better.
Keep: It looks like UPE, but FWIW the subject is easily notable per SNGs/NBIO and may also pass GNG. There will be coverage from different timelines independent of each other as he is known for being the co-founder of Espacio Solo, creator of Pocoyo and the co-creator of Jelly Jamm. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Was deleted literally last month. Still doesn't show any notability for inclusion. Would be better suited for a Wiktionary entry. Procyon117 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment (no opinion yet). This Nick Clifford appears to be Nicholas J. Clifford, author of research works involving river bed sediment. He should not be confused with Nicholas R. Clifford, a sinologist who appears to be notable (William R. Kenan Professor at Middlebury College). It doesn't help that I keep finding NRC's books listed as being by NJC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is a weak case to be made for WP:PROF#C1, with a few triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar. But I can't find any sources that verify even the basic times and dates of his employment, and without that it is difficult to write even an adequate stub that passes WP:V. (To be clear: through affiliations listed on his publications one can place him in certain universities at certain dates, but nothing with a bigger picture of his career.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This archive URL of his profile from Loughborough has Cliffords employment history: [15] - I've also updated the citation in the article to include the archive-url. Furthermore I've identified and added two SCOPUS profiles including [16]. ResonantDistortion21:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noted academic.... Full Prof at KCL and Loughborough till retirement 2020. Lots of cited works (including Key methods in geography Cited by 1500+) (Perhaps searching GS under NJ Clifford, Nicholas Clifford (and checking is the same Clifford) adds up to substantial pubs... Technical clear Pass of WP:prof (8) by virtue of being (formerly) the editor of Progress in Physical Geography. Added refs, including editorials in the journal, substantiating this (Msrasnw (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Is the River Science Wikidot source reliable? I had assumed not, but on further review it does seem to be a closed-wiki with some editorial control. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with the !vote by Msrasnw, in particular 4 figure citations. Furthermore a quick google identified secondary book reviews [17], and [18]. Also the worldcat profile here shows his books are held by hundreds of libraries, which should count for something. ResonantDistortion22:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the subject of this article appears to meet the guidelines (WP:ACADEMIC). He has a considerable publication record and his work, especially Key Methods in Geography, has been cited over 1,500 times. His role as the editor of Progress in Physical Geography adds even more weight to his notability. His teaching roles at King's College London and Loughborough University also prove that he is notable. Other references and articles support the claims in the entry, further enhancing his standing.--AstridMitch (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. Firstly, notability is not inherited, so he isn't automatically notable just because of who his brother is -- but in terms of establishing his own standalone notability, the only claim even being attempted here is that he's been a chair of political committees, with absolutely no indication that he's ever held a noteworthy political office, and there's only one footnote being cited to support the article, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself. As I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Dutch politics, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more expertise in the area can expand the article with a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but nothing stated here as of right now is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from needing more than just being somebody's brother. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schoof was the mayor of FOUR different Dutch municipalities, among these Alphen aan den Rijn, a city of more than 100,000 inhabitants. The fact that his brother just became prime minister of the Netherlands SHOULD NOT be held against him. Family members of famous people can also be notable! gidonb (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mayors aren't automatically notable just for being mayors either, not even in cities with over 100,000 inhabitants. The notability bar for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article about his political impact — specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth — and just throwing the word "mayor" around is not dropping any mics on anything if that type of substantive content isn't present in the article to legitimize it. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one says it's automatic yet Dutch mayors of contemporary municipalities (+historic Frisian municipalities), all the equivalent of cities, are usually kept. It has to do with the differences between mayors in the Netherlands and in most other countries. gidonb (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about Gidonb's claim, but as it stands it's a BLP with one source, and will need to be deleted or draftifyed if better sources are not found. The pages on him in other languages are not helpful. SportingFlyerT·C16:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not have time to reference this right now. Since Schoof also has a literal meaning and mayors are/were commonly mentioned without first names, it's complex. Someone else can reference and recreate this later. Another problem is that 1997–2008 roughly corresponds with the website to archive lull. gidonb (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SportingFlyer. I am really busy. Nico Schoof is notable yet probably the article was created by someone who thought it was cool that his brother had become prime minister. I just invested tons of time in saving Korfbal Combinatie Capelle. It's all too time consuming. It's way too easy to nominate and way too difficult to save articles. gidonb (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Schoof served as mayor in four places, including Alphen aan den Rijn. Yet, the current references do not show his notability beyond standard coverage. To address this, we need to revise the article and focus on adding more robust sources and details. These extra details could help to showcase Schoof's impact and justify a standalone article. Draftification is crucial as it allows us to develop the article further, ensuring it meets WP:BLP.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.