I do not think this person meets inclusion standards for a politician. They were nominated to be an authorized member of a banking cooperative that doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and they were a district convener for a political party (not an elected member of a legislative body). The only cited source is 3 paragraphs and published by a banking cooperative news network, so it's unclear it's third-party coverage and even if it is, doesn't really read like WP:SIGCOV for Wikipedia purposes. Article was created by someone with a similar username to the article subject, and they removed the PROD without comment. Here2rewrite (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an un-needed fork for a page we already have. Not only that, but this page has heavy content from other groups such as the BLA, or TTP, which are scopes completely irrelevant to this topic alone. This page is named "2024 Afghanistan-Pakistan Skirmishes", but also only covers the March 2024 border Skirmishes, when there has also been skirmishes last month in September, which is included in the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes page. Noorullah (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As mentioned, the incidents listed here are already mentioned in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border skirmishes page. There haven't been any incidents this year that are themselves more notable than incidents any other year to warrant this being its own article independent of the main article on this topic. And, yeah, looking at the previous AfD discussion, there seems to have been at least a little bit of sockpuppetry going on? One of the main arguments that was made in favour of keeping the article was that it contains proper sources, which is true, but those sources would be no less proper in the main article. There's no reason for this article to exist, and there's no reason to merge because, as already pointed out, the information here is already in the main article. Archimedes157 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly without sources, or sourced to the BBC, which doesn't approach WP:SIGCOV. Most of the article is plot recap which is already covered at the character articles. Jontesta (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whilst it can be argued that the plot is overly detailed, I see no reason to delete this article as it is a significant and length story arc which was a prominent part of the soap during this period. Rillington (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The length of this story arc - several months - satisfies notability although I accept that references are not as easy to come by, not least as, at the time, the listings for EastEnders in Radio Times were nothing other than a line from the show. Therefore, other plot references are most likely to come from synopses in newspaper listings. Rillington (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirect/merge would result in the information contained about a major story arc effectively being totally deleted from Wikipedia, as merge/redirect is another word for delete. Whilst I said before, I accept that the article is overly detailed, I don't see how anything contained in this article can be retained anywhere else.Rillington (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The issue here isn't so much that the article is "overly detailed", its that it fails the WP:GNG. The sources included, not counting those that are official tie in books, are just trivial coverage. Many are nothing but a sentence mention, and at least one does not even mention the location or story arc. How long the story arc ran for does not contribute to passing the WP:GNG, only significant coverage in reliable sources does, and searches are not showing that this topic has that. Rorshacma (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 as there are two different Redirect target article suggestions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable bus route with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The two sources currently in the article are a listing of 15 bus routes with no details, and the timetable from the operator. A BEFORE search finds no additional coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD"d so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:12, 18 October 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: Regrettably not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous prod/deprod. Relisting for further input. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:50, 11 October 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.
Cannot find any independent secondary coverage to satisfy NCORP. Current refs are not independent or are promotional. Article was created by an SPA. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to recent de-prodding. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for "Election stock market" to have a standalone article. Most of the material overlaps with broader concepts that are or should be addressed in the existing Prediction market article. It would be more suitable to create an "Election prediction markets" section within that article, while acknowledging the term "election stock market" and some of the prediction markets that have been dubbed as such in the past (UBC Election Stock Market). Any material for a merge is limited, as the article lacks in-line citations and may contain original research, although it does include a list of academic papers that supposely cover the topic. Mooonswimmer22:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable singer who had one collab that got to 98 in the charts 34 years ago. Absolutely no mentions of her online or in print that I can find that aren't either a simple link to that one single or a reference to this article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. CoconutOctopustalk22:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I respectfully disagree with the redirect suggestion above, because Ms. Stucki was merely a guest singer on someone else's song that just barely made the charts. That's too much of a stretch. Otherwise she is mostly a local club singer with a few guest appearances in other people's recordings, and she simply does not have the reliable coverage needed for an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following a disagreement over BLP and NOTNEWS concerns, a large portion of this article was removed and a discussion was had as to what list criteria it should use. After discussing it on the talk page, I do not think this article, or any article attempting to quantify something as broad and vague as "incident" should exist (of which we have at least two others, one about xenophobia in venezuela and a similar one referring to Islamophobic incidents)
The intended scope of the page - any "incident" described as antisemitic by anybody, it seems - is so impossibly broad as to be unencyclopedic. There are tens of thousands of antisemitic incidents in the US that have been reported in the news. Perhaps hundreds of thousands. We cannot list everything ever described as antisemitic by anyone. Further, a lot of the sources used to classify antisemitic incidents have come under fire lately for classifying more disputed ones related to Palestine as antisemitic, when these are not agreed upon. I don't think the NOTNEWS is as big of an issue as the list does not inherently have to abide by that, but the massive scope of this is an issue plus the BLP concerns that come with listing someone's actions here not on the base of any criminal conviction but on the strength of anyone calling it that.
If we limit it to just incidents with articles, as is sometimes done when dealing with articles with particularly broad scopes, we are left with just a handful of incidents, some of which are themselves non notable, the other of which are antisemitic terrorist attacks/shootings, which is notable, but these are listed on another page so reducing it to that would make it just a worse duplicate. The ones that have their own pages, are notable, and are not duplicated on another page number less than five. Hence I would argue delete, but in any case even if not deleted something must be done about the scope. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not encyclopedic to list every single thing that has ever happened in a country with 300+ million people that someone has called antisemitic. Also BLP concerns. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Only a few of them have a page, so they are not mostly notable incidents. And most are so small scale as to be unencyclopedic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the guidance on selection criteria for lists.
Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. - this is not
As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive.
Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence.
This current article's scope has more potential entries than is encyclopedic.
I would see the current article is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. If not, please explain why not. editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items emphasis mine. I also don't see how the list is an indiscriminate one, it's limited to incidents described as antisemitic. They're also topically relevant. Andre🚐22:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What organization objectively defines antisemitism? People have many varying definitions of it. An article mostly made up of incidents of NOTNEWS crimes like vandalism and assault is not encyclopedic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An organization doesn't need to define it, what matters is do the RS describe it that way, absent any meaningful contradiction. NOTNEWS is an altogether different argument than NLIST. For example, we could adopt a time moratorium to avoid RECENTISM and say that new entries need to have at least 14 days before being added. That's not an AFD argument against notability, that's a content discussion at editors' discretion regarding the WP:LISTCRITERIA. Remember that is about WP:V. However, crimes and vandalism and assault aren't always covered in RS and they aren't always described as antisemitic, that is why the criteria here aren't indiscriminate. So long as we apply those criteria rigorously, we are being neither arbitrary nor capricious in doing so, and proportionate with our weight. If the President describes it as antisemitic that's a pretty huge pointer it belongs here. If it's just in the police blotter and not really a national story or discussed in any reasonable depth other than a passing mention, maybe we leave it out. However, we don't definitely need to leave it out. And I'm not sure I fully understand your rationale to delete this article or leave most entries off the list. Andre🚐22:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what you're not getting about the problems here. I doubt this will be deleted in any case, but the entire concept of this list is based on a definition with an intersection with an incredibly controversial geopolitical conflict, were this list anywhere close to comprehensive it would be completely unmaintainable, and it is not encyclopedic to list tons of individual briefly covered cases accusing people of committing crimes with no follow up - many of whom were never convicted, so there is a massive BLP issue here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t get how it is “controversial”. If a Jewish person is assaulted by someone calling them names or being hurled insults consisting of traditional tropes about Jews, or have their properties vandalised with any offensive symbols or slogans, I don’t see how it is tied to any geopolitical conflict, unless there is an assumption that random Jewish persons in the U.S. alike are responsible for it, which shouldn’t be the case. So, I don’t get where the “controversy” comes from. Steven1991 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven1991 Is saying Israel should not exist antisemitic? Is a Jew getting assaulted for reasons other than being a Jew antisemitic (this page includes several incidents where the motive is not clear, but someone called it antisemitic)? Is saying Israel does not have a right to a Jewish state antisemitic? Do we use the IHRA definition? If not, what do we use? Is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany antisemitic (IHRA says it is, many self-called human rights activists compare them all the time)? I don't know, but the definition of antisemitism is extremely controversial, yes, see the whole fight we had about the ADL and the definition they use. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME here isn't relevant because antisemitism is not equal to being found guilty of a hate crime. The former is more of a "thought crime." Those aren't chargeable. If they were found guilty of a hate crime then that's good proof of the guilt of that view, but BLPCRIME doesn't mean that we can't list an ideological position. BLPCRIME is about crimes. So long as we don't accidentally claim guilt of hate crimes where one didn't occur, antisemitic isn't a crime. Andre🚐23:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the people here were not found guilty of any crime, hence the BLPCRIME concern. BLP proper is also an issue because antisemitism is a negative allegation so adding someone to this list on the strength of a few breaking news sources and then the topic never gets mentioned again is bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of this page requires merely that anyone have called something someone did antisemitic, whether that be a politician, without criminal conviction or widespread agreement. That is bad and has BLP issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as per Mr. Andrevan’s viewpoint. As long as the incidents are historically well known/covered by multiple reliable sources/widely condemned by government agencies and/or NGOs, which would fit the notability test (I am not too familiar), I don’t see how it shouldn’t be there, or we would have crowd a significant amount of content covering those notable incident in related articles, which would in turn cause other issues. Steven1991 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven1991 If we cut this down to historically well known incidents that would be 95% of it gone - most of which is duplicated on another page.
Weak keep - I originally suggested deletion when this was a giant WP:DB, but have changed my mind after thinking about it a bit. The list could be filtered more, and I do wonder about BLP violation.
I think main question to ask is about WP:NLIST: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists
Antisemitic incidents is definitely notable as a group. WP:SALAT also indicates that the grouping should not be so broad as to be useless. I am still not quite sure about a list of antisemitic incidents, but filtering it to only the United States seems to limit its scope a bit more. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluethricecreamman My question is, when people discuss them as a list or set, do they list them? In which case, do we have any examples of this so we can see what they list? And on what basis will we filter it that will not make it tens of thousands of items long? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluethricecreamman "but filtering it to only the United States seems to limit its scope a bit more." this is something I was thinking would be more applicable too given the nature of it by the issue there is how these definitions get extremely muddy when considering different countries and especially legal systems. It'd be a very busy talk page.
A timeline of antisemitism in the US would probably make more sense for the context of the events that would be listed there but would also be a very different page. Galdrack (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rescope - The current scope of the article is too broad as there is no definitive way of deciding what constitutes an "antisemitic incident". The list currently contains a mix of confirmed hate-crimes, incidents disputed due to them involving Israel, & incidents that are assumed antisemitic because it happened to someone Jewish. Many incidents are also just, not notable, only reported on by local news & no follow-up.
If this article is going to continue to exist in some form, I want some sort of objective benchmark for inclusion. I've already given my proposal on the talk page, to only include incidents directly confirmed as hate crimes + historical incidents universally considered antisemitic. Otherwise the list will become an arbitrary compilation of incidents someone says may be antisemitic & will lead to prolonged arguments for/against inclusion.
Rescoping is needed, unfortunately. I am happy to come up with some suggestions on what incidents should be included within two hours. Steven1991 (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentRESCOPE - I think there is merit in having some sort of article on antisemitism in the United States but this article is overly broad. It would make more sense to limit it to incidents that are notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia article, otherwise we will end up with a list of thousands of incidents. We don't have List of racist incidents in the United States or List of sexist incidents for similar reasons. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As someone who "uses" WP, I view "List pages" as providing a means to search quickly and efficiently for published articles and linked accordingly. This does not provide such; as it "lists" mini-articles (some of which are not notable enough to have their own articles at WP). There is enough on WP that addresses the topic; either individually or as a general topic. Additionally, each "listing" seems to also welcome quite a lot of challenges and editing not regarding the page or topic itself but the actual individual incidences. Maineartists (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But it needs a work trimming it down. The incidents that are non-notable should not be included unless someone can demonstrate that the specific non-notable incidents themselves are notable as a specific gruop.. However, I find the "but an exhaustive list would be massive" argument to be uncompelling. There's nothing indicating it must be an exhaustive list of anything that fits the list rather than notable things only; we're not bothered that Deaths in January 2024 or List of physicians don't contain millions of people because we only list the notable ones. Similarly, I also don't find "but we'll have to define ourself what an anti-semitic incident is" to be convincing at all, either; the sources would do that, and weighing how the reliable sources consider the subject of an article is something we do in basically every article already.
I have made a proposition on the article’s Talk page for the rescoping of the article with regard to the incident inclusion criteria. Feel free to have a look or join the discussion. Steven1991 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was initially going to add "Strong Rescope" to my position but I think Wellington raises a very solid point, that there isn't a "list of racist incidents in the US" article, and I'm no longer in favor of keeping this article. Given that there are only 2 other lists similar to this one; that there are other pages on Wikipedia dealing with this topic, specifically other articles about antisemitism, antisemitism in the US, specific antisemitic incidents, etc; that there is no agreement on what constitutes "antisemitism", including an editor believing the article falls under WP:PIA; that there has been impasse and a lot of contentious back and forth about individual incidents, including edit war around keeping and removing individual incidents instead of meaningful improvements to the article; that there seems to be fundamental disagreement about the criteria by which incidents are able to be listed; that there so far has been impasse at a consensus regarding rescoping and one does not seem forthcoming -- it seems some do not want to concede to the article only including incidents with their own article, and general disagreement about what constitutes a noteworthy incident in general --, I am not in favor of keeping this article and I believe it should be deleted.
I hope it's okay to re post something from PARAKANYAA from the talk page that I think summarizes the problems with this article nicely,
My problem with this list is that the scope is so broad that it is a nightmare. An "incident". This is as opposed to terrorist attacks or violent hate crimes, which tend to be far more notable as events and have less of the same concerns - which we have a separate list for. We only have two other pages like this (the Venezuela and Islamophobia ones). Maybe we should delete all three of them. Making this article even close to comprehensive would be massively, massively oversized, and have NOTNEWS and BLP issues. So as is it's just an arbitrary collection of recent news. To attempt to list every single thing ever called an antisemitic incident by the news or another commentator would be utterly unencyclopedic. I don't think we should have any pages like this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Wikipedious1 (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, initially I'd suggest Rescope since there was none to begin with really but the consistent editing of the page due to lack of a clear scope has lead to such a vague and broad array of events it's partially hard to take seriously in an encyclopedia as opposed to a news feed online. I feel like such a list would be useful and can be made but given the nature of the topic clarifying and agreeing to a scope for the topic would be extremely difficult to maintain and largely the noteworthy events will be listed in related articles already in better detail. Galdrack (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restrict the list to incidents that are the subjects of Wikipedia articles and that are described by reliable sources as anti-semitic incidents. Cullen328 (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, and probably rescope per Cullen328. Generally long lists are fine (CoffeeCrumbs gave some examples) and some ambiguity is normal. But the combination of the two can be problematic, resulting in a laundry list which is difficult to trim due to ambiguity. Incidents with articles might arguably be too narrow, but it's appealing to have such a brightline which would remove a lot of the ambiguity. In any case, it should probably be kept since it meets WP:NLIST. — xDanielxT/C\R23:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and rescope After all the drama around this page, and my own review of it, my take was that it was too subjective in a CTOP area. However, I think Cullen's suggestion that we use WP article notability as the inclusion criterion is workable. Grandpallama (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluethricecreamman I was going to nominate it for deletion if this discussion succeeded. However, that one could be turned into an attacks/terrorism-against-muslims list, which might be better scoped. Unless we already have one. For antisemitism we already have a list like that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but ensure focused and evidence based, with clearer agreement on scope. Clearly meets notability requirements at WP:STANDALONE in a way that Headbomb's counterexamples don't. (Couple of illustrative examples of incidents being described as group or set by reliable sources: [3][4][5]) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC) PS I think it would be excessive to only include incidents with their own articles. Lists should include noteworthy incidents but don't need to be notable in own right to the standard of having own article. But there needs to be a range of strong reliable sources that describe the incident as antisemitic. I'd say if there are also reliable sources saying it's not antisemitic, it should be removed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley The problem is, your proposed solution - raising the standards to ones several sources deem such - has already been done, and it did not reduce the problems. This list is inherently slippery to define, and we have difficulties even using the sources you suggest, because they're sourced from the ADL, who is an issue because they conflate pro-Palestinian activities with antisemitism, which is unworkable and contested. We already have a list of antisemitic terrorist attacks, why do we need a list of "incidents"? An incident can be anywhere from someone being called a slur to mass homicide. Not a useful grouping, especially when "reported by several news outlets" includes tens of thousands of items. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ADL point is irrelevant here. I was simply noting that reliable sources talk about "antisemitic incidents in the US" as a group, as per notability requirements for lists. Obviously, the list is not going to include all the incidents that make up ADL stats, as it must only include ones that are noteworthy enough to have been mentioned independently by more than one reliable source.
It is relevant, because it's the source used by almost all sources that discuss the list grouping, so unreliability of that data does have some bearing on the notability here. We already only include examples attested by multiple sources and it has not worked. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topics "Regular sound correspondences between Uralic languages" and "Historical phonology of Hungarian" are both notable. However, this topic does not have notability independent of those topics; Hungarian does not play such a critical role in Uralic reconstruction as to justify the existence of this page. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG; the article has four sources, three of which are simply pages discussing the challenge published by the league itself, and one of which is a press release inviting people to join. I can't find any significant coverage of this elsewhere. CoconutOctopustalk21:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty straightforward to find more sources by looking through newspapers.com during the 2002-2003 time period. Usually they follow the same format of explaining FIRST/Mission Mars and then pivoting to a local team/competition. E.g. [6], [7], [8], [9]. I vaguely remember coverage from The Mercury News, but I don't have access to their back archives :/ Legoktm (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contested draftification. Not enough sources given to support GNG as a group, and the article reads more like a class listing various methods and algorithms (each already detailed in their own article) rather than an encyclopedic treatment of integral transforms in signal processing as a whole. A WP:BEFORE brings up more sources (e.g. [10], [11]), but they are all "how-to" books about applying transform algorithms to signal processing, rather than about a specific concept: Wikipedia shouldn't have every conceivable "Using X in Y" article. Likely doesn't work as a list either, being a vaguely defined subset of List of transforms.
All in all, discussing this subtopic in Integral transform (and the individual transforms in their respective pages) would likely work better than this hybrid how-to/article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete and do the same with the other district articles. Individual city council districts are rarely notable and can be covered in the main Austin City Council article. Seattle City Council, for example, shows a map of the districts as well as a table of members – this does not need to be on separate pages. Reywas92Talk01:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Novel mountain top with no credible source available.
Claim that "Atilakoutse" is the highest is inconsistent with a reliable source. https://www.britannica.com/place/Mount-Agou Also, I can't find non-bloggy reference connecting Togo to "Mont Atilakoutse", so redirect/merge would be inappropriate, thus deletion is the only option. Graywalls (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:GNG--the sole cited source barely mentions Renée, in the context of her relationship with Luciano Pavarotti, but there is no mention of her at that article nor is it clear how WP:DUE that would be. Searching online, I was able to find other brief mentions of Renee as Pavarotti's girlfriend (e.g. [12]) and interviews with her (e.g. [13], [14]) but nothing that provides secondary coverage of her life, career, etc. As written, the article is essentially a promotional resume with zero basis in available sources, and apparently with outright COI editing based on an assessment of the page's history. signed, Rosguilltalk15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She also performs as Madelyn Monti and there is some early news as Madelyn Renee Levy. The most substantial coverage I have found is a 2008 piece from the New York Times [[15]] DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep based on the 2008 NY Times article and many other sources I can see online. However, there’s also lot of unflattering information about her out here and there on Google that might implicate BLP. If we were actually neutral in POV, she might want the whole thing removed. Be careful of what you ask for. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that the article was nominated for deletion before. However, significant and in-depth coverage in reliable sources about the so-called "Macedonian mafia" is lacking. The only academic source I've encountered that mentions the Macedonian mafia is Social Change, Gender and Violence: Post-communist and war affected societies. It is true that there are criminal groups in North Macedonia (as well as Macedonian criminals abroad) but I have not seen any sources classify them as part of a broader body, so the whole premise for the article is based on original research. Besides, everything that has been added has been contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the point of a redirect, anyone that types Turkey and FIFA Confederations Cup will see the national team page anyway. Btw, Geschichte Line-ups are not statistics, so don't violate NOSTATS! Govvy (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that OP has not actually made a policy based argument for deletion, that doesn't however mean that they are wrong. I have not been able to locate any independent significant coverage of the topic and there is none on the page, so unless I'm missing something it doesn't meet the requirements of a stand alone list. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the nom's statement does not contain policy-based rationale for deletion, but nevertheless the article might not maintain WP:GNG. I did find this [17], but I'm not too sure if it's reliable or not. Conyo14 (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, couldn't the category of Turkey in that link still exist without this particular article? I mean I've only found the one source, but it would be nice to incorporate more. Conyo14 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. The event does not have in-depth nor sustainedcontinued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:48, 4 October 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.
I'm inclined to suggest both this page and Khazret Sultan be merged to Hisar Range. There aren't substantive reliable sources about either of them – the only coverage is the peakbagger database and the blog post by the climbers. Unless there was independent coverage of the climb or the peaks, I don't think standalone pages are needed. Maybe there's an Uzbek source indicating there's a local interest in this superlative? Reywas92Talk15:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 There's not even anything to merge. Something that simply exists, and can only be verified by name in the blogosphere of personal websites and blogs shouldn't exist on Wikipedia at all. Like the shed in your property, or a hill on your farm. It shouldn't be merged, because the bloggy source do not meet contents policy per WP:RSGraywalls (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 source currently cited in the article is [18] – I don't see any evidence that it is self-published or written by the subject? The publisher describes itself as a nonprofit foundation promoting Armenian folk music and dance. – Joe (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find much sourcing beyond youtube videos. This [19] doesn't strike me as a RS. The one source in the article is fine I suppose, but it's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 18 October 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.
Strong keep Having over 1,000,000 subscribers and over 153,000,000 views on YouTube, seems pretty notable in my opinion. But following, WP:NPOV, there's more than enough credible sources aswell as editor/writer(s) of those WP:RS article makes it more essential than ever. Don't know the point/reason of create/have(ing) a deletion talk for this article. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improve
He is notable, but the problem is there. I think the lack of proper writing, the need to add more information, and the carrier is empty. UzbukUdash (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UzbukUdash, I kinda agree with you. He’s definitely notable, but yeah, I see the problem too. The writing feels rough in spots, and there’s definitely more information that could be added, I’m working on it in my sandbox and trying to develop it further. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by the previous voter, though a basic redirect to that section of Lisa Marie's article would probably suffice. Danny has a few minor acting and musical credits but would have never received any reliable media coverage outside of his marriage to a famous person. Thus, the nominator is correct about WP:NOTINHERITED. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whether inherited or not the fact is there are a lot of news coverage on him to meet the notability guidelines. I brought the page live from a redirect, because there is a lot of public interest on him now due to Lisa Marie's recent release of memoir. It was previously redirected, but there are a lot more coverage on him now. Here is another article that just came out 6 days ago. Darkm777 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nomination including the addition of a reception section that summarises three reliable sources film reviews. It now passes WP:NFILM so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, it seems like it may be WP:TOOSOON to have an article about this company. The only other coverage I found was this interview I found in Lanka Business Online, which is an interview with little to no independent or secondary content. The Daily FT articles read like press releases, so I am inclined to exclude them based on the precautionary principle expressed in WP:ORGIND. May be a few more years before the requisite coverage exists for us to be able to write a proper article on it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some cites, including an RS stating it's the only Turkish band in the black metal genre to garner international attention. Thus the subject may well meet WP:MUSICBIO. There appear to be several reviews online - particularly in German, in specialist ezines. I will look for more sources when I get time. ResonantDistortion15:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Furthermore, this band also has a profile page in Rock Hard, which is an WP:RSMUSIC, featuring multiple album reviews and articles (even if paywalled). See this link. I've added citations to the article. Other album reviews include [20] and [21]. With these - and the book citation - there's enough coverage to presume notability. ResonantDistortion18:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of mayors of a tiny town. The mayors have some hyperlocal significance, but is is part of the walled garden by the same Carmelopaedia editor. Fails WP:NLIST. Some of the people may have inherent notability, but that is as individuals. The intersection with Carmel-by-the-Sea is not encyclopaedic. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This list article is a kind of a “shell” housing a list of non-notable mayors of the small tourist town of Carmel, created as part of an effort to include all-things-Carmel on Wikipedia (sometimes called a “walled garden” or a cluster of dozens of promotional articles to booster the town; also known as “Carmelopedia”. The article may have been one of the UPE efforts of the creator. The article fails WP:NLIST criteria per WP guidelines; it is a non-notable subject (perhaps belonging on the Carmel Chamber of Commerce’s website, however it’s apparently not even notable enough for that) and therefore falls into WP:SALAT territory. The references are hyper-local, mainly consisting of the small, weekly tabloid with a low circulation, The Carmel Pine Cone, which of course would report on run-of-the-mill local news like the mayor. Guidelines state that tabloid journalism is not considered significant coverage per WP:SBST. A few items are cited to Arcadia Pub which publishes the Images of America series of picture books marketed to the tourist trade (several discussions questioned the reliability of these books), or to "Valley Press of Santa Cruz" which seems similar to self-publishing. Only six of these mayors are Wiki-notable which is not enough to support this as a notable list. Netherzone (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.Djflem (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea wouldn't be notable, it's a small town, but its elections have been covered as far away as Sacramento, and there's enough commentary and sources that there's no good merge target. Lists of things or people not notable enough for their own page is a common way of keeping encyclopaedic information, as well. SportingFlyerT·C02:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information about the mayors in Carmel by the Sea is verifiable. I see the question here of whether there should be a stand-alone page or whether the list should be contained on the page about the city. To me, this question invokes WP:SIZE. As for the list itself, a complete list of mayors of a jurisdiction fits WP:CSC as it is a "short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." - Enos733 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm simply not convinced Wikipedia is the appropriate place for a list of mayors of a town of 3000 people sourced to hyper-local sources. This is an example of "simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." Not seeing evidence this is an example of "recognised informational, navigation, or development purposes" to exempt from WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched and it does not seem to be notable in itself. Tagged uncited for years but I have no objection if anyone prefers to merge Chidgk1 (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see from the sources on the Turkish article that it existed. Are universities automatically notable? I guess not as it has been tagged as possibly not notable for years. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not automatically notable, but any public university is likely to be notable. This one, however, appears to be new, small and private. See [22]. As such, I would have thought it should pass WP:NORG to be notable. I have added it to the companies delsort. At this stage I have no view on whether it is notable or not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you have currently opened 27 Afds regarding Turkey-related articles. It is an extremely (and in my view exceedingly) high number for one nominator, especially concerning one topic, and it happens to be very challenging for interested users to find sources and even !vote. I understand you take to Afds pages that are unsourced but, precisely, it takes a lot of time to find sources. At the very least, I am inviting you to kindly slow down your nominations; personally, I would even suggest that you stop further nominations until the present ones are closed. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added one source, and the Turkish wiki cites another, Şinasi Revi (1993), İzmir'de 55 yıl., Tükelma, to support some anecdotal information about his time in Izmir, but not in snippet view. I find another book, [23] that discusses him on two consecutive pages. The snippet view shows (in Turkish):
Despite this, the late Sadettin Dilbilgen, a great philatelist from Izmir, is a person who has managed to • CHANGE • with Her Majesty the Queen. Before telling this very interesting event, let's listen to the information given by our teacher Şinasi Revi about him: ... He helped foreign scientists in some historical excavations. Sadettin Dilbilgen had a nurse living in Izmir. However, he preferred to sleep in one of the churches with the permission of Rome and the permission of the papacy.
This is basically an A7 outside of his company Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RETSY, and whatever coverage there is of the company, there is even less of Morrison. Essentially only occasionally namechecked when local news or self promotional coverage mentions RETSY, and apparently nowhere else. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No coverage in IRS outside of local news, the Forbes is self promotion since all of them are from "Forbes Global Properties" and RETSY is a member of, you've guessed it, Forbes Global Properties. Misses the bar so hard it's probably dug through to the other side of the planet by now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would oppose a redirect as they are not part of Forbes, they are one of a number real estate firms that use Forbes Global Properties. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think being the father in law of the Crown Prince of Jordan makes a subject notable. Understandably he got some official recognition and publicity around his recent death, but there isn’t enough here for a stand alone bio. Anything we need to know about him is already included in the article about his daughter. Mccapra (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (22 September 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to initiate the deletion of the article once again, using the same argument from the first deletion discussion - "The exhibition fails to meet WP:EVENT. Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. Arguably WP:TOOSOON." TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes per WP:DIVERSE which states Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. I'm attaching some sources which gives significant national and international coverage for the event. [24], [25] (coverage from an Indian reliable source), [26] and many more. The nominator has not any proper WP:Before. A simple Google search as World Defence show is turning up many reliable sources giving significant overage. 111.92.113.32 (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 more I look into this group, I find that they are local to the Toronto area, self-release their material and only play live in the surrounding area. Can't find any notable charts or awards. Karst (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This relies far, far too much on primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, and what little there is for reliable sourcing is not enough to claim that they would pass WP:GNG. But nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass GNG either. Also the article was created by a virtual WP:SPA who never edited Wikipedia on any other topic, and whose username is somewhat suggestive of being one of the band members if you compare the username to the unusual variant spelling of the band member's name. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 23 October 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.
lacks sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. Additionally, much of the content is either promotional or lacks verifiable third-party references Moarnighar (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, preferably alongside 2013 and 2017. Utter cruft failing [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE] created by a user who chased quantity in creating every possible topic under the sun. We need to get rid of many of them. No merge target at Montserrat at the World Athletics Championships, and frankly, that would hardly be encyclopedic either. Lastly, an AFD about Guam from 2018 is in no way, shape or form a valid precedent for a discussion in 2024, given the development of Wikipedia since then. Geschichte (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to keep these articles as well if a similar amount of sourcing could be found. Should they be deleted, what policy/development changes between 2018 and 2024 could account for that difference?
No sourcing has been found, so there's no credible argument to keep
A redirect is completely unnecessary. Who is going to be searching "Montserrat at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics" to try and locate a biography? AusLondonder (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NLIST, "list articles" like this can be kept without meeting the notability guideline, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". The IAAF entry lists serve as sourcing.
I don't understand the second paragraph. The proposed redirect targets are not biographies, and pageview stats show that these articles do get some traffic. --Habst (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD from 2018 unfortunately doesn't mean anything post-NSPORTS2022. I don't see any value in redirecting. What we do need is to rid ourselves of the perceived need to create every conceiveable combination of XX at the 20XX Y, from a quantity standpoint, without minding quality in the slightest. Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I agree with you about creating. I'm just curious about what specifically in NSPORTS2022 or any other consensus/policy would affect a list article like this. It seems like these sorts of articles are allowed per policy and AfD precedent. --Habst (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unsourceable cruft. These are not "lists" so NLIST is inapplicable, though even if it was it'd be quite a stretch to claim a list that can only ever contain a single entry serves any informational or navigational purpose whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the conceit of making a standalone for every single country's performance at every single year of a competition, regardless of sourcing or redundancy or real-world importance, is crufty. JoelleJay (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on above discussion. I really tried to find a policy-based reason for deletion for these, but I just don't think there is one. They serve as navigational aids and according to guideline, don't need to demonstrate any particular notability. --Habst (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here. Please do not suggest a Merge or Redirect unless there is an existing target article or you plan on creating one. A Merge can not be carried out by the closer if the article doesn't exist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This stub article has only one source, and in my opinion, it fails WP:GNG. It's only one sentence long, so I don't see how it can be considered a list. Therefore, it fails WP:NLIST as well. In fact, I don't understand why there should be an article about a tiny nation of less than 5000 people sending one athlete to a championship. DesiMoore (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being the director general of NITDA isn't enough to demonstrate notability. I've removed some fluff, but I've checked a few more misleading cites, and just concluded this is probably some paid article full of soft mentions, and doesn't pass the strict test for a WP:BLP article. Instead it is a resume. Dennis Brown - 2¢07:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per nom, you are right. I have gone through all the source and they never talked about him. They were only mentioning what he announced.--Gabriel(……?)16:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge At a critical look at the article, Subject can not stand alone from NITDA. Aside NITDA, what else was their impact and is their any source to confirm the notability?Tesleemah (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From your reason given then that calls for a delete and not a merge. Even Olusegun Obasanjo who commissioned the NITDA, biography was not mentioned there neither anyone who has been appointed as the chairman. Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi can be mentioned in the NITDA article but not this full statement which contains his biography. Gabriel(……?)10:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being the "Director General" of the National Information Technology Development Agency of the Nigerian government is enough to meet notability per WP:NPOL. Apart from being a position appointed by the President, he has taken the office twice by different Nigerian presidents. Since NPOL justifies appearance in multiple reliable sources, I can see some coverage in newspapers including bagging a honorary award. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!17:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that NPOL specifically says he should not be as it isn't a top level position. Not every appointee (or elected position) automatically passes the bar of WP:BLP/WP:N. I would also note the language in NPOL: "are presumed to be notable" but it doesn't relieve them of the obligation in WP:GNG to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If the position was that important, it would be trivial to find sigcov in WP:RS, but that isn't the case. "Presumption" isn't a guarantee, it just means that it is likely you will find sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to claim "significant press coverage" in a deletion discussion, you need to actually provide the links so that other editors (and closer) can determine if the claim is valid, or hyperbole. As for being appointed under two presidents, that has zero to do with notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting again as there is disagreement on whether the subject meets WP:NPOL. It would greatly help the case of editors arguing to Keep if they could bring in sources that would help establish GNG. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't necessarily disagree that WP:NTOWN is failed here, but I do want to mention that there are a plethora of city-related articles that fail this test. Should we delete them all, too? I believe that simply having the historical site there makes it much more notable and worthy of an article than thousands of other places covered on Wikipedia. I should note that I also made this article within the scope of WP Cities, and adhered to their guidelines for US places, where applicable. SouthernDude297 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of its sources (or any that I could find) confer notability. As for its current sources, census data and GNIS info does not provide notability. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 23:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NTOWN is a notability guideline which specifically addresses this class of article. While the first reference is not useful, the census most definitely is a reliable source and all that's needed to satisfy NTOWN. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence of its legal recognition that would definitively meet the criteria for the presumption of notability for NTOWN. GNIS says its a civil township, which would likely count as being legally recognized, but GNIS isn't reliable for the declaration of that. Further, I can't find any information from Divide County (which it is located in) explaining its status, beyond what just looks like tax information. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: Township notability varies by state or province. In North Carolina, for instance, they've had no particular significance for >150 years; counties are the important subdivisions. In New Jersey, townships are more important than counties. A. B.(talk • contribs • global count)01:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Divide County, North Dakota#Townships. It's not true that townships are always kept. As seen at List of townships in North Dakota, only a small portion of the state's more than 2,500 townships even have articles since there's literally nothing to say about them beyond the census statistic. Only 1,314 of these townships actually have local governments. These are also not the same as towns and NTOWN does not really apply: the entirety of state was historically divided into townships and most including this one are mere artifacts and statistical areas. Reywas92Talk14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: Can you point to a previous example of a North Dakota Township being deleted? Have they actually been deleted, or just never created? pbp15:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the applicability of the ones you've listed. The Kansas ones seem to overlap with other entities and the North Carolina ones seem to be legally defunct. This is neither, it just only has three people in it. pbp18:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Divide County, North Dakota#Townships. We do not keep township articles in every state because their importance varies wildly. For example, in North Carolina they were enacted and then almost immediately ignored. I get the impression that in ND they have some function with land use/zoning matters, but they otherwise do not appear to provide any of the other aspects of local government; I could not find anything that outlined what their powers are but I found a state land use form requiring a township officer signature. Be that as it may, I note that the list of officers in the state website gives the names of three people living at the same address which indeed is within the township, and if you believe the census, those same three people are the only people living in the township! It's easy but meaningless to hold an election when the only people who can vote are the officials (and I note that of the other three listed, one lives elsewhere in the county and the second lives in another county; the third has no address provided). I'm also quite dubious that location of the eponymous monument is a point of notability for the township; I had to verify it with a map. The fact that such a large percentage of the townships lack officials indicates their relative lack of importance, and when it comes down to it, it appears all that we can give for them as a rule is geography and populations, which can be served well enough with a map and a table, respectively, in the county article.
As far as ND township articles as a group, it doesn't look as though a great many have been created. One or two users started mass-adding them but did not get far. I found this stale user page for example which for the first county has a reasonable idea for a county table structure. And it contains most of what one would put in an article, so I'm not seeing the need for individual articles. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(North Carolina and North Dakota are not the same state.) Would seem that the name of the Writing Rock monument likely lends its name to the township, and is an important piece of history located within it.Djflem (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I an aware of which state is which, and if you think I confused them, you need to reread the passage. Yes, "it would seem", but that doesn't give the township any notability, and never mind that I have come across no source for that belief. The point is, townships are not necessarily that important in the state scheme of things, and they range from non-existent (Maryland) to vestigial (NC) to possibly more important than counties (NJ). What I'm seeing in ND is that they appear to be of minimal importance, especially given that around half of them have no governance and appear to be just lines on a map. Indeed, the very difficulty of finding out why they exist and what function they serve is an indicator that as individual bodies they are probably no more than minor administrative divisions. Mangoe (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Seemed you wanted to make a point about NC as being relevant to ND and therefore mentioned it in the 2nd sentence about ND. Djflem (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Regardless of whether a single household is actually being treated as a "political entity", NGEO only provides a rebuttable presumption of notability. That this extant US place has no accessible sources on it beyond directory-level info shows it has no need for a standalone article at this time. EDIT: Merge, per Sirfurboy. The info is best contextualized in the target article, which has the benefit of actual independent sources on the park. JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND as it is a populated, legally recognized place and there is enough in-depth historical information about Writing Rock Township specifically in books such as Stories and Histories of Divide County (1964) – the main section about the township is on p. 454 but there are also other pages discussing various aspects of its history. In addition, as others have mentioned, the township is the location of Writing Rock State Historical Site, which makes it distinctive. Newspapers.com turns up obituaries about people who were born in or homesteaded in Writing Rock Township; a five-year-old girl who was killed by a horse in 1960; a farmer who threatened his neighbors with a rifle and tried to kill himself when approached by police in 1920 – even if none of this is worth mentioning in the article, it demonstrates that it was a real place where people lived (and not "just" a directory listing). (Of those clippings the most interesting one is the Bismarck Tribune article about how the 1928 election returns for Writing Rock Township were not counted by the North Dakota secretary of state because the automobile transporting them was destroyed by fire on its way to Crosby.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Keep and Redirection. Any opinions about the most recently found source? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should not have been relisted so many times. Should've just been closed as no consensus, defaulting to keep. All these relists smack of desperation for a delete pbp02:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Writing Rock State Historical Site or else keep. I am undecided, but I have looked at the sources provided by Cielquiparle above against GNG, and these won't count for a GNG pass. I summarise my view below.
A primary sourced newspaper article simply reporting that election returns were destroyed in fire. Nothing actually about the township.
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
However this is a populated place, and the appropriate SNG is WP:GEOLAND which has a presumption of notability for a populated place. That presumption is indeed rebuttable per JoelleJay. Yet it is pointed out that the notable Writing Rock State Historical Site is located here. And against that, GEOLAND is clear that notability is not inherited. We have very little to write an aticle from. We could use the first source above, but that source is problematic. We have a township that exists, is populated, has a notable landmark but nothing much else. It needs to be mentioned, but for some reason doesn't even get a mention in the state park article. That, to me, would be the more natural redirect. A merge there would allow the township to be described in the context of its best claim to notability (for which it is named). It should also, of course, be listed in Divide County townships, but that is not the most likely best context for the reader. Much more likely they would be seeking out the rock and thus the township associated with it. There is a WP:PAGEDECIDE issue here. You could scrape it through as a keep on GEOLAND, ignoring the GNG fail. But my preference would be merge. As this !vote comes late, if no consensus can form in time around this merge target, my !vote should be interpreted as keep with no prejudice against immediately opening a merge discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially given the Stories and Histories of Divide County source. While not perfect, we care a lot more about having independent sources for stuff like corporations compared to local history, where the only people who care are are probably going to be at least somewhat involved. The source seems reliable enough and provides enough coverage for us to have an article here. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined count the source towards GNG here. Given the encyclopedic information we can cover here, deletion wouldn't benefit the project. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But as above, it is neither independent nor secondary. WP:GNG says 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. And goes on to expand that sources should also be secondary. The source does not count towards GNG. Your inclination is to keep the page because we can use this source to say something about the township. Okay, that's fine, taken in conjunction with WP:GEOLAND which provides a different presumption of notability. But let's not confuse the issue by saying that the coverage meets GNG. Nothing here has reached that threshold yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming the article has sufficient sources to meet GNG... but that should probably count towards it. It just... isn't a non-independent source. Living somewhere doesn't mean you can't provide independent coverage. If it was a local business group or the local government, sure, but that isn't the situation. The more iffy thing is whether the source is reliable, given that much of the source was compiled from memory (but that doesn't inherently make something unreliable). Elli (talk | contribs) 10:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it verifiably passes NGEO then it should be kept, full stop. NGEO is just as valid to establishing notability as is GNG; notice how for GNG, a topic is presumed [notable] – for NGEO, a topic is presumed to be notable – they both can establish notability. If someone can dismiss NGEO solely by saying that the article fails GNG, then there is no point in having NGEO in the first place. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NGEO provides a rebuttable presumption of notability, it is not a guarantee and a standalone is certainly not required if it's met. Editors here are arguing the topic is better covered in the park article, per NOPAGE. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced that it makes sense to cram information about the Writing Rock Township coal mines, the East Writing Rock Congregation church and cemetery, schools, elections, and farms into the article about the historical site, which focuses on the petroglyphs. In any case, Sirfurboy has made an excellent case for keeping the article for now and then continuing the merge discussion on the article Talk page if needed. Let's do it. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Fails WP:ORG; does not demonstrate sufficient notability, as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, the content appears to be largely promotional and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soccer AM, and I have transferred the first part of this article to the Soccer AM article to ensure that the basic information about the programme is not deleted. Rillington (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment I'd like to point out that Mick Armstrong was mentioned in the target when the redirect was created. He was only removed from that article a minute before the redirect was listed for discussion, for not being mentioned in the target... The removal (and deletion) may turn out to be perfectly justified (I have no insight into and no opinion about this matter), but I find the reason "not mentioned in target" strange when the reason for this is that the user has removed it themselves moments earlier, and then doesn't disclose that they did this. Renerpho (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the original state of the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article (before the removal of that paragraph, and more so when the redirect was created in 2020), that redirect looks sensible to me. The relevant paragraph was tagged as needing citations since June 2024; and as I said, removing it may be the right choice. But it wasn't an unreasonable target for the redirect based on what it looked like at the time. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Yes, and maybe others will be more lenient. WP:CHALLENGE is clear that you had every right to remove it. That doesn't mean that the timing wasn't unfortunate, and that this wasn't important. I would have preferred either an upfront mention that you removed it ("I have just removed this as failing WP:V, and believe the redirect should be deleted because it's no longer mentioned in the target"), or to leave it and include it in the discussion ("I plan to remove this unsourced information from the target, at which point the subject will no longer be mentioned in the target"). This gives users the opportunity to form an opinion if sources exist (the talk page exists if there's more to know). It's a matter of transparency: When I see an argument like "not mentioned in the target", my impression is that this is because the two are unrelated, and the redirect was unreasonable. I feel misled when important background about the article's history is hidden from me. Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the references in the article (that aren't broken) only mention him in passing besides this which is a review of one of Armstrong's books. Performing a search I found a bunch of articles written by him at redflag.org.au (One of Socialist Alternative's newspapers which Armstrong seems to be a member of) and other articles from the same site that discuss him. Redflag is obviously not independent and can't be used to establish notability. Nothing I've found would satisfy WP:AUTHOR and I don't think there's enough for WP:BASIC. Ping me if good sources are found. TarnishedPathtalk04:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Created by a blocked user. I would argue the previous AfD of this article was withdrawn in error, as the supposed sources given were of the company's products, not the company itself. Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes.
Keep, move to Fanatec as best alternative. The idea that "Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes" leads to the absurd conclusions at AFD that "List of X products" would be notable but "X" would not, even when the article is substantially about X products. In any case, I maintain that Fanatec as a line of products passes WP:NPRODUCT. ~ A412talk!17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:LISTN would imply that a list of products from a company that is not notable, would also be non-notable. In other words, only the individual products by the company Fanatec may be notable. The article Fanatec Forza Motorsport CSR Wheel would be indisputably notable if it was created ([27][28][29][30]). The company - not so much. This notability of products over developers is rather common in video games too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Fanatec. Endor AG as a parent company is not notable, but Fanatec certainly is (Google News). No, it's not mentioned in the New York Times, but not everything has to be. It's mentioned in PC Gamer, Tom's Guide, various other notable gaming, racing and electronics hardware sources, especially regarding the bankruptcy. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 06:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Yes, the sources do mention Endor AG a lot but only in the context of "the maker of Fanatec wheels is going bankrupt", and only for this one event. Endor AG, as a business, is not notable </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 07:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "mentioned" does not make something pass WP:NCORP. Where is the significant coverage that proves Fanatec is notable and passes the guidelines? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We don't close AFDs with Move closures which are an editorial decision. If you want this outcome, argue for a Keep and then a page move can be discussed. Also, it really helps the closer if you provide a link to the exact Redirect or Merge target article you are proposing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having 4 dozen references barely mention one's name when quoted is not a strong argument that there is direct and in depth coverage. More the opposite really. Article has been refbombed into a barren wasteland, it's about time it's put out of its misery. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any significant coverage aside from a trivial mention: says Ajeet Khurana, Founder, Reflexical Pte Ltd and CEO of Zebpay. Based on this, the article seems to meet the criteria for CSD under A7 (no indication of importance). Such promotional and non-notable articles should be CSDed. Additionally, the article's history shows that the creator has engaged in disruptive editing by removing maintenance tags without adequately addressing the concerns. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable sources and page very much reads as WP:PROMO. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as entrepreneur is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. Fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage. The references on the page are 1) about the book and 2) don't even mention the show (FAKEREF?). A WP:BEFORE was unable to locate any significant coverage. Note there is a movie under the same name for those doing a search prior to voting. CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 sources on the page that are about the author and her book and nothing on the series that the page is on. Fails WP:SIGCOV about the series in sources and no reviews by critics with reliable sources on the page. RangersRus (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful article with good citations of its own significance nationally in Aotearoa New Zealand public library services. I don’t think merging with the National Library of New Zealand article would be useful to either subject as the latter is mostly a legal deposit library not dealing with networked computer access.Rhagfyr (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge as an editor is arguing against this outcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article is cited almost entirely to non-independent sources; mainly to theaters employing the subject. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, the roles currently listed in the article are all insignificant comprimario parts. We need to see better more significant roles, and those roles covered in independent sources, to pass WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]