Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG... b-side song, didn't chart, no significant coverage in independent sources (all the news coverage references seem to be just regurgitated press releases from the group's agency saying the song exists).
Some of the article's content could maybe be salvaged and put into a newly-created article about the song's parent maxi-single (along with information on the other 3 songs, maybe?) but as it stands it doesn't fit the criteria. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is a run-of-the-mill college softball team that compiled a mediocre 28–26 record, won no championships and did not have other notable accomplishments. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources and is based instead on databases sources and/or routine press releases from non-independent, captive sources such as the school and conference websites. Cbl62 (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, according to some sources, one of their products has been rated as the leading product in its category by Gartner's Magic Quadrant. Should not that make it notable? Sauer202 (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source for that claim is... Collibra itself! Any Gartner coverage of this is hidden behind paywalls on the Gartner website, so I haven't seen it, but I suspect it would qualify as WP:ORGTRIV under as "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in 'best of', 'top 100', 'fastest growing' or similar lists." Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!19:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Expanded the article by adding List of Notable Warraich people from the region. Added 1 more archived reference in addition to 4 book references already there. This article is much improved now since the nomination....Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Draftfy : In my opinion instead of Vanishing this accumulated article it would be better to detain for certainty and nevertheless can anyone's recommend to improve its assertion in constructive way, thats what i want to adhere for you guysLifechance (talk)
Delete: Can only find him in darts databases (with very minimal info like name, DOB, placing) and they seem to include every darts player that has played in a semi-professional comp. No news or evidence of other WP:SIGCOV. MolecularPilot09:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on the basis of his apparent lack of any success in his darts career, which suggests he won't have received a lot of notice. There is no evidence of jounralistic coverage about Davies. With such a common name, it's unlikely we'll stimble across any. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG as well as WP:SPORTCRIT. A search pulled up very few sources, almost nothing actually independent, because of a lackluster career. Improperly sourced (through the "External links" section) this is a severely undersourced (really unsourced) BLP. I could find that he was born Andrew Robert Davies but mostly career information. Wikipedia is not intended to be a resume. Compare with more notable dart players: John Henderson, Phil Taylor, Kevin Painter, Scott Mitchell, or even Lisa Ashton. I would surmise Barenotability is rarely a green light to keep. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional competitor on the world stage who won the News of the World Darts Championship, the British Matchplay and the Swedish Open. Reaching the quarter-finals of the World Championship in 1980 is notable as is being part of the England team which won the WDF World Cup in 1979. Can be sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As completely devoid of sources, with no attempt being made to demonstrate notability. People do not inherit notability from being part of a team or playing in a particular event. Unacceptable to have unsourced biographies for nearly two decades. AusLondonder (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, participated in four world championships and was a professional in the sport. The event was the sole dart world championship at the time, and had a significant viewership (especially in UK). --Soman (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability isn't inherited from playing in notable sports events. I found this and this which have details about his career in between the quotes from McCarthy. There is this but it is only 3 paragraphs on him. Dougal18 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess whether sources available can establish GNG notability as notability is not gained from events an individual participates in. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable edition/staging of amateur sports event - that doesn't meet WP:NSEASON or WP:SIGCOV or WP:NEVENT. Even if the competition as a whole (the Gerry Reilly Cup) has notability, there is nothing to indicate that this single running of that event has independent notability. Certainly the text of the article, the refs within it, and a WP:BEFOREsearch for other sources do not appear to establish independent notability. If not deleted, as an WP:ATD, the title could perhaps be redirected to Gerry Reilly Cup (perhaps to a section WP:WITHIN it dealing with the 2007 event). But there is otherwise no apparent sources/rationale for a single instance of this (non-national, provincial, amateur, childrens/schoolboy) competition has independent notability. (By extension I would question the expectation/presumption, in this template, that every annual occurrence of this amateur/teenage competition warrants a standalone WP:NSEASON/WP:NEVENT article....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to create more articles for annual events of this provincial underage football competition, which has grown in stature with each passing year, with counties beyond the province of Leinster now participating. The 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article was created because when I located the Gerry Reilly Cup article, I found it to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was possibly created in 2007 as it focused very much on that year's competition. I tidied up the article and thought it best to create a standalone 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article to place the bulk of content that I found on the main page. The format of the tournament has also changed since 2007 so the content had become dated and no longer accurate in the way that it appeared on the main page. It was also quite challenging to source references for that renewal of the tournament which happened seventeen years ago. Moresthepity (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your note. If it's "challenging to source references for [..the event..] which happened seventeen years ago", would that not indicate that WP:SIGCOV isn't met? And that, perhaps, (whatever about the competition as a whole or instances of the competition held on other years) the 2007 staging doesn't/didn't warrant a standalone article? Guliolopez (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged uncited since 2009 and Turkish article is also uncited. Sounds plausible but probably needs a native speaker living in İstanbul to say whether this is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: There are whole books written about this subject such as "Bogaziçi Gezi Rehberi" by Jack Deleon , and "Boğaziçi sayfiyeleri" by G. V. İnciciyan. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This AfD does not qualify for a Speedy Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎18:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, @Liz. I thought this would be considered an appropriate notification as stated in the canvassing guideline, since that is a central location and I was completely open about it. (A more conventional noticeboard for this, WikiProject Turkey, is unfortunately very inactive lately, and maybe this could attract the interest of some existing/prospective project members.) TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz @TheJoyfulTentmaker I am happy with any of my AfD being publicised on Turkish Wikipedia. In very many cases there is either no Turkish article or it is completely uncited. Many of the Turkish editors would be able to contribute here, but even if they don’t want to come to enwiki if they could cite on trwiki we could simply copy the cite to enwiki. Especially for the many uncited Turkish music, TV and film articles they will be far more knowledgable than me. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nominator, otherwise ordinary citizen who received brief attention for action that while laudable, does not attribute him with notability (or coverage demonstrating such) warranting inclusion in an encycloapedia. Keeping would cross BLP1E and NOTNEWS.— MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". He was awarded both a Carnegie Medal for heroism and a Canadian Medal of Bravery. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 an award alone does not confer notability. Per WP:N - (in reference to notability guidelines including WP:ANYBIO): People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards… meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awards don't make people notable enough for encyclopedia articles if your source for the award is the award's own self-published website about itself — that's a primary source, not a GNG-building one, and that wipes out two of the three footnotes here. The key to making him permanently notable on this basis would require coverage about him in third party sources unaffiliated with the statement — namely media coverage and/or books — and just one hit of that isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ray Peat is a man known for having what could be most nicely described as extremely eccentric views on nutrition. If you've ever wondered why so many people dislike seed oils, he is partly a source. He is very popular in niche online communities. None of the sources here evidence notability, and a search found none more. I believe he will probably be notable someday - but not now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The article seems to be well sourced. The above comments seem to be personal POV of whatever they know about the article's subject and seed oils. If the word "seed oils" were not linked, not everybody would even know what that refers to. In today's world there are numerous individuals publicly pushing their views on nutrition. The article could be expanded, but I find nothing in it that disqualifies it. — Maile (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 Well sourced - to a substack post, his own two theses, and a one sentence mention in GQ??? The US health source is at least something but that's on the diet not him and fringe-y. Nothing here shows notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is a run-of-the-mill college softball team that compiled a less-than-mediocre 17–37 record, won no championships and did not have other notable accomplishments. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources and is based instead on databases sources and/or routine press releases from non-independent, captive sources such as the school and conference websites. Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Feyaad Allie’s position as a scholar in the Department of Government at Harvard University meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under WP:PROF. Being a faculty member at a globally prestigious institution like Harvard is a strong indicator of his academic impact. His profile is publicly listed on Harvard’s official website as an important scholar in department of Government
Delete. Associate professor, cited by 14 according to GScholar, does not meet PROF. An attempt to source the article did not turn up anything that would make the subject meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG. SamSailor15:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the reasoning above and checking Semantic Scholar only one of Allie's papers has been cited by others in the database with only one of those being "highly influential" by their criteria. As such a clear case of not meeting PROF. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no specific number of "highly influential" citations mentioned in the criteria. Therefore, relying on absence of more than one "highly influential" citation does not constitute a clear case of not meeting the required standard. --DelphiLore — Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)— Duplicate !vote:DelphiLore (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
You are correct that there is no specific criteria about what is notable. That does not mean that Wikipedia does not have standards. The criteria for "highly influential" citations in Semantic Scholar is loose. One study found that 4.57% of all citations were rated as such across the over 200 million publications in Semantic Scholar. Even if they are averaging only 1 citation per paper that is over nine million such highly influential citations. My interpretation of these facts is that one such HI citation in one paper is the scientific equivalent of having walked onto a lower level professional football pitch once. It is not notable.
Also, by adding another bulleted comment with a bold keep you have in effect voted twice. Please avoid doing so again in the future. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, and for failing WP:SIGCOV. Article has major sourcing and verifiability issues. Several of the claims are not supported or only partially supported by the provided citations. Most of the cited references that are not dead do not actually verify the article content. For example, most of the cited sources do not name the roles she played in the productions or how long she played them, or review her performance at all. They only list her as a cast member in an un-named part, and do not review her performance. For this reason, I don't think we can assume the dead links are accurately verifying the content. The article will need a complete re-write which is why WP:TNT is a valid argument. Additionally, none of the sources have Mino as the primary subject so it is not clear at all that GNG is met. 4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Extend. The article may not be well sourced, but I believe as much time as can be afforded should be given to allow editors to find a source FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your response (although I don't fully understand it!).
The problems with this page arise from the fact that fuller information about this organisation has been deleted (on grounds of copyright). The solution is to restore the full information about this organisation, not to delete the page. I will endeavour to sort this out. Kps2015 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability isn't inherited" - I think what you are saying that it isn't of interest that the grand-daughter of those who campaigned for women's suffrage is campaigning in this area today. I would have thought that is arguable. Either way, how is that a reason for deleting an entire page about a major campaigning organisation, rather than simply amending it? Kps2015 (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses - if you look at the organisations which are members you will see that this is a serious lobbying organisation. Your personal feelings about the founder aren't a reason to delete a Wikipedia page. Kps2015 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PamD. I think that you can see that this is a serious organisation with a good cause. If you can suggest any improvements, that would be welcome. If you would like me to supply any further information, do let me know. Kps2015 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:SIGCOV. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON as she is young. Article is largely based on a single source which does have independent significant coverage. I was unable to locate a second source of equal quality. The other source is published by her employer and lacks independence. While this does not necessarily mean that she doesn't deserve an article, the Russian language wiki has no entry on this singer and the article is an orphan. It's possible Russian language sources exist that I missed, so if anyone knows a Russian language speaking wikipedian who is active on the English wiki, it might be good to ping them for an opinion. They might have better luck searching for sources. 4meter4 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL criteria. The subject is only mentioned in a few news articles, and there is no significant coverage available. It’s unclear how the article has survived this long without meeting notability standards. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. Fails WP:NAUTHOR too. Poor to unreliable to deadlinks to failed verification sources with no notable coverage on the subject. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded as a politician and author. RangersRus (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previously Expired PROD. concern was: "Insufficient coverage in reliable sources; accomplishments relate to his company, not him, so he is not notable under WP:NMUSIC"—that still stands. This is just a largely unsourced database entry, and the provided sources do not talk about him but are generic product listing/database entries. Unless new & better sources are introduced, this individual does not appear to have enough sig, in-depth coverage. X (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the article as it stands could do with better sources - and quite a lot of work on formatting - but a quick google shows that he is notable enough and covered in news articles, Billboard magazine, etc. that qualifies him for inclusion. His music has been used a LOT in films, which makes him pretty notable. I don't have time to spend on improving it now but would like to come back to it if nobody else does. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I can't see sigcov of him personally (eg: for Billboard [8][9][10]), the format is totally unsuitable, and it's not clear at all to me what is significant. For example, He-man and the Masters of the Universe credits him for "title music" on IMDB, but when you dig he's not the main composer and there's a lot of people credited for title music[11][12]; there's no info on Hawkeye's December the 24[13]; he's in as an executive music producer for a season of Alvinnn!!! And the Chipmunks but not as composer[14][15]; he's third credited name on Underdoggs' See Me Rock It[16]. The only criterion that he looks to maybe pass is WP:NMUSIC#10 but it's likely to require a lot of digging to establish the evidence for this and to cut his article down to noteworthy works. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~07:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an older subdivision on the outskirts of Muncie, as explained here. Even the author of said work doesn't hold it a notable town, or even a town at all. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything I see suggests this is indeed just a neighborhood (like the nearby Parkside Place just to the south) and not a town in its own right. ╠╣uw[talk]13:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this subject fails independent notability. A search through News, Scholar, and Books nails various results for "Zygon", but the vast bulk of the results are discussing the episodes they featured in (Three of which have "Zygon" in the title) and are acting as individual analyses of those respective episodes. Nearly all sourcing mentioning the Zygons is only discussing them in the context of a wider review or analysis of the episode, and anything else that does exist is a trivial mention that isn't enough to build an article on. Additionally, all of the article's current sourcing is similar excerpts from reviews, with the only real claim to notability being David Tennant liking them (A minor bit of trivia) and a wasp being named after them (Which does not automatically indicate notability per numerous subjects who get animals named after them that also lack articles). A viable AtD is to the Zygon section of "List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens" where the bulk of the notable information on the Zygons as a species is already contained. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The institute fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. The creator is an AP flag holder and has been creating articles like this one, which have no sources cited other than YouTube. The institute is claimed to have been established this year. GrabUp - Talk16:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable secondary independent sources on the page. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Fails general notability guidelines. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that’s what I wanted to do myself without going through AfD, as it would add to the backlog of hundreds of AfDs (assuming you’ve seen the chat on the NPP Discord). The college was supposed to be established this year, and there isn’t much information about it. Without a source, it wouldn’t be appropriate. GrabUp - Talk09:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show third-party reliable source coverage about the film (reviews by professional film critics, production coverage, evidence of notable awards, etc.) -- but this is completely unreferenced, and even on a Google search for other sources I found primary source (IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Roku, YouTube) evidence that the film exists, but I found absolutely nothing in the way of reliable or GNG-worthy coverage about it at all. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if circumstances change, but a film's mere existence is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bearcat isn't kidding when Nthey say that there's just nothing out there. Other than some routine database hits, some trailers, and a couple of social media posts, there's really just nothing. No objection to recreation if/when coverage becomes available, of course. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。)16:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sounds like a Terminator ripoff. None of the actors are bluelinks. No distributor attached. No festival appearances. A movie like this should probably be a speedy deletion, but I don't think any of the criteria fit. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an album of any particular note. I'm not opposed to a merge but I don't think the Attractions doing an album without Costello is noteworthy for his page DeputyBeagle (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elvis Costello. Note that not all of the article has to be merged, and most of the text in this article is merely a wordier version of history already discussed at Costello's article. A few band-specific events can be squeezed in over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did contribute some a bit to the article a few years ago, including adding the NF image and some sources. The only basis I'd argue the inclusion of notability would be the fact that the Attractions have been called one of the best backing bands in music history, but as the others have said, about 90% of their career is tied to EC. With that being said I think it would be fine to merge. – zmbro(talk) (cont)14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG criteria. Notability is not established or even hinted in the article's content, and the references do not establish any notability – one is a link to a Google search, the other is a link to a web page with all schools in the area. It exists, but does not appear to be notable in any way. Ira Leviton (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of the 1.5 million or so schools in India that we don't need an article on. No indication whatsoever of notability, would be eligible for speedy deletion as A7 if schools were not specifically excluded from that criterion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's unlikely to be notable, but we have many thousands of articles on British and American schools, most without secondary source coverage. Very few end up being deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted as it comes with all the reliable information.This school is officially recognised by The Government of India.So I think that this article should not be nominated for deletion
@Hill Top Educational Institute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Shahzaman1 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough, and I agree that this would be better treated as a more general topic, but I note that Swell (ocean) does not actually contain the term "swell surge", and does not seem to cover this type of phenomenon. Thus more a case for rewriting and generalizing than for redirecting or deleting? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Series should have at least three entries (more like 2.5 games if we're generous)
Should not be a mere summary of the individual articles (gameplay section is well written and compares the two games, it's just not supported by sources that cover the games individually)
Comment. The Austerby is described as a hamlet under the entry for Bourne in a Lincolnshire Trade Directory and appears on older Ordnance Survey maps. Austerby without "The" is a street name in The Austerby, Bourne. The ward's full name is Bourne Austerby. Pevsner has an Austerby Manor House as a titled entry, but notes it under Bourne. In a recent WikiProject UK geography discussion on whether UK wards required a separate article, most contributors thought they should be subject to passing the GNG - but one experienced editor was of the opinion wards come under WP:NPLACE and have a presumption of notability, so not clearcut. Close call but on balance, I support the nominator's redirect - to Bourne, Lincolnshire, though may change to keep, if further sources are put forward. Rupples (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an edge case given that the history cited in the article does actually have a section on this place. But what it says is almost completely at odds with the picture of this as a 19th century-founded town that's still a going concern: what it says is that yes, a town was founded, and quickly failed. I haven't seen as egregious a misrepresentation of a cited source in these discussions since the days of going over the California articles. (To be clear, the original author wasn't responsible for this; the citation was added later by another.) One could make an argument from WP:GEOLAND that since the documentation is there, an article must be written; I say this is a clear WP:GNG fail, and an example of why GEOLAND is a bad guideline. And as a rule we haven't kept articles on failed settlements unless the failure itself was notable. Mangoe (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muncie, IndianaYorktown, Indiana: Normally I'm all in on deleting stub articles about minor places, but reference 4 has enough to say about this failed settlement that a line or two could probably be added to the Muncie article. Agree with nom that saying this place "is" a community is highly misleading. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was released under CC BY 3.0 according to page ii. The article notes: "INTERVAC was the inventor of the idea of home swapping and has been discovered and pioneered home swapping practices ever since. The origin of the idea of home swapping can be dated back to 1953, stemming from collaboration between teachers to offer low-cost vacation accommodations among their colleagues around the globe. The development of the home swapping model is mainly driven by demand from the market. After the initial trials, participated teachers found that it is an enjoyable way of travelling and realised that living in each other's homes was great for cultivating international friendships. INTERVAC’s home swapping concepts and services has been growing ever since – not confined to teacher group anymore, but open to all the people that are interested in home swapping. In the beginning, swapping offers were only available in printed version. Offers were printed and tacked into a catalogue and sent to all members. Thanks to the internet, INTERVAC could use online platforms to spread information to all partners, with a much higher information density and with the possibility of immediate updating. Nowadays, INVERVAC has innovated again by offering free application for iPhone and iPad, and by showing all available homes on Google maps. Thus, it makes partner-searching process easier, clearer and more enjoyable. All in all, these above mentioned innovations in communication channels fostered a better diffusion of the home swapping services in and out of Europe."
The article notes: "A handful of international exchange services helps filter the bounty of home choice available. Intervac International has, since 1953, served as the clearing house for a series of European and American-run home-exchange operations. Among the 30 countries participating in Intervac International's home-exchange directory are Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel. Malta, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. Most home exchangers hail from Europe and the United States. Many have retired, but the two most frequent professional groups eager to swap are doctors and teachers—the latter taking advantage of their academic year's long summer holiday. Vacationers tend to consult with Intervac International's US branch when preparing for a swap. However, Intervac has competition from a growing number of exchange organizations, each with a slightly different sales pitch:"
The book notes: "Intervac International began in 1953 , and today has some 8,000 listings. More than 80 percent of the listings are outside the United States with the majority in France, followed by England, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Germany. There are also listings in Iceland, India, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Portugal, and Zimbabwe. The membership is mostly upscale, professional and in education. A directory is published every year in February with supplements in April and June. The Intervac International Affiliates in 26 countries invite individuals to join local groups, which, in the United States is in San Francisco."
The book notes: "Intervac is not a timeshare exchange company per se, but it has been helping people from different nations to exchange homes worldwide since 1953. There is no reason you cannot use it as a timeshare exchange network, even though it is set up differently than most of the others that are described in this chapter. In fact, if you try Intervac with your timeshare unit and enjoy the experience, you can add your personal home or additional vacation property into its system, as well, for different levels of trades."
The book notes: "Intervac International Home Exchange (800/756-4663; www. intervacus.com), founded more than a half-century ago and operated today in the United States by Paula Jaffe, is typical of the several vacation-exchange clubs that enable Americans to swap their homes or apartments with those of persons in other cities, in the United States or abroad, during their respective vacations. By permitting individuals to make use of a valuable asset-their own home or apartment—to live free elsewhere, it enables tens of thousands to travel in the best possible manner. And as you learn the modest charges for participation in Intervac ($65 for United States membership, $95 international, for a yearly Web-only membership), you immediately see that its managers are not involved in this business to get rich."
The article notes: "Intervac International Home Exchange, which has 10,000 members worldwide, with around 1,300 based in Britain, publishes a thick directory every year. To the uninitiated, the 450-page brochure is written in impenetrable code: for example, the letter "t" beneath an entry means good public transport, "hp" equates with "house suitable for disabled people" and "ae" signifies the use or exchange of a car. But the list of abbreviations is as important, if not more so, as the small photograph of the property in attracting potential swappers. The house may look unprepossessing, but if it has all the necessary facilities, be it a fax machine or a private beach, then it will have appeal. From Stockholm to New York, Athens to St Andrews, there are householders asking for swaps, offering rentals, house-sitting opportunities and "hospitality" breaks, where families travel and stay with each other on an exchange basis. After receiving the brochure, it is up to home owners to make contact and follow up their own arrangements, telephoning and writing to each other. It costs #80 to join Intervac."
The article notes: "The three biggest home exchange facilitators are Intervac, the first company of its kind, which specializes in European travel (tel. 80% of its properties are outside the U.S.); ... Intervac (tel. 800/756-4663; www.intervacus.com), the oldest and most experienced facilitator, requires membership for access and boasts of having the toughest terms of use. The second largest company, they have 10,000 members in 52 countries. Intervac prints its property lists in catalogs, as well as on the Internet, including 1,000 to 2,500 properties in the U.S., France, and the U.K. alone. Hundreds more are available in other countries throughout the world, mostly in Europe, but as far afield as Bali and Nepal. Intervac members pay between $68.88 a year, for online listings, to $168.88 a year, for online and print listings combined. They also position English-speaking representatives in many countries."
The article notes: "Intervac U.S. (30 Corte San Fernando, Tiburon, CA, 94920, tel. 800/756-HOME or 415/435-3497, Web: www.intervacus.com), of which Paul Jaffe is founder and co-owner. Members have a myriad of options for joining, starting at $68 for Web members who can access Web-only text and photos, or $128 for book directories and full Web access. Seniors receive $6 off if receiving the book directory of listings. Two catalogue directories are sent out each year, in April and December. Each year, Intervac has about 10,000 offers listed, in over 50 countries. And Mrs. Horne is not just a matchmaker for house traders. She is also an avid home exchanger, having swapped homes more than a dozen times in Europe alone."
Non notable; New York Times article (I read it completely) only provides general information (likely from the website or press-release, e.g.a "The company’s website makes no mention of imaging people, or the privacy issues. Even so, reconnaissance experts say regulators should wake up before its spacecraft start taking their first close-ups").
Also I found other sources to be not SIGCOV Qivatari (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very week keep actually. The NYT article meets WP:ORGCRIT. It has editorial oversight so unless OP is able to show the publication failed to do so it can be used towards notability. By weak, I mean the other reference I found was this in TechCrunch. Parts of the article are obviously supplied by the company but there does appear to be enough independent coverage within to meet WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm going to go with redirect for this one, just seems too soon for now. I'm not entirely sold on the NYT article, but I think I would go for a keep if we had 3 sources of equal quality (though I'd prefer it if at least one of them was better of course). Even with how much of it is made of quotes, the parts of it that don't (and are actually about the company) clear my threshold, if barely. Unfortunately, we don't have three, and the TechCrunch doesn't quite do it for me, and nor do any of the news articles that cite the NYT article offer enough additional content to swing things. As a plus, that NYT article should be suitable as a source for a bit of content to use in Very low Earth orbit which I'm recommending as the target as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged uncited for years and Turkish article also uncited. I searched for sources but it is hard for me to tell if this place is notable as I am not a native speaker and don’t live in Ankara. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is a well-known area in downtown Ankara and appears on pretty much all maps of the city. It is a bit like “Whitehall” as a term, and unfortunately literally means “ministries”. There will be sources in Turkish about the history and development of the area and its street, major buildings and historical significance, but trying to fillet that out of the general mass of items just about “ministries” would be a daunting task. Mccapra (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so far I’ve found 1, 2, 3 and 4. I can see plenty of discussions in other books and these in the development of the city of Ankara and its planned urbanisation, so notability is clear. Mccapra (talk) 22:31, 15 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.
Delete as WP:COPYVIO. The article is a direct translation of Sundberg 2010's entry for this war, with some selection of content (some sentences/paragraphs are not included). See the article talk page for side-by-side comparisons. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's not a one-to-one translation, but the content is close enough that when doing a side-by-side-comparison, it's obvious that they are not sufficiently independent. However, this should probvably be handled through the process for copyright violations, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Copyright violations. Andejons (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now replaced the article text with the copyvio template, but I guess the AfD process can also continue. The copyvio gets deleted either when the AfD discussion is concluded, or when a copyvio admin reacts to the template. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GusGusBrus, I've started a discussion about WP:close paraphrasing on your talk page (I should have done this earlier, to be honest), but let me also state here why the current changes to the article are insufficient.
Here's an excerpt from article Copyright: Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. In this context, "original expression" refers not only to the sentence-level structure but also to the overall composition of the work, which remains largely unchanged. While ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, Sundberg's selection and arrangement of ideas constitute a form of creative expression.
I agree that there should be an article about this topic. However, if the article relies (largely) on a single, concise source, it becomes difficult to stray far from the original composition. The rewritten article should be based on a more diverse set of sources to avoid this. Please notice, that even if the article was rewritten today, the copyright-infringing versions should still be purged from the page history. This is why I believe it would be better to let the AfD process run its course and start a new draft with a clean history. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a process to follow WP:COPYVIO. You can't have your cake and eat it too. There's nothing wrong with an article having a history stricken out. I would question why this was brought up on AfD as @Andejons has also mentioned going through the process for copyright violations. There's where you would get the best advice on what to do next. – The Grid (talk) 17:19, 22 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.
Draftify, notability cannot be established with the sources currently present in the article and the sources found in a search I'll explain here. I did find this article from the Press and Journal, and thesesources from the teams MacKay played in, but I just don't think these are enough to establish notability of him as the latter two are routine coverage of MacKay signing with the respective soccer teams. Although the first could be used to support content in the article, that doesn't seem to contain significant coverage of MacKay as it mostly deals with his older brother and his playing statistics rather than Calum MacKay himself. Other than those sources, I did not find any other in-depth, significant coverage from sources that may be an indicator of notability for him (mostly databases). I also tried searching on The Inverness Courier for information or sources on him (as it is a local newspaper source that does relate here as MacKay has played for teams in the Inverness area) but found no good coverage. I'll argue that it's a too soon case for me as well. ~ TailsWx18:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete A GBook look reveals that the term is used a lot in technical discussion of OBS; that said, I don't think what the article says is true. OTOH the article on OBS is completely non-technical technobiz buzz-speak, and actual technical discussion is likely to need this term. At any rate I just don't see it needing its own page. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, there doesn't seem to be WP:GNG. There was an article about him being picked up by Osaka University of Economics in 2020 and by December of 2020 he was listed as a sub-member.[17]The most recent thing I could find from him was a blog post he made in 2022 saying his career in football hasn't been a great success and with 2 years left in uni he had to make a choice whether to go pro or not, and considering nobody has heard from him since, I'm assuming he chose not. --Brocade River Poems (She/They)09:48, 22 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forbes and LA articles are not meeting NCORP as they are build around the founder Peabody and include lots of quotations. For instance, here is the LA so-called coverage based on citations:
Peabody aligned with charitable causes to help build community. “We set up an L.A. Service Workers Relief Fund and for one month donated 100% of our online sales to it,” she said. “We also encouraged the Bev community to donate to the initiative’s GoFundMe and matched the first $3,000 of donations. Bev’s sales grew 200% month over month during the pandemic.”
“Traditionally men buy wine in liquor stores while women buy wine in grocery stores,” she said. “Gallo is putting Bev at women’s fingertipsshe said.
In 2018 Alix Peabody, then 26 and an MFA student in screenwriting at USC, launched Bev canned wine company to pay off extensive medical bills. “I started with cans because it’s hard to create brand recognition around a bottled product,” she said. “Once you pour it into a glass, no one can tell what you’re drinking, but cans are essentially mini-billboards for the brand.”
“When lockdown hit, we had to get creative in order to reach our consumers at home,” she said. “We built a text-to-order platform in 48 hours, launched a new website designed for increased conversion and started running ads,” she said.
Comment- They are detailing the early history of the company which is exactly what makes the article in depth. Interviews are a natural part of that research and she is properly attributing which facts came through an interview. Here is another forbes article and there is plenty in Wikipedia:Before to say Wikipedia:NEXIST. SunnyScion (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passed WP:MUSICWP:CREATIVE. He has released three different albums, he is a notable representative of Igbo raps with enough collaboration with other notable musicians. He also has reliable coverages for verifiability some of which are 1, 2, 3.Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ibjaja055 so the sources you provided don't support notability as per WP:NMUSIC. But there might be sources in Igbo, do you know where I might be able to find them? I'm not an expert on Igbo or Nigeria so if you could point me in the right direction I'll try to find some sources and add them in. If you think there are offline sources then we can just send this to draft until they can be added.
Appears to be reliable after reading a few other articles
Article is 177 words and mentions that he has views on music piracy. Claims he's won awards but doesn't mention them
?Unknown
Daily Post
I'm not 100% sure but from reading some random articles it appears to be
Articles have writers and appear to be reporting properly.
Article is 125 words long and is about Mr Raw getting a shout out on Instagram
✘No
Daily Trust
Appears to be, not 100% sure but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt
Has other articles that appear to be
Entry in the article is under his old man and is only 119 words
✘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}}.
@Dr_vulpes Thank you for your prompt reply and I am also sorry for my late reply too. The sources I provided establish that the subject is a prominent figure in Igbo rap, and successors have acknowledged this by referencing him. The citations in the article may not fully meet the criteria of WP:GNG but they should be sufficient to pass the WP:SNG for WP:CREATIVE
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
Delete : No other coverage to proof notable than being hospitalized due to a car accident. The rest news are interviews.--7G🍁 (🪓) 11:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Ibjaja055, that seems like a good reason to keep the article but do you have any sources saying that (i.e. that he originated Igbo rap or is an important figure)? That is what I usually see asked for in these discussions, and I think it would be helpful. I see he says it in a source from the Igbo rap article but I can't find anyone other than him saying it explicitly. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a quote from someone else rather than the newspaper saying it directly, though (although its adjacent). This article also credits him as a pioneer, although it does seem rather promotional of its (not him) subject, but that could likely be just an enthusiastic journalist. This other article seems to have a good account of the origins of Igbo rap but is a 404 and not in the internet archive. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pioneer of a what music genre.?Phyno is the Pioneer of Igbo Rap. Mr Raw was just also an igbo rapper. We cant justify a musician from naming thierself a title [18]. We need more of independent source to justify that than relying on interviews. 7G🍁 (🪓) 14:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can reply without mentioning my name. It’s then left for me to ignore you. They are more notification on my phone to attend than this @7g on Wikipedia. 7G🍁 (🪓) 21:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails WP:GNG, all its source are primary sources from about 100 years ago, written by "race theorists" (see Scientific racism). From a short look at the given sources it is not even clear that the term "Iberian race" ever meant something else than just "Iberian people". The article "Continental Nordic race" by the same creator was reduced to a redirect for similar problems, see WP:Articles_for_deletion/Continental_Nordic_race. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Whatever coverage there might exist in modern sources (if it exists at all), it would be in the context of describing racial essentialism as an obsolete concept of anthropology, and not to propose "Iberian race" as real and notable entity. We don't have to create articles that might have had its place as entries in an encyclopedia of the early 1900s, but not in 2024. Also, the "Features" based on outdated and non-reliable sources blatantly insinuates in Wikivoice that "Iberian race" is a thing ("is known"), so the obvious purpose of this article is to legitimize pseudoscience through the backdoor. –Austronesier (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep: Wikipedia is full of various depreciated/obsolete/historical racial classifications like this one; see Category:Historical definitions of race. As long as the current scientific consensus on the non-existence of various human races is clearly stated and not contested within the article text ... I don't see a problem. These kind of 'historical definitions' can sometimes provide a useful context to interpreting the past. Vlaemink (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vlaemink: In general, I agree, but this specific article has some specific problems. I just checked two of the six sources: One of them knows the technical use of the word "race", but uses "Iberian race" only in the non-technical sense, the other one doesn't even use the term "Iberian race". I have strong doubts that the term was ever used in the technical sense of the race theorists (except maybe as a synonym for the "Mediterranean race"). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not sufficient for WP:GNG to have an article solely based on outdated (and partially misused/miscited) sources with a disclaimer "this used to be science". We don't have an article for every type of incubus mentioned in the Malleus maleficarum (unless there is WP:SIGCOV for that specific incubus in relevant and reliable sources). –Austronesier (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is no consensus right now and we have two different suggested Redirect target articles. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mediterranean race: I just found this in the article about that race: H. G. Wells referred to the Mediterranean race as the Iberian race.[1]
Comment: I don't know about the matter but the article seems to have no problems now (other than having basically no content). It's kind of already blown up/blanked and started over as far as I can tell. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has several news articles entirely about him in medium to large sized publishers [19], [20] so very clearly WP:NOTABLE, even if the article was originally made by an editor with a WP:COI. Current version of the article is very small and seems totally fine to expand upon, no WP:NPOV issues or the like - it seems unnecessary and against WP:NOTBURO to delete it in present form only to recreate (it's basically just a list of projects he's been involved with - barely stub-class). MolecularPilot09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC with no notable discography or label activity. The only material in the article is about his death and useless content about feuding rap groups, with no viable coverage of his own music. 💥Casualty• Hop along. •05:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Massively noteable phenomena, there are hundreds of sources covering even just the intersection with the TradWife tend. (I.e. sources mentioning that back in the 1960s a good proportion of males without a colledge degree could still earn enough to support a familly with a stay at home housewife, whereas now only the most elite can affort that.) The phenomea helps explain many aspects of socio-political history, especially after 2016. It would be embarrassing not to cover it.
Nom is however correct on it being a neologism. If it survives AfD, I'll propose renaming to either Great Regression (Robert Reich) or Stagnating real wages for lower earning workers in the advanced economies since 1981 (Checking on google scholar, the vast majority of recent uses of "Great regression" are in completely different senses to that used by good professor Reich.) Being 'transparently political' is not a valid reason for deletion. I'd be inclined to accept it as an IAR reason if the article would be likely to increase US polarisation - but the phenomena reflects almost equally badly on both parties (Many would say worse on the Reps in the 20th century, but quite a few have argued the Dems have been more to blame in recent years, and there are global economic forces in play that neither party can easilly fully mitigate.) PS - I tweaked the wording to make clear the article if refering to real wages - thanks Nom for pointing out it could have been read as "wildly incorrect". FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I say wildly incorrect, I mean every sentence in the article is rejected by the consensus of mainstream economists and is not supported by the actual data. Real median wages are up substantially from 1980 (and more precise metrics, like median household income per head-equivalent after adjusting by PCEPI, have increased much faster). A framing that "reflects badly (or well) on both parties" is still an explicitly political framing, and in fact that's my main complaint here—the article is just uncritically repeating Robert Reich's populist talking points, despite wages, compensation, and consumption figures all disagreeing with him. If the article is kept, it should be retitled something like "Great Regression myth" and be devoted to explaining how this thesis has been thoroughly rejected by the consensus of mainstream economists. (Excluding parts like widening measures of relative inequality, where the field generally agrees that metrics like Gini are up, although there's some disagreement.) The consensus is that the period 1980-2015 was characterized by the poor getting richer at a slightly slower pace than the rich, a trend that reversed around 2015. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG - The term is not reliably used in ANY field; searches turn up a few occurrences of the term for Machine Learning and other areas, but NOT an accepted term or description of the allegedly connected social/economic changes described by a small number of authors.
Promotional resume-style bio for a non-notable economist, repeatedly moved into mainspace by quickie-autoconfirmed accounts following declines at AfC. There is no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Sources in the article are primarily the subject's own writings, plus WP:PRIMARYSOURCE bios and a few low-quality promotional WP:CHURNALISM articles that appear to be based solely on interviews with the subject (see here, here; this one is explicitly marked as sponsored content). With a relatively low h-index for an economist at his stage of career, I don't see a pass of WP:NACADEMIC either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This article is almost entirely based on one primary source. A search for sources found routine coverage of ambassador activities but no WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject charted but WP:NMUSICIAN does not guarantee notability. It still comes down to sourcing. There is nothing I can find in-depth about the subject that would be consdiered reliable. There is also a lot of press and churnalism such as this and this which are regurgitations of the same thing published on the same day but different publications. The Billboard reference only verifies the charting which was done on a collaboration with another artist. CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, so glad this made it here Thank you so much CNMall41. Before going into sourcing and notability, I have started using my alt account for reviving (mostly African) articles I feel like the subject is notable and deleted under WP:G5. After this, I'm moving on to reviving Pabi Cooper.
With that being said, yes, I do agree that only 2 source are the same which is what publications like MSN and allAfrica do, they "re-publish" what's already out there and credit the publisher. The subject did chart on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs,[2] and again on the UK Afrobeats Singles Chart.[3] Keep in mind that he is credited as the primary artist on the song per media notes.[4] JZyNO has been subject of the news multiple times here,[5] and here,[6] just to mention a few. He was also nominated for multiple Liberia Music Awards.[7][8] and Telecel Ghana Music Award at the 25th edition (2024).[9]This nomination is based on the two identical sources, charting collaboration (not sure what's wrong with that tho), and sourcing lacking depth. The cited references above are enough to sum up clear WP:SIGCOV as they are in depth and the subject do pass WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. Starting to wonder if the nominator performed WP:BEFORE. dxneo (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do realize that having a page you created sent to deletion can be frustrating, however please WP:AGF. Saying that you "wonder if the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE" is a veiled accusation that I lack the competency to properly review a page for notability. This is not away to get your contention across in a deletion discussion. I will respond to your notability points in a minute once I look through the sources you provided. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the nomination, charting does not grant inherent notability for a musician under WP:NMUSICIAN. The wording is "may be notable," not "is" notable. For the awards, they are nominations, not wins so not even relevant for WP:MUSICBIO. The first two sources you pointed out only verify charting. They are not significant, just verification. Three is from Apple Music so this cannot be used for notability. The fourth and seventh are the two I pointed out that are WP:CHURNALISM. Five is an interview and six and eight are just verifications of his award nominations. I see no significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my apologies for that earlier statement. However, respectfully, it really looks like you are not familiar with WP:MUSICBIO as it states that "8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." So I don't know what you mean when you say "nominations are not relevant." You then said "charting is not inherent," what's there to inherit when it's his song? (rhetorical question) Those sources are in-depths, this is not a GA standard article, it's somewhere between Start and Stub-class, hope you understand. Apple Music source is for verifying that the subject is the primary artist. Those reliable sources clearly discuss the subject where he's from and so on,which is what's most important. (SIGCOV) Trying to dismiss the sources by saying "they are just…" is not the way to go, because I was radequately eferencing every statement. Again, the subject clearly pass WP:GNG, as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. dxneo (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I realize it is frustrating, but please be WP:CIVIL. Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award." So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin. I said that charting does not give inherent notability. You keep saying the coverage is significant but have not shown how. Saying it "clearly passes WP:GNG" is a fallacy by assertion at this point without being able to demonstrate how interviews, churnalism, and simply verifications are considered significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't know why you keep saying be CIVIL, as if I'm using foul language, this is a discussion and I'm participating. Not everyone can be nominated for the Grammys, and thousands are notable without a Grammy nomination. However, every country/region got their major awards. Example, in South Africa, we have multiple awards organizations which are considered major, something like South African Music Awards. Every region got their own alternatives. U.S. got Grammys, Canada got Junos, and so on. Hope you understand. dxneo (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like nomination to me. "Artist of the Year" (Singluar) shows him second so more like a nomination. Regardless, it is still only verification, not significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay mate, let me try to break it down maybe we will understand each other. I will also quote the guidelines so that no one has to go back and fourth trying to verify.
In your own words you said "Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award."" WP:ONUS states that "not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate." With that being said, I would say that nominations are accolades, and accolades do improve the quality of the article as #8 of WP:MUSICBIO states that "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions," where as the subject is the direct recipient here.
Again, in your own words you went on to say that "So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin," but earlier you said that charting does not grant inherent notability. So I have two questions. First, why did you say the nominations are irrelevant when MUSICBIO says otherwise? Secondly, since charting is a requirement to pass notability per MUSICBIO, why do you want to strike it out?
Moving on to WP:GNG which includes WP:SIGCOV. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.this source covers the upbringing of the subject in detail, football, how he got into music and how he moved from one country to another. Yes, you may argue that it was an interview, but information is most reliable when it's coming from the primary source and artists are often interviewed including high profiles like Rihanna and I bet that you'd never second guess a Rihanna interview, so why question this one? And in this case, the interview comes from a secondary reliable source (BBC). This source tells you his full name, when and where he was born, including his ancestry. With those two sources you can sum up SIGCOV.
Subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. The subject is Liberian with Ghanaian and Nigerien ancestry. However, he was the subject of the news in South Africa, which states that he has won 4 out of 7 awards. He was covered by Billboard in the US, and again by Vanguard in Nigeria, not to mention his native publications.
All of the above mentioned sources are reliable (and highlited green) So, last question, which WP:GNG requirement was not met here? dxneo (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not refer to me as mate. As far as the WP:WALLOFTEXT, I will sum it up like this - You quoted policy which states "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail." I will concede the references address him directly. What you have not provide evidence of is how they cover him "in detail." The mentions are verification, the others churnalism, another an interview. At this point, the discussion is becoming ad nauseam. I will leave it for closers to determine.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Giant walls of text just discourage participation from others. Both of you need to calm down and let others participate so we can come to a consensus on what to do. Editor(s) who wish to keep the article - can you please give a concise explanation of your WP:THREE? Sergecross73msg me02:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The subject of this article meets criterion 1 and 2 of MUSICBIO. He is a Liberian artist who has received some coverage in Front Page Africa, which can be seen here, here and here. He has also recevied coverage in Pulse Nigeria, This Day newspaper, Vanguard, and in the BBC, despite the latter source being a primary source. Moreover, he has been discussed in the Lusaka Times and Nairobi News. He won and has been nominated for the MTN Liberia Music Awards, which is considered the biggest music award show in Liberia. He was nominated five times at the award's 2020 edition and won two awards in the 2023 edition. As previously stated, his song "Butta My Bread" charted on the Billboard Afrobeats song chart and the UK Afrobeats singles chart. Per this article, he is the first Liberian artist to gain global attention and is currently signed to Universal Music Group. Per the BBC article, his song "Butta My Bread" has received 160 million streams and is Liberia's biggest Afrobeats song. His song charting on two national music charts along with the sources I have mentioned here should be sufficient for a weak keep. Versace1608Wanna Talk?16:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you described is what would be considered inherent notability in my opinion. Again, the notability guideline does not say he "is" notable for charting. It says he "may" be notable. The sources are all verification of claims, not significant or in-depth about the artist. We also need to be careful about using sources like this since they are not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way it works. A soruce does not have to go to RSN to be determined unreliable. Similar to how a reference does not have to go to RSN to be considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient here to meet WP:MUSICBIO, including charting, and secondary coverage, and a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national international radio network (i.e. BBC World Service). Also I disagree about the WP:RS BBC article being classed primary; yes it includes quotes, but also includes secondary text and analysis and biographical information under a journalistic byline. ResonantDistortion19:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other sources (other than the claim of BBC) that you would consider reliable and covers the subject in detail (not just verification of claims of charting or award nominations)?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just let other editors assess the subject 'cause would BBC and Billboard "claim" someone charted when they didn't, and why would those awards be claims? [rhetorical question]dxneo (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why the question was posed to the editor making the vote. Unless you are able to speak for them, please stop muddying up the discussion with WALLSOFTEXT.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like to see more evaluation of the sources presented in this discussion since we have some disagreement. I will say at this point that I see no support for deleting this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mynewsgh.com - No byline and site has no editorial oversight listed. Likely churnalism or a paid placement. Regardless, it is a rehash of what the subject posted on Twitter so in addition to being unreliable, this specific source in no way could be considered WP:INDEPENDENT.
FrontPage Africa, using an archive link since the original is no longer published on that website. Written by "FPA Staff Reporter" which is not bylined. However, other news articles such as the first one on the home page are bylined. This usually indicates it is a placement and given the tone it is more likely a press release.
BBC, great interview but it is just that....an interview. Not independent. All but five of the 17 paragraphs contain quotes. No independent journalism here.
Vanguard, while the publication has editorial oversight, this is yet another one that has no byline. Given this about selling paid article placements (yes, a separate fee so that it is not marked "sponsored content"), I would not see this as independent.
Billboard, good publication but this is only verification that he collaborated with another artist and that song debuted at No. 50 on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs. There is two sentences about him so not in-depth or indepdnent journalism. I will point out again that WP:NMUSICIAN does not make someone inherently notable for charting. The wording says "may be notable" but they still need significant coverage. Simply having a mention in a reputable publication does NOT show notability.
BBC, just lists his name as a nominee right below the actual winner of the award.
FrontPage Africa, forgot to add this which was brought up above. Completely unreliable as written by a "contributor" as opposed to other articles you can find on the site with full bylines. More paid placement. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I forgot that piece of churnalism which states - "According to a statement sent to media, this newest musical venture sets the stage for a “lively and immersive experience”." Not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done defending this. Charts are obviously for positions. According to you, all of the above-mentioned reliable sources are not independent. Now the awards and nominations are not to be considered? I'm so done. dxneo (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reviewed my !vote in the light of what appears, for no obvious reason, to be a rather strident AfD discussion. The article subject has had a significant segment on national level radio, has charted in multiple countries, and has also been nominated, or won, awards at a national level in 2 countries. All of these are "ticks" per WP:MUSICBIO that are verified by sources which are very much independent of the subject, and are cited in the article. We appear to have, at minimum, enough for a Start-level article. Consequently a presumption of notability may be made and I stand by my keep !vote. ResonantDistortion16:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect you taking the time to go through everything. I just want to say that presumption of notability is not notable. We have presumed notability based on those ticks but I still do not see the significant coverage (only verification sources). MUSICBIO says "may" be notable for these things, not that they "are" notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should have discussed this along with Reel Tight. Looking at the sources (that aren't dead), the only source that somewhat confirms WP:NRV is an article by OffBeat and even then, the article doesn't elaborate much other than calling the band a success story. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or if this article should just be deleted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mughal Conquest of Mewar was a series of millitary campaigns whereas Battle of Dewair is a single battle. I don't see any reason to merge it with the latter. WP: REDUNDANTFORK applies for the same topic with different name. However, In this case the battle is a part of strings of event(Mughal Conquest of Mewar) through which Mewar concluded a treaty. Hence neither it should be deleted nor it should be merged. Rawn3012 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Rawn3012. WP:REDUNDANTFORK states that's it is bad to have "two articles about the exact same thing" - but these are not the same thing, it's a battle within the larger conquest therefore the only thing that matter is if the battle itself is notable. Searches for name (Hindi: दिवेर का युद्ध) return a lot of results especially in Indian media, i.e. Dainik Bhaskar (4th in the world by circulation) made an article specifically about it interviewing academics [21] and there's a lot more as well meeting WP:SIGCOV. MolecularPilot09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been a sock magnet, so I don't think Soft Deletion is the best option. It either needs the support of editors to keep it sock-free or to be Deleted or Redirected or Merged. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Mughals and Marathas have been at war between 1526-1779, this article lists a collection of WP:RS battles and also the cronological events. Every history and major source agress there was a long lasting war between Mughals and Rajputs, there is no denying it. I don't see a reason this WP:Notable historic article has been nominated for deletion! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Existence of this article is an improvement and provides for easier viewing for interested people. The article title is phrased plurally; Mughal–Rajput wars. Not being a made up single conflict. Deleting this article is an inappropriate course of action for the problem. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-There were surely wars between Rajputs and Mughals and this article summarizes that but what is wrong in this is its tone and possible same content from other articles. All it needs is an improvement of in depth details about topic and a good tone. Rawn3012 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I didn't realize there was an earlier nomination in 2009 when I made this nom. Apparently un-named sources were identified at an external website during that discussion. However, the web archive url isn't loading for me so I can't see what these are...4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because last AfD was two+ years ago and the redirect is contested, bringing it back here to see if consensus has changed. If it hasn't, recommend protecting of the redirect. I see nothing that approaches N:ORG level of coverage. StarMississippi01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and protect: More editor effort has already been expended than that of the IP who is seeking to negate the 2022 AFD outcome. If they feel strongly, they can make a case at WP:DRV. More generally, should redirect outcomes always be protected immediately? I have seen a couple going to-and-fro recently. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and protect to target proposed by Tarpath. Although WP:CONCHANGE, there is little in the article between the last two AfDs and now to suggest it should. Failed NCORP then, fails it now. SerialNumber5412910:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and protect to Philip Morris#brands. Makes sense. Seems like protection is necessary due to the IP editor interfering with consensus decisions.David Palmer//cloventt(talk)22:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, Lord. Subject is completely non-notable and the article isn't even hiding the fact that it's promotional. How it's stuck around for eighteen years is mind-blowing. 💥Casualty• Hop along. •05:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSCHOOL. One source is a directory listing, the other is not significant coverage of this school. Since the last AfD we are a lot more stricter on school notability. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 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.
Tagged for notability since 2018. Article is largely unreferenced which is not ok for a BLP article. Time to decide one way or another as a community if this meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I've added several sources. Enough to establish WP:SIGCOV. If anyone wants to continue with cleaning it up and making it read less like a resume that would be great.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 22 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.
Comment NPOL requires "significant" press coverage. Just one reference isn't enough for "significant." The Guardian is a reliable source, but not everybody who gets a story in the Guardian gets an article solely because they were mentioned in the Guardian.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. There are unfortunately a lot of women named Suad Abdi and there may be some additional coverage out there but I can’t see anything else that appears to relate to this subject or would amount to in depth coverage in any case. Mccapra (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]