Unless someone can show how this would meet WP:NPROF, subject is not notable under any other guideline. Putting aside COI and UPE, the sources simply do not go into depth about the subject. Just passing mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sourcing I can find is actually about the Meatable company, not about Kotter. Being quoted in some articles about your company doesn't transfer notability to the person, and I don't see any evidence this meets WP:NPROF. - MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from brief mentions within links that give chart placements, this appears to rely entirely on album reviews, which is not a good sign as those are not on their own to warrant song articles per WP:NSONGS. This specifically states "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." With that said, we would need better links than what currently is used, and I don't believe sufficient coverage from credible secondary sources independent of album reviews is anywhere be found. Artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary wouldn't compensate for this when those are simply self-promotion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while NSONG is debatable, this article definitely meets WP:GNG (Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. — Numerous album reviews have singled out this song). To add, this song is subject of third-party sources like Time or Entertainment Weekly. Ippantekina (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Album reviews singling out specific tracks is moot when they don't count towards song notability, though thankfully neither of links you gave are that and actually are centered on the title track itself, which is ideal. Something that admittedly gives me pause with them is how they partially consist of speculation on lyrics while other parts seem to go into tangential details on people mentioned by name. I guess it comes down to whether this central focus is a sufficient basis when taking out any gossipy or irrelevant bits. Either way, I'm glad they're not loaded entirely with such things. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This very young football player has played in a cup game for a 3rd-tier Scottish club. I don't see any significant coverage, only passing references and some routine reporting. MarchOfTheGreyhounds23:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. No independent sources, and no games to produce sources about. We need to wash out the perceived need to create articles on players with 0 or 1 game. Geschichte (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Unlikely to be notable anytime soon, given the level he plays at. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman18:29, 22 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.
Weak delete. I've been digging and I'm still on the fence whether or not the person is notable under WP:NPROF. The article as it is cites almost entirely info from him and multiple links that suggest secondary coverage are broken or do not direct to information about Noci specifically. If there were noted impact on the field from at least one or two external sources (e.g. an award or election to an academy, or even announcement for an invited speaking event at a University), I would be leaning keep. Since this has been relisted 2x, I wanted to leave some information I found to help others find info and provide their input. I think the only two WP:NPROF criteria are a combo of C1 and C4, or C7. For C1, Google Scholar citations are okay, but hard to judge based on numbers alone. Looking at Scopus gives a slightly less notable view looking at FWCI for Author Position box (1=average amount of citations in field) and in the Impact tab. He is a middle author in his most cited article. I can't find scholarly reviews that support a large impact in the field though, other than writing about online journalism earlier than most. For C4, I couldn't find anything super directly showing use of publications in courses or other info, but I think something like that would be . For books, two of the highest from WorldCat shows this book at 43 libraries and this one at 24. I just am not seeing enough independent writings or reviews/scholarly works citing Noci's work as highly impactful in the field. For C7, I did not find anything on his contributions as a commenter on radio/news shows, however this could be to do with my lack of Spanish and related language abilities. Cyanochic (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article, Samo Burja, does not meet the guidelines for notability as outlined in WP:Notability (people). Specifically, there is insufficient coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources that demonstrate significant and sustained attention to his work. The existing references appear to be either self-published, related to niche interest groups, or promotional in nature, suggesting that the article may have been created for self-promotion rather than due to independent recognition. As a result, the article should be considered for deletion, per Wikipedia’s policies against self-promotion and non-notable biographical entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricaScribe (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC) Natg 19 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A car that was never built. Does not seem capable of sustaining an article. Sourcing is just a bunch of "this car is coming" news articles which are substantially similar (and show up any time any car is announced), and then the cancellation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ona Speedway, and perhaps also to Ona, West Virginia, which already mentions it, but doesn't include all of the same details. The difference between a deletion and a merge is that an effort is made to save all of the relevant or important details, such as the year of establishment, its precise location, or authority under which it was licensed. I note that when I looked over the article earlier, it erroneously placed it "in Milton". Not being familiar with it, I checked the location on Google Maps. It's not "in" either Ona or Milton, but is adjacent to Ona, and not nearly as close to Milton. I adjusted the wording accordingly. P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ona Speedway per @P Aculeius. I note that when I looked over the article earlier, it erroneously placed it "in Milton"... It's not "in" either Ona or Milton, but is adjacent to Ona, and not nearly as close to Milton. It's not necessarily erroneous; the FAA airport record indicates Milton. I've noticed that FAA records for rural airports sometimes list a seemingly incorrect city or town. I'm guessing it has to do with peculiarities in rural postal delivery, but the address on the airfield website is in Ona. I dunno. Carguychris (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like as good a reason as any to explain it. But it's definitely not in Milton, so it shouldn't be described as though it were, irrespective of where its mail originates (or once did) or what the FAA record says (and that could also just be careless registration, or perhaps some technical quirk relating to the manner or type of municipality). In describing anything clearly, reality should trump misleading information! P Aculeius (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little more digging. The WV Assessment record indicates that the airport and speedway are in Ona, which is a spread-out unincorporated community, whereas Milton is an incorporated town with an identifiable central business district. FAA airport records always indicate the distance to the nearest city center (the airfield is 4 NM west), so the airfield owners probably listed Milton for the sake of convenience. Carguychris (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has received moderate attention after their passing (and prior). She headlined multiple secondary reliable publications. A simple Google search is enough. dxneo (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources in the article are either eulogizing her or gossiping about her personal life, and a BEFORE Google search turned up similar results with DJ Fresh dominating most of the headlines. There's no significant independent coverage of Sikwane's actual career. This is reflected in the article having been created nearly two months ago after her death (which alone does not automatically establish notability) but currently still a stub with next to no content. Is she known more for her media work, or her relationship with DJ Fresh? 💥Casualty• Hop along. •03:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: "Keep" has the numbers, but I'm not sure the delete !vote has been fully addressed. Can we get a closer source analysis? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yeah, I'm going to have to go with HopalongCasualty here. The sources in the article and presented above are ones that only either cover her relationship with DJ Fresh or her death more than her media career. I did also do an extended search on South African and nearby newspapers before her death (from 1/1/2000 to 1/1/2024, as a note) and found a briefburst of coverage on her being on Power FM in 2016, and a 2023 news article of a "hijacking ordeal" she was involved in. Those I'm doubtful establish notability of Sikwane outside of her former relationship with DJ Fresh or the coverage of her death more than her extended media career. Otherwise, I only found brief, passing mentions of her across several, if not many, sources I did find in the BEFORE search. Therefore, delete per HopalongCasualty and the sources found here. ~ TailsWx21:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only secondary sources about Swedes in Japan are about two individuals and don't discuss the phenomenon of Swedes living in Japan more widely in depth. Does not meet WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The chapter comprising pages 192–204 of this book is titled "Japan and Sweden: Two Countries Far Apart". Near the bottom of that book link is a "Notes" section consisting of 49 other references that may contribute to notability for this topic. If all else fails, I'd also support merging to Japan–Sweden relations. Left guide (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I agree the article needs to be re-written and sourced, deleting this one in particular has no logic. I will go through these railway station articles in the coming days and add/expand to them with the new information and updates available. These articles were written years ago, and should be updated indeed. This comment goes for ALL IZBAN stations that are currently outdated. I will get to them all by the end of the month. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep pending Central Data Bank's improvements. If the article can't be expanded after a reasonable amount of time (at least a couple of months) then merging and/or redirection to an appropriate broader article will be appropriate but there is no case for outright deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails NCORP. The sources satisfactorily verify what's claimed, meaning that certain bands were released through them, but as a company, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Possible promotional creation based on creator's association with music promoting business. Graywalls (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discography and chart history of a nation's Eurovision entries has no relevance to the country's participation in Eurovision. Beyond the songs being Eurovision entries (which are already covered in more detail at Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest), how they charted in their country or elsewhere does not have an impact on the nation's participation history nor its success/placement at the contest. Grk1011 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional nominated article for the same reasons:
The basis of this deletion discussion is based in the following policies/guidelines:
WP:GNG: The list lacks significant coverage in sources, with most supplied references being the chart positions themselves, with no added context. The article does not establish what grouping all of these songs and chart positions together is trying to prove, show, or discuss.
WP:NOTSTATS: The list of one specific statistic about these Eurovision songs only shows how they fared on one specific country's music charts (not even at the contest itself); it lacks context or explanation.
WP:LISTCRIT: The list is a synthesis of available information, compiled nowhere else in this level of detail other than on Wikipedia, for which the membership criteria remain somewhat unclear. The point of the article is just to identify a song's placing? To compare? Why only domestic charts? Why do other articles list the album they were on too? What text could be added to provide context without becoming WP:OR? How is this a "discography"?
Keep. The information contained is relevant to the UK charts more so than the Eurovision itself, which is highly notable. It is also a useful guide to how successful the songs were in the real world. The information is well sourced, so I see no reason to delete. The UK article has been in existence for 13 years and receives regular edits, so obviously has a lot of interest. The nominator hasn't given any policy reasons for deletion other than he/she doesn't like it, it seems.Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIreland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nominator's rationale but, as noted above, it doesn't appear to be based on a specific policy. Not one I'm familiar with at any rate. To my mind, the main applicable policy is WP:NLIST. Which would expect the list subject/members to be discussed as a group. And several sources, including those I found/added in my own BEFORE, appear to discuss the topic (performance of Irish Eurovision entries in the Irish singles chart) as a subject. And discuss the list members as a group. As expected by NLIST(?) Guliolopez (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:GNG is clearly not met, and won't be for some time. So a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. We could restore the redirect to Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix, but this is just a list of events with events with contracts, so readers can see which events are contracted upto and included a given season (in this case 2027). However, I'm not convinced this is a helpful redirect. So my preference is defentily delete. SSSB (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. Of course the article itself cannot be kept given there clearly isn't the coverage of the 2027 season yet to sustain an article, but I agree with SSSB that there is virtually nothing about the 2027 season at Formula One#Contracted Grands Prix, so this should be deleted outright, not kept as a redirect. A7V2 (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject’s role as the national vice president of a state-level political party’s youth wing does not automatically meet the notability guidelines under WP:POL. Furthermore, the available coverage primarily focuses on routine updates about her new positions within the party, which is typical for politicians and thus does not fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also placed in the top 8 at continental championships. He did not take up athletics at age 30, but took up marathon near that age. Geschichte (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ancestry.com and The Peak Seeker are not reliable. Highpointers.org is the official highpointing organization so should not be used here. The only seemingly reliable source here is The Oregonian. Unless more coverage can be found, I feel like Arthur H. Marshall's achievements are better discussed briefly in the highpointing article instead of in its own article as notability seems weak. The current state of the article is certainly not sufficient and is written poorly. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the in-depth coverage on him in the Oregonian, and multiple sources crediting him with the first in the US to reach all the tops and receiving coverage multiple times spanning years apart is an indication of notability and I feel he meets Wikipedia:SPORTSPERSON
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 The football club has been around since 1957? You'd think they should have a decent history, I found a mention to a previous coach on [11], however the results are pretty poor on the English google search, that's about all I saw other than one official facebook. Is anyone able to perform newspaper or Greek news sources or find anything else? I find it strange there is no history for a Greek club that has been around over 60 years. Govvy (talk) 08:11, 15 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.
Delete. The CBN article might make organization notable, but I found nothing about them outside the listed sources. Not opposed to recreation should better sources about it arise, but I think that info about this ministry would be better located in an article about Charlie VanderMeer, who has a bit more coverage about his life. ❤HistoryTheorist❤05:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about VanderMeer. If someone were to create an article on him, I would support a redirect there, but until then delete is the only option. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an electoral ward of just 2,700 people with a town of 45,000 people. All that the article really says is "the ward exists". It does not prove its notability and it is for that complete lack of notability that I am nominating it for deletion. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: On further consideration, as it isn't a place it probably shouldn't have comma disambiguation, so it should be renamed as Station (Boston ward) if it survives either as a page or as a redirect. (Or should that be "(Boston, Lincolnshire, ward)"? Should all these places being disambiguated as ", Boston" actually be disambiguated as ", Boston, Lincolnshire"?) PamD15:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable individual, but may together with the two other such articles perhaps be merged into one? Barely anything can be said about the individual Theodore, the topic of the article, who died aged 1 or thereabouts. What the articles (and the sources) really are about is Jackson's treatment of or position towards Native Americans. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I read the article and looked over the sources. They're either books or paywalled, so I have not read them, but they're good quality and the topics look direct. I'm confident in the presumption of notability. I'm more concerned about neutral, encyclopedic wording than about notability. In addition to that, I feel including enslaved people, whose stories are undertold, in this encyclopedia is something we should err on the side of doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these "Center" places in Indiana have turned out to be real towns, but this appears to be an exception: there's just nothing substantial there, and I cannot find any real references to it. Mangoe (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any references to "Stafford Center" as a populated place in any of the old DeKalb County maps or histories I checked. ╠╣uw[talk]18:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside. I object to the word "captive". That doesn't jibe with this article or Theodore's. Neither was captured by Jackson, and it seems to me to be a POV slur against him. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarityfiend It's funny, after reading the sources published in the last 20 years, I think I object to calling Lyncoya his "adopted son" but that's mostly me being emo and a different discussion that probably happens on generational timescales. ANYWAY, I assumed it would get moved at some point and I am very excited to see what another brain thinks of. My only caveat is that Theodore is not confirmed to have been Muscogee, and based on cultural norms of the time, was very possibly given as a gift/tribute by an ally (see Charley), so the title shouldn't be Theodore (Muscogee). I don't think it abrogates him being a captive that Jackson didn't personally throw a net over him and carry him home--Jackson had possession of a bunch of orphaned babies that didn't belong to him because he was a local warlord running a race war--but it doesn't need to be in the title of the article. But I don't know what else to use. Halp? jengod (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ADD: We could arguably merge them both into Lyncoya as subsections. I didn't do that in the first place because these two were separate human people with distinct stories and their burial in brittle letters and footnotes for much of the past 200 years was not accidental. They were very intentionally excluded from the narrative. jengod (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Andrew Jackson's Native American pet"? He called him a pet, so no slur here against the esteemed slaveholder, we wouldn't want to do that of course. Fram (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Playing 14 football matches in Japan's third league (and one in the first) is a weak claim to notability. The sources are not significant and independent enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally, I would consider a merge to the artists. However, not only has the article been tagged as unsourced, but it has been completely unsourced since User:Pop izel - another red flag - created the page 15 years ago. Speficially, the sales figures would need sourcing. Therefore, there is no mergeable content. Geschichte (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this was cited I would suggest merging it into elections in Turkey but it has been tagged uncited for years maybe it should just be deleted as I think it is important for electoral info here to be correct in order to support the democratic process Chidgk1 (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first comment would be Keep as the article gives a good visual timeline for the elections. If not, then the first section (Elections) can be merged with Elections in Turkey. The second section (Electoral cycle since 1923) gives a timeline view for the elections, which is visually nice to have in an article. We can change the second section to a Template like "Template:Turkish elections timeline", and include this template in the Elections in Turkey article with initially collapsed state. Joseph (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three and a half years after my PROD was WP:DEPRODDED, this article remains unsourced and makes no claim of notability. My WP:BEFORE search found nothing other than this exists.
Redirect looks like the best outcome, unless someone can find something about the series. It seems wrong that a series as extensive and widely-used as this might not qualify as notable, but even if it's notable, we can't have an article if there is nothing to write about it. The current article spends a lot of words saying very little beyond "it exists". Google searches are hampered by the quantity of sites selling the study guides, and the York notes site itself. But much to my surprise, I couldn't find any independent, reliable sources discussing their impact, history or value. The only fact I could find is Jeffares' role, so redirecting to him doesn't involve depriving our readers of any information. Elemimele (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment It does seem strange that there seems to be nothing (or nothing anywhere near the top of search results) which is not self-published. In the absence of any better idea, I would go for the suggested redirect, but can't say I think its ideal.TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NBIO and WP:V. I've removed most of the promo but what remains is riddled with citations that don't support the statement that they are meant to, or dead links. It was declined three times at AfC but moved to mainspace by author. The subject of the article is keen on self-promotion (see the "Roberts Honored with Pollie and 40 Under 40 Nominations" citation for a lovely bit of them citing themselves praising themselves) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Came to page to fix a Disambiguation link. Only to find something that reads like self promotion. Was gonna give benefit of doubt so went to check inline source next to disambiguation Link for context, it's an article for medium which is WP:MEDIUM which is a self promotion article site. Skimming the Notability and Verifiability policies I agree with @Curb Safe Charmer 100%.
Closed as delete in AFD just June 2023, the article found its way back again. But nothing has changed. The current sources are 95 percent press statement or covertly sponsored articles announcing new business deals Ednabrenze (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment several of the sources in this article are SIGCOV, so it definitely does not fail that. Sigcov being defined as it is in the guideline as content that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Whether it passes WP:NEVENT is a different matter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep clearly passes WP:SIGCOV and there is a book Somalia in Transition published in 2017 which mentions the subject briefly while the murder took place in 2009 this is the only source I could find towards WP:LASTING other articles are from 2009 ,2010.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with the coverage is the WP:ROUTINE nature of a generic event, a taxi driver killed, that happens as a regular event all over the planet and has been happening with Jews and other folk for centuries. There is not a single thing makes this standout event as anything special, yet it has been elevated in a manner that doesn't fit. That is the reason I sent it for delete. We record the mundane, the mediocre and the generic on here and we don't know how to get rid of this trash. Here is one [12] in reverse. scope_creepTalk04:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this person meets GNG. They claim to have received a global recognition award but that award doesn't appear to be notable either. Most of the sources seem to be blogs and interviews Gbawden (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of keeping the article. Google seems to think he's noteworthy enough that you can toggle between "overview," "Movies" and "TV shows" when you search his name. Iowamutt (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that this ward is notable. There is no evidence that a "suburb" called Sleaford exists, and it is not included in List of United Kingdom locations: Si-Sm#Sl. There are several references which appear to be fascinating books about the history of Newark's elections, but which do not appear to mention Sleaford ward. All I can find is that it exists as a ward electing one councillor to Newark Town Council. As explained in the rather confusing "Geography" section, it is not a ward for elections to the next level of government, Newark and Sherwood District: see 2023 Newark and Sherwood District Council election. There seems to be no accessible map showing the boundary of this ward. (The geog coords given lead to Bede House Lane, postcode NG24 1PY, which Mapit.com puts as being in Beacon ward for district council elections, but unfortunately Mapit.com does not mention wards at town council level).
As far as I can see, all we can verifiably say about "Seaford, Newark" is that is a ward electing one councilor to Newark Town Council, being one of 7 wards. That is not enough for a Wikipedia article.
The article Newark-on-Trent#Governance mentions the town council, stating that it has 18 councillors elected from 4 wards, with a reference to an archived 2011 source showing 5 wards. I suggest that paragraph should be updated to reflect the current situation, where there are 7 wards, perhaps showing the number of councillors per ward (ranges from 1 to 5), and that Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent (and probably the other wards) should redirect there. PamD07:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I now see that the map referenced at currently ref 5, when zoomed in, shows the boundary of the ward, which appears to be the southern corner of the Bridge district council ward. But I doubt that even this is enough for an article. PamD08:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably delete. Second choice redirect to Newark-on-Trent#Governance where there is a list of the town council wards. The only facts supported by the article's references are that it exists (or existed? - the article seems to contradict itself) as a ward and elects a single councillor to Newark Town Council (a redirect to the main article). Current reference no.3 does not verify "Sleaford" as a named suburb of Newark. Nothing else turned up in searches. Rupples (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I appreciate the complete deletion nomination but I just want to be clear on what the nominator is asking for. It sounds like it is not Deletion but a Merge/Redirect to Newark-on-Trent#Governance, is that correct? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vague dab page. Dab pages don't work with only one station that carries the current callsign and one station that used to carry the callsign. SBKSPP (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would say do not RUSHDELETE. Since this happened just a few days ago and we still need to determine if it meets or fails the NEVENT, I would suggest Draftify it for now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge. Not a lot here that can’t be contained in the list article easily. If it does prove notable through depth and length of coverage - which, there are some indications this might, it can always be re-split out. I oppose draftifying because there’s no problems solved there not solved by a merger. Pakistan specifically only very rarely has long term coverage of events that would receive retrospective coverage in many other countries. But this one seems quite severe so it could change. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to redirect. Even if there's nothing to merge I find maintaining the link as a redirect makes it clearer to future readers that there was once a page there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Civolution and Teletrax articles present a dizzying stream of takeovers, divestments, etc., as do the articles on the entities to which they were previously associated. At the moment, the residues seem to sit with Kinetiq of Pennsylvania, on which there is no article here. But I am struggling to see coverage which rises above WP:CORPTRIV announcements; there needs to be something to demonstrate that the company's endeavours,under whichever ownership model, were actually notable. AllyD (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. I’m confused by anyone who would want to promote a defunct company that did something so insignificant and apparently didn’t even make much money. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. All sources provided are primary. I searched for sources with search ["Suresh Reddy" ambassador] and could not find anything indepth. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with LibStar; the cited sources are only primary, which are useless for establishing notability. Diplomats are not inherently notable and this fails both the GNG and SIGCOV criteria. GrabUp - Talk05:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The India Today piece isn't about him. It's a PSA: "Disclaimer: This is a public awareness initiative by Medtronic. Views are independent views of Dr Dhiraj Sonawane, intended for general information and educational purposes only, and do not constitute any medical device." The Times of India article is about a woman receiving surgery, not about the doctor. APKhi :-) (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prod It was removed by mistake I didn't know it was removed while adding references, you should add it again if you want. If the India Today article is read carefully, it has a picture of him as well as a regular article about him. NASIIR (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Previously at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a company, originally created by an account blocked as a sockpuppet. The 2015 AfD attracted minimal attention. Since then, the company has been split. Taking this article's topic to be the "SAP add-ons, consulting and reselling" residue, searches find this publicity piece regarding their InsightLoop pivot to AI (using the same words added to the article by an IP), but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find any books, journal articles, newspaper articles, or websites mentioning him. Only websites that did mention him are Wikipedia mirror cites. Hell, this is possibly a hoax. Roasted (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with points listed above. Multiple google searches (including with aliases) did not return any results. Sources in article do not support any of the article content (one does not exist, and one has very limited information). Wibbit23 (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a common oversight of AfDeers is not bothering to check the native language sources or the article creators, who are alive and well, to accuse whom of hoax is a grave disrespect. --Altenmann>talk21:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we have some review of sources here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still seeking a review of sources to see whether or not they establish GNG. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a revolutionary, politician, member of 1st and 3rd Congress of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine. Plenty of sources listing him as member of congress.
Source: 1) Talks about last name, list people with it. Short 1 line giving name and listing him as a revolutionary. 2) Gives name, dob, deat date, arrests, political positions. 3) Big bio article. also lists sources. 4) Pavlik, I., Lifanov, V., Mychakovskaya, L. Mykolaiv: Streets tell book. Has 3 pages dedicated to his bio and part to street named after him. Also talks about his joint activities in 1918. Image of him along with other members of first congress [13]. Ceriy (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion as my search did not yield significant coverage per WP:GNG. Most available sources come from team websites for from fan sites or blogs which WP:SPORTCRIT states is not valid. My search yielded two results that would be considered reliable secondary sources, but as WP:3REFS states in most cases, three references would be needed to establish notability. Reliable source analysis from my search:
Brief history of LeBlanc's career after being hired by the Cardinals.
As mentioned, all other found sources are either fan sites or blog sites which are not usually considered reliable sources. Other sources also include Team sites, which are not considered independent. Wibbit23 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Derrick LeBlanc is an NFL coach, most of whom have Wikipedia profiles, especially the one's who have coached as many years as he has. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar business and the most popular sports league in the world. Thanks! TurtleTurtle00 Turtleturtle00 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While your points on the popularity of the NFL and coaches are valid, Wikipedia does have specific guidelines for inclusion into the namespace. One such criteria is WP:GNG which states that subjects of articles must have significant, non-trivial, independent, secondary coverage. As required by AfD, I preformed a google search on the subject, and returned sources that are not able to establish notability. Blogs, fan pages, and team/NFL pages are not able to establish notability. Wibbit23 (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone recently linked this page w/ current NFL defensive line coaches, most of whom have their own pages, why them and not Derrick LeBlanc? TurtleTurtle00 Turtleturtle00 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that it is an essay and that two can be suitable (hence "most cases"), however, I included 3REFS as the two sources I found were not enough to establish notability due to the first one focusing on the team he was leaving four years ago and how they would fill the vacant slot and the second being a very brief overview of his career. I am not able to open your proposed sources, if you could send them in alternate format that would be great. Thanks! Wibbit23 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I thought there would be more participation on an NFL-related AFD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need some more participation on this NFL-related AFD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:48, 21 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.
Thank you for your feedback regarding the article. While I understand your concern about notability, I believe this page has enough reliable coverage to merit its existence on Wikipedia. The Business Insider profile provides insight into Everspark, and while it may have some promotional aspects, it serves as a starting point for understanding the company’s significance.
To strengthen the article further, I will look for additional independent sources to enhance its credibility and improve the overall tone. Your input is valuable, and I'm committed to making this page meet Wikipedia's standards. Aliumair435 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Business Insider piece does not even mention Jason Hennessey, and it literally says We have been featured in various news pieces, primarily providing insight into new developments in the search engine optimization and marketing spaces (like about Google Places or the mobile wallet phenomenon, proving that source not independent abd is of zero value for establishing notability. No evidence of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 21 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.
He's not a notable producer. This page is an absolute attack on the subject since the media links about the closure of his production company. I have been following this news on this subject and other editors. Please note this carefully. The sources in the Financial and Legal issues are only really from one news source and reporter which seems like an attack on the subject. It needs to be deleted or cleaned up. There seems to be mental stress from someone who knows the subject. It's not a neutral article the way it is worded. I thought I was helping with some of the info that comes to light but looking again it seems like a personal attack on the subject. The following source is about the closure of the production company more than the subject [14]. This url is another about the subject here, [15] but all the rest are only sources from The NZ Herald and by one single reporter for in the financial issues area. Thoughtcattle (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the subject is clearly notable and the article is well-sourced. The nominator clearly has issues with the content, but these are best addressed by seeking consensus through the talk page, not through AfD.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was notable as a producer. Now three different sources (NZ Herald, Stuff, NZ Government Gazette) attest to his failure to pay his debts. The fact that he doesn't like this is not a reason to delete the article. Maproom (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Film is scheduled to be released a year from now and just started filming. Majority of sources are announcements or press releases. CNMall41 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my vote is for keep, kindly understand that there are many Hollywood and Bollywood movies that are upcoming in 2025 some are more than a year away yet many already have established wiki pages on them such The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more the list is endless. The information current available on the film 120 Bahadur is good enough to create a wiki page and as time progress and more info is available the wiki page will definitely grow with time. Moreover it is a film about a historically significant event. So the wiki page deserve a place with other films that are up for release in 2025. Bonadart (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument seems to fall under WP:OSE which is not something that can be used to support notability. Can you point out which references are specifically significant coverage that would count towards notability? The ones I see do not but will look at any you provide in case there is something I missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i am in no mood to argue, my contention is if The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 which are pure fiction can have well established wiki page, then 120 Bahadur which is based on real life and a immensely historical and significant event if you may think of, also deserves a place, and if you want to talk of capturing space in that case i think this page doesnt even grab a space more than tip of safety pin out of whole wiki sphere. Bonadart (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I am in no mood to argue" - This is a discussion, not an argument. It does sound like maybe you should back away if you are not in the mindspace to discuss. I will reiterate that everything you stated, including in the reply above, would fall under WP:OSE.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see from page history that the page was moved to draft but it was moved back to mainspace but I am giving benefit of doubt that Bonadart will accept the consensus by the closer, if it ends with draftify and not move it back to mainspace till the film gets significant coverage likely after post-production. RangersRus (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON - then what will say or opine about The Accountant 2, F1, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3, and more; all these films are 6 months to 1 year away yet they have established wiki pages. most of the crew of the film 120 bahadur are already on board as for cast the film is centered around Shaitan Singh Bhati who is played by Farhan Akhtar which is decided, as for others the cast hasnt been declared but may be revealed pretty soon, as for shooting it has already started as declared. So in all sense and purpose much of the info in wiki page is valid, and so deserves to be in live space. Bonadart (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should not bring other pages to discussion on this AFD. Draftify is because the film is too early with no significant coverage and has not made it to post-production. RangersRus (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even this article is covered by the press release, like most articles that are edited by the creator of this article. There is a risk that it may be a COI (I will investigate the case and come back with details).--Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I think it is futile to Draftify this article if the content creator is going to immediately move it back to main space so I'd like to see some assurances from them about this. A Redirect was also mentioned but it's not clear what the target article would be. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for keeping the discussion alive
my 3 points
1. with all due respect ' if the content creator is going to immediately move it back to main space ' is bit harsh, please understand it takes time and effort to create a page, lot more to develop it. i have no issue if a article is deleted or kept in draft but it should always be done after thorough discussion, once consensus is reached why will any one have any problem, certainly not me.
2. regarding this page as I said earlier, agreed that this film is about a year away but so are movies like The Accountant 2, Now You See Me 3, Jurassic World Rebirth, Jolly LLB 3 but all these films have well established pages already, my point is these films are based on fiction where as this film '120 Bahadur' is based on reality and facts, so it deserves a space.
3. as for sources anyone include better sources if anyone can find.
Comment - Hey, Liz, maybe Excel Entertainment would be a good redirect target. However, regardless of the delete or redirect I would recommend protecting the title due to what you say about someone who is likely going to just remove it and recreate the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be moved to draft as it still needs much work. At present, it is a rough translation and remains very essay-like. Amigao (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is notable and well referenced. It isn’t a rough translation at all, and while I agree it is essay-like, that can easily be remedied in mainspace by any editor who cares to do so. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no proper deletion rationale has been stated. As @Mccapra says this article is notable and the references are plentiful. Deletion is not cleanup and the article should be given some time to grow (or maybe contract a bit...).@Amigao you didn't notify the article creator on their talk page. I've gone ahead and done that. Oblivy (talk) 07:24, 21 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.
Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referencing any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is that his work exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- we would need to see some evidence of distinction, such as notable awards and/or WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about him and his work in media and/or books. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the statements they're referencing, which is not support for notability, and the article claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this. Further, there are no inbound links here from any other page in Wikipedia but the disambiguation page at Bob Connolly, and this appears to be a conflict of interest as the creator (who created it in 2013 and has occasionally returned to edit the article as recently as August 2024) appears to have self-identified as Bob Connolly in past posts to Talk:Lee Aaron, but even people who do properly pass our notability and sourcing standards still aren't entitled to write or curate their own articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 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.
Delete The only credible source is an interview, which is not an independent source. References to significant coverage in several reliable sources completely independent of Professor Dave are required. Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentEvolution News is a Discovery Institute rag that counts for nothing. Creationists complaining about a scientist don't contribute to that scientist's notability, unless something quite unusual happens and reliable sources actually cover the incident in depth. That said, I could be convinced of a WP:PROF#C7 pass; the evidence isn't solid so far (see for example this), but that would be the way to go. XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]