The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non notable film, never took off beyond the "a hemsworth brother is starring!" and announcements about its filming, didn't seem to get any major critical reviews or coverage, so just another run of the mill film. CUPIDICAE💕23:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Luke Hemsworth: to give you an idea of the lack of coverage here, there are literally zero almost zero reviews aggregated on Rotten Tomatoes (which sets a lower bar for inclusion than the WP bar for notability) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ReaderofthePack Can you elaborate on what new sources show notability? All I see is an additional press release from the terribly unreliable Statesman and the same announcements I pointed out in my nom, which do not in the slightest contribute to notability - "it's filming" "is starring" isn't coverage, those are press releases. CUPIDICAE💕13:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The notability stems from the reviews, which are considered a sign of notability per WP:NFILM. I wasn't aware that the Statesman wasn't a RS on here, so I've removed it from the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)03:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. To be fair, the article was badly written, and misrepresented his notability claim by highlighting a school board candidacy (which doesn't make a person notable at all, and which wasn't even still "current" anymore) over and above the role that actually makes him notable — so it was very easy to miss that he actually does pass WP:NPOL #1 as a past member of a state legislature. Also, although I'm not knowledgeable enough about Nevada politics to fix the article myself, I can verify that his googlability does shoot up significantly if you search for "david gardner nevada assembly" instead of "david gardner clark county", so better sources are definitely available. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that probably is. This is one of the reasons why I'm often seen in discussions (and edit summaries) harping on the fact that the introduction has to highlight the person's actual notability claim first, instead of (as often happens) being rewritten to prioritize less notable current activity ahead of whatever past achievement got the person into Wikipedia in the first place. That's not your fault in this case, so don't take it as a criticism of you — it's a criticism of whoever originally thought his (withdrawn) campaign for a school board seat was a bigger priority to highlight than his status as a former state legislator in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello. Jafar Najafi has won the prize for the best film (category: children) from IDFA (International Documentary Film festival). This month also he is nominated for the "best first feature film" at the same festival. His 2020 documentary film "ASHU" also won various prizes. I think it is good to have a page about him. Thanks.--Malekfarugh (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2021 (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.
Article has been tagged as needing additional sources for verification. A search has failed to find coverage beyond self published and outdated sources. Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Could be redirected to artist' page as it has not charted etc. ≫ Lil-Unique1-{ Talk }-22:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fairly unremarkable release. Per WP:GNG has not received coverage and is not notable per WP:NALBUMS as it has not charted or received coverage beyond it's track listing. Search of news sources done and coverage not found. ≫ Lil-Unique1-{ Talk }-22:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep: I don't agree with the editor above that all those sources are reliable, probably only No Depression and maybe More Than the Music. But if Ms. Dillon's website is to be believed, this was reviewed in at least two general music magazines and the UK's leading roots music magazine [6], so it looks like there is coverage in print form. Richard3120 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am convinced by Richard3120's analysis above. There are a few reliable reviews to support a basic stub article here, and the not-so-reliable sources can be used sparingly to flesh out the text a bit. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fairly unremarkable release. Per WP:GNG has not received coverage and is not notable per WP:NALBUMS as it has not charted or received coverage beyond it's track listing. Search of news sources done and coverage not found. ≫ Lil-Unique1-{ Talk }-22:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good merge target – this EP has nothing to do with Kate Bush and mention of this EP on the song's page would simply be confusing, and there also is a more famous song by a more famous artist on the EP, which could equally be the redirect target. Richard3120 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mary Dillon. This appears to fail WP:NALBUM, and I'm dubious about Dillon's own article as it is, but there appear to be enough reviews of her subsequent full-length album in print sources to convince me that the artist's article should remain. Richard3120 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable enough for a stand alone article. The information about #MC30 is already extensively covered at the artist page. The background information is superfluous and the release of the EP itself did not receive enough coverage to warrant an article per WP:NALBUMS. The majority of the coverage focuses on the existence and release of the EP rather than anything substantial not covered elsewhere. ≫ Lil-Unique1-{ Talk }-22:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete My WP:Before is turning up mostly personal memorial/genealogy websites or wiki mirrors. The only promising thing I found is this, though it seems to lack independence from the subject. Fails GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a blog post from self-described "history PhD student at Queen’s University in Kingston". Students are not considered experts sources when they self-publish material. If Barrett actually had PhD that would be different. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is not sourced well enough to get him over WP:GNG — it's far too dependent on primary sources and blogs, with not nearly enough evidence of real media coverage — and claims nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG. Just listing a bunch of books as a "bibliography" section separately from the references, without footnoting any of the body content to those books to provide some concrete evidence of how much the books do or don't actually say about the subject, is not dropping the mic on a notability question. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Davis was the first commanding officer of the 24th Regiment Grey's Horse; he is mentioned is that article. Davis was also the first Commanding Officer of the 54th (Kootenay) Battalion, CEF, later 54th (Central Ontario) Battalion. Durindaljb (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could seeing keeping the article if it was expanded to show notability. I did not see the obituary either. I would suggest adding to Introduction paragraph why he is notable with secondary sources. Thanks! --Greg Henderson (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is two obits on him, but he as not really done anything to stand out. I was checking him out at the cat:nn site expecting to find something mysterious, but there is no mystery. scope_creepTalk16:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Disputed PROD: "Eliteserien top scorer. Notability should be obvious" However it fails WP:NFOOTBALL because the article subject played at a time well before the Norwegian men's football league was 'fully professional'. Being top goal scorer in a part-time, semi-pro football league is not inherently notable and there is little evidence of enough sustained, non-routine coverage to come anywhere near WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tippeligaen in the 1990s got massive attention in Norway's largest newspapers, try for example searching Norwegian Newspaper archives for "Kjetil Roar Kaasa" from 1990–2000, and you'll find 8600 hits.([10]) You can't simply disregard these players as "not professionals, thus not notable", and thinking of them as "part-time, semi-pro" gives a completely wrong impression. Deleting articles about such well known player makes little sense. Regards, Kjetil_r21:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A further example: Kaasa played in the European Cup Winners Cup 1998/1999 quarter-final.[11] You really can't think of players who spent the 1990s in the top Norwegian clubs as "part-timers", when these clubs made it into the group stage of the UEFA Champions League and the round of 16 of the Cup Winners cup. --Kjetil_r22:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about the football team for a grade school on Notre Dame's campus. All sourcing is either from Notre Dame's student newspaper (so not particularly independent or reliable) or hyperlocal game write ups. Mostly appears to be WP:FANCRUFT. It's possible that a short write up could be added to History of Notre Dame Fighting Irish football, but not a full article.GPL93 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of Notre Dame: An undoubtedly interesting topic that unfortunately seems like original research. I suggest the main article as I found a journal article that mentions the Minim program. Though the football team article would surely work as well.Delete based on the more detailed conversations here. Though the historian in me wishes something could be salvaged. Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)21:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first reference is independent and it is about the Minims department as a whole and not the football team. Mention of the Minims Department would likely be most appropriate at History of the University of Notre Dame, but under this current title and scope of article deletion may be the best option. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm persuaded by GPL93. This article focuses exclusively on the results of football games played by grammar school boys. I can't think of another grammar school where we have stand-alone articles on the football program (or any other athletic program), and I think it would be a very bad precedent to start creating such articles. In the final analysis, (1) the scope is simply too narrow to be encyclopedic; (2) the article is largely based on coverage in the school newspaper (the Notre Dame Scholastic) which is not WP:INDEPENDENT and does not count for purposes of a WP:GNG assessment; and (3) WP:NHSPHSATH requires more than local coverage to support stand-alone articles on pre-high school athletes. The creator (User:Murphanian777) has contributed many interesting and encyclopedic articles, and I hope that deletion of this article will not discourage his continued participation. Cbl62 (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any place at the main university article or the Fighting Irish football article to tabulate the annual records of teams of ten-year-olds. The Notre Dame Fighting Irish are an entirely separate team from children who played the sport. I could see some mention at History of the University of Notre Dame that it used to have a connected elementary school and secondary school, but I doubt football was even the only sport played and this does not need a merge any more than other grade or high schools need explication about their athletic teams. Reywas92Talk22:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article is unorthodox and locally sourced, I do not believe it merits a deletion. I know articles on grammar and high school football teams are scarcely accepted, but I believe that the Minims are notable in their clear uniqueness. What other University do you know of that has sponsored a grade school program and hired coaches to help the players achieve undefeated seasons? Several of these coaches have also acquired enough notability to be granted their own Wikipedia pages, such as Notre Dame varsity football coach Henry McGlew and the Olympian Eugene Oberst. The Minim program itself, along with the Junior department, should be granted their own articles, either by myself or another editor. Their rivalry with the junior department is equally unheard of. Before discovering the Minim vs. Ex-Minim games, I had never known that there was a defined football rivalry between a high school and a bunch of ten-year olds. I see no dangerous precedence being set here because the Minims are not just a commonplace kindercare, but a vital organ of one of the top universities, and football teams, in the United States. Ultimately I am biased, both as a fan and the creator, but I really see no harm in allowing the page to remain. Murphanian777 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Murph -- I do respect the effort that went into this article, but the significant coverage (see WP:SIGCOV) in reliable, independent sources simply appears to be lacking. My suggestion is to search for an outlet covering Notre Dame history, Indiana history, or the like, and see if they would be interested in publishing your research on this topic. Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that at the time, it was not really that uncommon or unique for Catholic universities to operate and support lower schools and in turn support their sports teams. While some were simply dissolved like the Minims and Juniors at Notre Dame, many current high schools such as Boston College High School (which at one point had students as young as 11), Fordham Preparatory School, St. Peter's Preparatory School were all at one time lower and/or secondary departments of other universities that eventually were separated from their parent institution. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing WP:GNG that discounts coverage for being "local" only that the coverage must be "significant" -- this topic seems to be a worthy inclusion for its historical value and coverage details. That we don't have a lot of online sources available for this time frame is no shock to me, and I believe that including this article does make Wikipedia better. It appears to be a worthy exception to the practice of not having articles for sports at this level.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The level of coverage is not uncommon from any other low-level scholastic team. And game reports are generally not considered to be significant, so that leaves only publications from the school itself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul -- I agree that local coverage is not barred, but school newspapers like the Scholastic are not considered independent and therefore do not count in a GNG analysis. If the Scholastic articles are discounted, I just don't see the significant coverage that would warrant a stand-alone article. Moreover, I believe WP:NHSPHSATH should be read to require more than local coverage to support stand-alone articles on pre-high school athletes. I realize that Notre Dame fans think their school is special (and it is in many, many ways), but a Wikipedia article reporting on the results of football games played by grammar-school boys (ages 10-14) is a major stretch. Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also seeing sources like "South Bend News-Times" and "South Bend Tribune" and "Louisville Courier-Journal". I agree the "Scholastic" articles should not be used to measure notability while I don't object to their inclusion for verificaiton. But the other papers cited do point toward notability. That's my take.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that game writeups and season previews from the local paper is incredibly common and not notability lending. If it were, pretty much every high school football team, as well as many from grammar and middle schools, in the United States would meet notability standards and merit an article. That leaves only the Courrier-Journal, which is about Kentucky native Eugene Oberst's senior season at Notre Dame and makes a quick mention of him also helping coach the Minims. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered that too. The journal article I cited above suggests that the Minim program school as a whole might be sufficiently noteworthy to warrant an article. I just think this article (focused narrowly on football game scores) is too narrow to be considered notable. Cbl62 (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant, non-routine, independent coverage. And I agree that allowing such hyper-local stuff (whether it is a youth sports team or player, or some local theatre company only discussed in the village newspaper, or some other thing of very local interest) would open the floodgates for 20th century trivia (the period local newspapers flourished the most). Fram (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only secondary source in the article is from the local paper, which isn't enough. There may be other places to publish this history, but as it stands it fails WP:GNG and probably WP:OR as well. SportingFlyerT·C18:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need an article on ten-year-olds playing football unless there's extremely good sourcing; the sourcing we have is just very local coverage of results. (At least I assume it's ten year olds playing, the article says Minims "taught children from around the age of five to twelve years" but there aren't any sources about who these players are). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been tagged ((db-a7)) twice, despite having numerous references and an obvious claim to importance. A discussion here is therefore probably warranted. I am neutral. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional page with no real indication of subject's importance. If it MUST be kept, it should go to draft space for extensive work. - Sumanuil (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I would agree that he is not a notable soldier, as he never served in the British Army. With regard to his service in the Royal Navy, there is the significance that he was balloted for the Victoria Cross, as a consequence of participating in the Zeebrugge Raid as the 2IC of "D" Company. The Zeebrugge Raid was a precursor to the commando raids of WW2, and the action is held in high esteem by the Royal Navy. He was mentioned in despatches by Admiral Jellicoe for his participation in the Battle of Jutland. Keith H99 (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman21:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman21:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman21:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman21:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not happy about this article. Although it is (just) over the 1,500 character stub limit, and is sourced, the online ones I have looked at are just trivial passing mentions that refer to the article title once, with no further comment. It just seems to me to be an excuse to put a bit of bad language on the main page - which I can see the funny side of, but not at the expensive of maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia. Just because something appears to exist in lots of news sources, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
I'm not sure about redirecting to football chant either, as the title just doesn't seem like something anyone is going to type in, except by chance. The sole article that links to it, Daniel Bryan, mentions the phrase with no other context towards it, which strikes me as problematic as it means there isn't the source material to write anything other than it exists. Indeed, the only reason I found this article at all is because somebody "in the know" linked it as a humorous quip in another discussion. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of agree with Ritchie333. It is very notable if you go to any football match pre 2000s, not as much now unless it's a derby (I mean PR pandemic!), but who is going to search for that especially as some clubs use the your getting head kicked in the morning chant without the swear word (Norwich and Ipswich from my experience!).Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually the main inspiration for why I wrote it (9 years ago I might add) was because of Daniel Bryan in ROH. But as for retention, I argue this fulfils WP:GNG as the offline sources discuss it in a little more detail than the online ones. Yes we might not have too many articles on individual football chants but if it is sufficiently sourced, I'm not seeing an issue (beyond the fact it is factually a threatening and sweary chant). In fact this one transcended football by being used in another country for a completely different sport/entertainment. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)13:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: The C of E (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Weak delete, perhaps redirect. I basically concur with Ritchie here; making an article for the DYK is a good idea if and only if you actually have the coverage to back it up. I can see C of E's point about the offline sources, but 'a little' isn't uplifting. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thought, strengthening this to a more confident delete. This is frankly trivial, and I'm concerned about the process of getting it to GNG basically being a WP:SYNTH of as many trivial mentions as possible until they stop looking so at first glance. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (undecided) - I agree with the nominator on how this article doesn't do much for Wikipedia's quality, but the chant has been the topic of social science research and international sports media analysis. Therefore I am undecided on deletion, but allow me to suggest that the article be transformed into a report on the results of the professional commentary. Then it would not be presented as a song article, which accomplishes little more than a description of the lyrics and the hooligans who yell them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I honestly am not impressed with the sources, I don't think GNG has been met and I also feel this is highly trivial. Completely unnecessary article for wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will assume good faith with the offline sources meeting GNG and the fact that it has been used as a 'case study in psychology and sociology' sways me towards keep. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless we get some second/third eyes on the offline sources to agree with keep. The "used as a case study..." ref just includes it as one of several examples, not dwelling on this one specifically. That ref cites another source for this example (doi:9781134812677), and from the limited Google-exerpt again seems to include it as one of several and without substantial in-depth commentary on this one in particular. So there are several refs, and they are more than just a laundry-list of many, but I don't think there is enough to make this one stand out as a WP:GNG-level example. DMacks (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, even after reading the sources it fails WP:GNGDevokewater
Keep. I think the print sources are quite impressive, and the fact that the chant has been the subject of case studies in the fields of psychology and sociology validates the article further. That last point suggests (to me, anyway) that the article simply needs expansion, because the coverage would appear to be out there – eg, what sort of findings and discourse has the chant gained or encouraged in psychology and sociology ...? (Were these findings passed on to the FA, influential in crowd control, the gentrification [sort of] of English football in the 1990s?) I'm not dismissing the concerns that others have raised. But this Guardian piece describes YGGYFHKI as "once ubiquitous" on the football terraces; and the same article is a review of David Goldblatt's 2014 book The Game of Our Lives: The Meaning and Making of English Football, which would appear to cover the chant in some sort of detail (given the reviewer highlights it in his discussion of the chapter "Keeping it Real?"). Our article doesn't mention that YGGYFHKI was "once ubiquitous" – we don't even state that it was particularly commonplace at all, I believe – nor does it cite Goldblatt's book, which sounds like a high-quality source again ... So, on the assumption that expansion is possible, I'd say keep. As far as (valid) concerns about the lack of links across the encyclopedia, YGGYFHKI surely merits inclusion at Football chant#Common types of chants. JG66 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge: Yes; it's sourced. No, it's not sourced per SIGCOV. These are passing mentions, not thorough coverage; no books, chapters, articles. Even the source that one might expect to be tailor-made for this article—Russell's Aggression in the Sports World—mentions the phrase once (and even then, more as an example of a lack of physical violence). Fails GNG... depending on the closing admin. ——Serial20:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, at the very best, redirect to a subsection of the football chant article another editor has mentioned. I can understand a football chant like Big Jock Knew being specific to an incident as a source of extreme football rivalry between two arch-rival firms but a term which everyone knows basically means to beat the sense out of another in a pub, a source of violent frustration, or any confrontation (football or otherwise) is laughable. I literally first heard this threat in a primary school playground when I was about seven or eight and it had nothing to do with football. Maybe it has entered the lexicon through some rivalry in the 1960s or otherwise, and maybe, a brief mention in the football chant article would suffice. A specific article of a combination of words, profane and otherwise, which means what everybody knows to mean one thing... no.--Kieronoldham (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per several people above. I don't think this one-line chant has stand-alone notability of its own, but there's some useful content here which would fit within the more general article on football chants -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Football chant - There are some sources, but most are brief, with many of them having no coverage beyond stating the chant was used, and many from non-reliable sources. The actual usable content from the sources is not nearly enough to justify an independent article on this specific chant, but is worth a mention at the article on the broader topic of Football chants. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MergeWP:N says that "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and that would be my choice. Nigej (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Football chant - it's quite clear that this lacks the depth of sourcing for a stand-alone topic and I don't see the point in having a stand-alone article just for the sake of having one. The main article contains information on other notable chants like "The Referee's a Wanker", which also aren't notable enough for their own article, and some of the contents of this article could be merged into those relevant sections. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)15:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Almost all of the results on newspapers.com for "Two tons of Steel" + "Kevin Geil" are from local newspapers in Texas. The only one that isn't is a general PR piece promoting a large number of Texas-based acts which was reprinted in several newspapers across the country.
The only substantial coverage I could find was a singular AllMusic review of one of their albums. The AllMusic entry is otherwise barren.
The other claims to notability are not sufficient to meet WP:BAND. The Gruene Hall performances have gained no notability outside the hall; the performances at the Grand Ole Opry got no attention (in fact, the band's name turns up no results in The Tennesseean), and being voted a fan favorite by a single newspaper doesn't cut it either. Neither does the apperance in the documentary, which is so obscure that it doesn't even have a name.
tl;dr: no criteria of WP:BAND seem to have been met. Which is a shame, since their song "Vegas" is a lot of fun. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)04:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a lot of coverage that doesn't turn up online - it's from the late 90s/early 2000s. I found extensive coverage in major dailies and alternative weeklies via Newsbank, from the Houston Chronicle to the Dallas Morning News to the San Antonio Express News and Austin American Statesman. (A sample: Houston Press Keep On Truckin' - Two Tons of Steel has gone from cover band to kings of the Texas dance hall, Houston Press (TX) - August 1, 2002, Author/Byline: Melanie Haupt - Houston Chronicle(major daily): Two Tons flexes its versatility Houston Chronicle (TX) (Published as Houston Chronicle) - April 19, 2000, Author/Byline: MARTY RACINE, Staff San Antonio Express News (major daily): Dead Crickets steel away - Rootsy band forges new identity - and a career? San Antonio Express-News (TX)January 3, 1997B Author/Byline: Jim Beal Jr.) Commenting just for the record; I realize that these sources fall into the regional category but music coverage in the dailies/weeklies in Texas is competitive/signficant. We may not have the sources to keep the article, but it's not like the band is trivial. JSFarman (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that suggest the band are one of the most well known of San Antonio which the AllMusic review asserts which would indicate a pass of WP:NMUSIC criteria 7 (only one criteria needed). Exercising WP:AGF as I don't have access to the paywalled sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Getting voted as the best band in a city over ten times seems to meet WP:NMUSIC 7, and there are some other reviews, albeit most of them in local papers and sites, of their albums. There's also a few articles with Q&As and such which help round out potential notability. 12345ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of significant and not merely trivial or promotional coverage, as witnessed in previous comments. Also, sources call the band locally prominent (e.g. Allmusic: "one of San Antonio's biggest bands for almost two decades"; Lone Star Music Magazine: "one of the most popular party bands in the Lone Star State"), although I confess it's rather unclear to me how prominent is "prominent" enough for WP:BAND. In any case, though, the sources support general notability. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman21:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL and is a young player with ongoing career. We have traditionally given those players more leeway, and I see nothing to depart from that here. GiantSnowman21:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason to delete a player that has very recently passed the NFOOTBALL threshold, if he makes no further appearances in the next, say, seven years then, maybe, this should be put up for deletion Spiderone(Talk to Spider)18:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
In agreement with Praxidicae that the original article was under-par, but I have attempted to make some improvements to the article with citations thanks to Google to demonstrate notability. There are some questions/things I've put on the Talk page, that I am unsure about, and I believe more experienced editors may be able to help. -> Talk:Professional_Publishers_Association.
Edited the article to make it less advert like and included sources from perennial resources like Newsweek[1] (who call the PPA a "respected industry body") and Business Insider[2] The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other significant coverage by Mediatel[7] plus there are pages of verifiable news on Google that discuss the organisations work, events and awards not to mention this book (printed in 2 editions) that has a chapter specifically about the association.
Non-commercial organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The PPA is the national association in the UK for publishers dating back to 1913, with full records on Hatads since 1942[8]. Every source demonstrates that this is a national organisation.
2) The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. (As above)
Plus the additional consideration: The organization’s longevity (since 1913) – history of the organisation in this book and news of centenary celebration, members (over 200 of the UK's most notable publishers in 3 different sectors) and major achievements (see PPA awards section and above that the awards have been proven notable). The awards itself could have its own page IMHO. Said to be the "Magazine Oscars"[9], plus this and this citing it is one of two most "prestigious awards in journalism: The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Should Not Be Deleted the subject has been notable in the south Indian film industry. Very strong references have also been submitted to justify the claims. The subject's released films maybe just one at this point in time but she is in the limelight and working on a couple of films with renowned production houses. The strong references have been submitted to justify that as well. User:rangasn (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2021 (IST)
Must Not Be Deleted Or Redirected The title looks to be notable in their respective field. The latest edit also shows that the individual has received some awards & accolades recently. It again proves the individual is actively involved in their respective field. The title deserves to be in the encyclopedia. User:Subashini_srini (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2021 (IST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A non-notable remixer. Definitely fails WP:NMUSICIAN and likely fails WP:GNG as well. The only two decent sources are both Q&As on websites of questionable reliability and authenticity; see for yourself here and here. Notice the remarkable similarity between these two websites. Even if we do assume that these are WP:RS and independent of Barletta and each other, the Q&As do nothing to establish that Barletta is any more notable than any other Joe Bloggs DJ remixing songs with software in his bedroom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)11:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I know nothing about cricket, so this is not a vote to keep or delete. However, "no one even knows their first names" is most likely a culturally misleading statement. The subject is Sri Lankan, and both Tamil and Sinhalese Sri Lankans frequently use initials to represent patronymic or given names, similar to how it is done in in Tamil Nadu. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial pass of NCRIC, but the presumption of notability afforded is extremely weak for such cricketers, and there is no evidence that WP:SIGCOV exists. Only available sources are wide-ranging databases, which may be enough for inclusion in a list (no suitable one exists to merge/redirect to), but it is not good enough for a standalone article. wjematherplease leave a message...15:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another non-notable record label (and who knows how many are still around). Sitting here since 2005 without any sources. During a Google search I couldn't find anything that establishes notability. Only the article itself, its mirrors, discogs, an interview with the founder on an unreliable (blog-like) site and some other unreliable looking sites. No evidence of notability. Created by an IP address way back in 2005, notability hasn't been proven ever since nor has been reliable sources presented. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable short-lived record label that only ever released 3 albums. This fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG by a country mile and is not one of the more important indie labels so stands no chance of passing WP:NMUSIC. At best, redirect to Richard Derrick, who, himself, is barely notable. This seems to be part of a walled garden of topics of dubious notability. I've noted that Crane (musician) is also up for deletion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)20:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find more than one source which I added, and its an interview, which is not an acceptable type of citation. Doe s not meet notability guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Full of puffery, unreliable or no relevant sources. Sunday Observer reads like a PR piece. Google search does not return anything at all. Overall doesn't meet WP:GNG. It's simply a spam and promotional article. RationalPuff (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Purportedly meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to two appearances in an allegedly 'fully professional league' eleven years ago. But the NFF seems to have a glitch in its archive which lists the whole matchday squad in the starting line-up for these games ([16], [17]) Other sources suggest he was an unused substitute: [18]. The rest of his football career has been at a much lower level and there is no evidence of any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here - and as nom says it's debatable whether he even meets NFOOTBALL! If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The only sources that I can find covering this are YouTube videos, other Wikis, forums and Reddit, none of which are WP:RS. I would even oppose a merge to Geometry Dash as none of the material is reliably sourced and, correct me if I'm wrong, but an exhaustive listing of levels available in a game isn't something that we generally have; I've looked at a number of GA and FA articles on video games and can't see anything similar featuring in any articles, implying that it's established within the Wikipedia community not to have such things. Seems to border on violating the WP:GAMEGUIDE part of WP:NOT. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)18:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would only agree with merging if reliable sources could be provided for the levels. As per GAMEGUIDE Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming contextSpiderone(Talk to Spider)23:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and suggest the author take a large step back until s/he understands Wikipedia notability policies, never mind good and featured content. StarM01:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted. This business resume spam of an article, which was expressly written for pay (presumably paid for by the subject himself) represents the sort of articles that should be terminated with extreme prejudice. El_C01:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not pass eligibility requirements. "Executive VP" is not sufficiently important to have a Wikipedia article. References are primarily press releases, passing mentions, and/or connected to the subject and not independent. Article is being curated by a declared paid editor (DanDavidCook) contracted to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Killeen was a totally irrelevant and non-notable activist and politician. The coverage we have is a lot more about the activities she was supporting than about her. She clearly and completely fails our notability guidelines for political candidates, by miles, yet she was kept in the past because we used to have such poor inclusion controls. When someone receives 11 votes in a mayoral election in a city with over 330,000 residents, they are clearly and completely not notable John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Newspapers.com is bringing up a lot of hits nationally and internationally. Seems to have verifiable coverage in reliable sources. Whether the coverage is deep or trivial requires further examination. Netherzone (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Boston Globe article is an in-depth profile, starting with "It was tough to ignore the Hemp Lady, a.k.a. Caroline Killeen, during the 1996 New Hampshire primary: a 70-year-old cycling ex-nun who wore a giant marijuana leaf across her chest like a superhero's badge," and noting she was part of ""Why Can't I Be President?" — a documentary for PBS stations that focused on the fringe candidates in New Hampshire," and that "High Times, the pro-marijuana magazine, named Killeen its "Freedom Fighter of the Month" in June 1996," and "Before embracing hemp, she staged numerous long-distance bicycle rides over the years for political and environmental causes, urging onlookers to "Killeen Up The Earth," and "During multiple elections, Killeen gave away pieces of clothesline ("solar dryers") and talked about energy savings from hanging your clothes out in the sun versus using electric appliances. One of those "solar dryers" is now in a filing cabinet at the New Hampshire secretary of state's office, preserved as political memorabilia instead of living out its destiny holding wet laundry." Based on this source, it looks like there is WP:BASIC notability supporting keep, because it seems likely that additional sources exist. Beccaynr (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. The following are a few quality references I found with a Newspapers.com search, along with many more that were available:
Comment: As Netherzone said, there are many articles about her. A newspapers.com search shows 1,126 results for her name, including large profiles. Although Johnpacklambert states that "When someone receives 11 votes in a mayoral election in a city with over 330,000 residents, they are clearly and completely not notable," this misses the point; Kanye West didn't clear 0.5% in any state in which he ran for president, but we would hardly call him "clearly and completely not notable." --Usernameunique (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kieran207, exactly: his claim to notability does not hinge on his presidential run. If anything, it works the other way around—his presidential run (and Killeen's mayoral run) are only worth noting because of the notability of their subjects. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a bit to the article with reference news coverage. Plenty of coverage of her found already. The media has covered her over a considerable amount of time for various things. DreamFocus03:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr and MarkZusab's sources. I get zero news hits myself (presumably per the explanation given by Rhododendrites above), so I have trust the results given above are sufficient to improve the article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I can't find enough reviews of his three books (Pricing Derivatives, Gauge Theory on Compact Surfaces, and Representing Finite Groups: A Semisimple Introduction) to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR, and his citation record is borderline. But the named professorship is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't believe the sources saying he was named Hubert Butts Alumni Professor? Or you don't believe that the professorship named as the Hubert Butts Alumni Professor is a named professorship? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article fails WP:GNG and does not indicate any importance of the subject. Also, it violates WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTADVERTISING. For example, there are guides and opinion forums like "Throughout each level, the player must place down stage elements to alter the environment and protect oranges from the acid rain of an evil cloud" and "We were soundly impressed by the level design, animation, and creativity of Cover Orange HD. It's a Must Have game for the iPad, especially if you love other great physics puzzlers like Angry Birds and Cut the Rope". I would suggest deletion per criteria 4, criteria 7, and criteria 8 unless justification can be provided. Seventyfiveyears (talk)18:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article cites seven reviews by sources considered reliable per WP:VG/RS, as well as four further, conventionally reliable sources (The Irish Times, The Guardian, Macworld, CNET). Eleven reliable sources detailing the functionality of the game is enough for GNG (or WP:NVG, for that matter). I also found this additional news blip. Explaining how a game is played is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE violation, it is the core of every video game article, aside from Plot (where applicable), Development, and Reception. NOTADVERTISING is not strictly an AfD matter; the Reception section might be a WP:QUOTEFARM, but it is better served with a rewrite than deletion (the sources for such a rewrite are already given). IceWelder [✉] 18:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As IceWelder says, this article cites several reliable sources that are discussing the subject, which certainly seems like significant coverage to me. As to the points about NOTGUIDE and NOTADVERTISING, I'm not sure how else we expect articles to discuss video games without discussing basic game mechanics. NOTGUIDE, IMHO, is more about not having long discussions of how to beat particular levels or solve particular puzzles in a game. And the quotes you're referring to are what reviewers have said, not subjective opinions by editors. I'm really not sure what else you'd expect to find in a video game article...DocFreeman24 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - The article is dependent on sources about other things, such as a radio show that just happened to play their record. In their own right they cannot be found beyond the usual streaming and retail sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
[22] Brief quote of president of Union in Ottowa Citizen. Not significant coverage, not independent.
[23] Morning show segment on local radio. It is unclear which segment is referred to from the link, but this is probably an interview so not independent. Not significant either.
Delete. Organizations are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, and just having a couple of hits of coverage in its own local media market is not enough to get it over the "notable because media coverage exists" bar. An organization has to pass WP:ORGDEPTH, which means it has to have coverage expanding well beyond just a handful of mentions of its name in the local media — for instance, the organization is not the subject of either of the two media hits provided here, but just gets briefly namechecked in coverage whose core subject is something else. That's not what it takes, and the other two footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. He just passed NFOOTY years ago, there's no sign he is going to be playing at that level anytime soon and nothing to indicate GNG Fenix down (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman18:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested prod. Doesn't appear to be the subject of significant and independent coverage per GNG. The best I can find are passing mentions, a la AVClub or Vanity Fair[24][25] Other references such as Vulture and Primetimer are also pretty minor, and written by the hosts themselves. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk17:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find one independent review of the podcast, but that was about it. Most of the mentions in Google News search are just picking up the mention of the podcast in the story author's blurb. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
PROD contested by IP address. No reason given. Initial concern was This is falling significantly short on WP:NCORP; the company's own press releases do not establish notability, especially when they are simply just rehashings of each other and posted in identical form across various websites of dubious reliability.
Delete. The sourcing is only better than the draft's in that it isn't citing the same press releases ad nauseam. I looked over the draft last night in -en-help and did BEFORE on it (string: "creditkart fincom") and found jack, less than 24 hours later Google still returns nothing useful for notability. —A little blue Boriv^_^vTakes a strong man to deny...06:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete; fails all notability guidelines including NCRIC and GNG. We don't even know this man's name – newspaper reports of the day have this player named variously as "G. Anderson", "D. Holberton" or "W. Holberton". wjematherplease leave a message...12:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snow delete: Given the principle that WP:BLP demands we do no harm, there is an imperative not to allow such an article to remain when there is a very clear consensus to delete it, therefore the usual 168 hour wait is not appropriate. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFRINGE — it's documentable, but there isn't enough to indicate it's sufficiently noteworthy to warrant a stand-alone article. We're not here to make a page for each thing that drops out of Alex Jones' mouth. The topic could potentially get a sentence or two in another article, but I'm doubtful we'd need a redirect from here to there. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete as fringe WP:BLP slanderfest. Possibly Alex Jones's article could be saddled with this yet-another-example of the kind of baseless crap he spews out, but there's every reason for this not to be its own article. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Even if there are sources that X person said Y about Z, Y does not merit a stand-alone article as a general rule. Until other discussions start about Y, there isn't enough to demonstrate notability. When X is Alex "lie about any and everything" Jones, it becomes even less notable. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:NFRINGE really only states if a conspiracy theory has to meet WP:GNG. This conspiracy theory is well documented in reliable sources, it's not like its just on Alex Jone's site. Also this conspiracy is not just by Alex Jones, Joan Rivers promoted it. Even if it was only by Alex Jones, it still would meet the threshold of GNG. Here's some RS: [29][30]Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And, for that matter, we're not here to document every tasteless, deliberately "edgy" attempt at humor that makes a momentary splash in the "Celebrity News & Gossip" pages. XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Sure "notability is not inherited" but also one should look further than just Google for sources. If you dig into the newspaper archives there is plenty of coverage of her from back in the 1980s when she was active in her multiple careers. Sourcing in the article currently is poor but sourcing issues is not a reason to delete - instead the article should be improved. Here are FOUR different news articles about her that I found that could be added to the article: [31][32][33][34] --Krelnik (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However three of the four sources you cite make it clear that her notability is related entirely to that of her father, so therefore the first example in WP:INVALIDBIO applies. That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. The significant coverage here is all about her as Cronkite's daughter. The last source alone, her work on depression, and her small acting roles are insufficient to support a stand-alone article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NOTINHERITED simply means that nobody is automatically notable because they're related to a celebrity. It doesn't mean that notability can't be inherited: simply that it isn't automatic. For example, Charles Windsor is notable only because of his mother, but reliable sources have taken note of him. Similarly, Kathy Cronkite probably became notable because of her famous father, but she did become notable, as evidenced by the sources identified by Krelnik. It doesn't matter why someone is notable as long as we have reliable sources showing that they are notable. pburka (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unsourced article and lacks independent reliable references. I looked around and there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources that discuss Lesa Carlson. The articles comes across as a promotional piece. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No reliable references mention St. Louis Estes or his raw food diet. There are Wikipedia articles for other raw foodists that have mainstream coverage in books and medical journals but St. Louis Estes has none. The only references that seem to exist are a few newspaper clippings but even those are very few and do not have any in depth coverage. I don't believe it is enough to qualify for an article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
St. Louis Estes was one of the pioneers that kick-started the raw food movements popularity in California in the early 20th century. His book is still in print in various versions at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. For instance this from Google Books: Raw Food and Health As a pioneer he has a place in the history of the movement. Other Raw Foodists have not been as eccentric. He and his wife had ten children within fifteen years which is remarkable as well, as had been pointed out in TIME Magazine. He was a lecturer, author, and eccentric, and went bankrupt at least once. Many in the modern Raw Food movement trace their inspiration to his work. University Collection. This article should stay.
Comment Retracting my deletion request per Cunard's comment and some other references I found. It appears St. Louis Estes was a notorious quack. I will fix this article up with the references. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in the public domain per Wikipedia:Public domain since it was published in 1924, which is before 1 January 1 1926. Here is the entire text of the article:
Raw Claims for Raw Foods: During the last few years, various metropolitan centers have been regaled by a series of alleged health lectures staged by one Dr. St. Louis Estes. Estes, who is not a physician, but seems to have been a dentist is "president" of that hearfully and wonderfully named organization, "The American Raw Food Health and Psychological Clubs." According to the Estes advertising material, seven years ago he was a physical wreck and was given up by his doctors. He had, if we are to believe his claims, "chronic smelling catarrh," frontal sinus trouble, "weak lungs," chronic appendicitis with adhesions, chronic throat trouble, chronic neuritis, "rheumatism of heart and joints," enlarged heart, Bright's disease, constipation, and partial paralysis of the limbs from the hips down. Otherwise, apparently he was all right—except that was baldheaded. Then by his "System of Dynamic Breathing" and the use of raw foods, he has rebuilt himself and today is "bubbling over with health, vitality and energy"—and if his pictures tell the truth, has a good head of hair. Is it any wonder that he calls himself "The World's Greatest Health Scientist Psychologist and International Authority on Old Age, Raw Foods, and Dynamic Oxygenation?" At present, Dr. Estes is giving his lectures in Chicago, and the papers both in their advertising and in their news columns, relate of the Estes marvels. One of the claims made by St. Louis Estes, both today and for a few years past, is that he is "Lecturer on U. S. Public Health Service." The Surgeon-General of the United States Public Health Service, under date of Oct. 20, 1924, notified the American Medical Association that St. Estes has never been connected with the Public Health Service in any way.—Journal of the American Medical Ass'n., Nov. 1 1924.
The article notes that Estes is a "famed educator raw food exponent and back-to-back nature sponsor", is 72 years old, has six children under six, and is "internationally known as founder of the raw food movement in America". It notes that he used to be on the faculty of Northwestern University, that he is first vice president of the American Academy of Applied Dental Science, and has seven degrees from universities and "other bodies interested in scientific and educational facts". The article notes that when he was 40 years old, Estes was "an invalid". It said that although he was sick for 28 years, was completely blind for two of those years, and was bald for 18 years, he said through natural living he could fix all of these ills. The article discusses his children.
The article notes that Mrs. Esther Estes, 37, gave birth to an eleventh child, a nine-pound girl. The article notes that the couple have five sons and six daughters and the songs bear their father's name and are named St. Louis Estes II, St. Louis Estes III, until St. Louis Estes VI. The eldest girl is named Suzanne. Two of the girls prior to the sixth girls' birth are unnamed and have the nicknames Dimples and Chickadee. The article notes, "Dr. Estes, who has been living with his family in a Hollywood Hills residence the last nine years, wears only a loin cloth while in his home or in his garden. His children dress similarly except when they have to go to school." The Los Angeles Times called Esther Estes "a living example of the back-to-nature movement" espoused by her husband, Dr. St. Louis Estes, 72.
The article notes that the late Dr. St. Louis Estes bought the St. Louis Estes I house roughly 25-years ago. It notes that upon "los[ing] heavily during the slump which blighted the Florida land boom in the 20s", Estes moved to California. Estes was from St. Louis, Missouri. Estes had 12 children: six daughters and six sons. Esther married Esther Estes. He told her he would name the boys and she could name the girls. He named the boys starting with St. Louis II until St. Louis VII. Esther Estes named the girls: Suzanne, Dixie Lou, Natascha, Yvonne, Malinda, and Cindy. Esther Estes "died last April".
The article notes: "The father and founder of the Raw Food and Back to Nature Movement, Dr. St. Louis Estes of New York and Chicago, discoverer of "brain breathing" who has been teaching the people everywhere how to regain their health, turn inefficiency into cash, old age into youth for the past twenty-three years, is back in Oakland." The article notes that he is the president of the "Back to Nature Corporation", that is a "recognized health scientist", that he wrote the book "Raw Food and Health" about raw foods, that he is editor-in-chief of the magazine "Back to Nature", that he is a member of the Northwestern University club, Northwestern Alumni, American Birth Control league, World Vigilance committee, and the San Francisco Advertising club.
The family was featured in a Strange as It Seems cartoon noting that "The sons of Mr. and Mrs. St. Louis Estes I, San San Francisco, are: [St. Louis Estes II through St. Louis Estes VII]"
The column is in the public domain per Wikipedia:Public domain since it was published in 1922, which is before 1 January 1 1926. The column notes, "Now comes the enlightening information from Trenton, N. J. that there is hope for the baldheaded man if he would live "the natural life" and eat raw foods. Dr. St. Louis Estes, first vice-president of the International Institute of Applied Esychology, of Chicago, is authority for the statement. By the way, what a fine name for a highbrow organization. Well, Dr. St. Louis Estes told the bunch how he himself had become a nervous wreck, lost his hair and was a candidate for the undertakers, who were but two jumps behind him? Not much. He just pulled his shattered constitution and the 18th amendment together and went out and got close to nature. He avoided cooked foods and subsisted on a raw diet, and soon regained his health with a fine crop of hair thrown in. Dr. St. Louis Estes does not say what he ate, but the chances are he subsited on herbs, grape nuts, bananas, smelts a la Newburg, wild oats, wild flowers, etc."
The book notes, "To solve this problem, he decided to adopt the diet espoused by St. Louis Albert Estes. Estes was a trained doctor and proponent of raw food diets. He believed this method of eating could cure most chronic illnesses."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It is about an alleged Brazilian witch executed in 1692 in São Paulo. The source is an unreliable site on exoticism.
This story appeared on the Internet a few years ago and has become an urban legend without any historical basis.
The real Mima Renard was a prostitute who lived at the end of the 19th century. She was not burned and not even sentenced, since she had a favorable decision in court to hold her brothel in 1883.
Delete. The only reliable source offering some in-depth coverage that I was able to find was this Aventuras na História story, but I'm still struggling to understand how being executed would make anyone notable, regardless of the reason. Unless more reliable sources are provided, at best it falls short of WP:N. Victor LopesFala!•C21:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference in Witch trials in Portugal was added a few months ago, with no source to the claim that it is indeed a "famous case". It was probably added there because this claim is stated here. An unsourced claim in one article can't be a reliable source for that same claim on another article. Dovno (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- An early question (since this is about a Brazilian subject) was "Where is the Portuguese WP article?". Others give me the answer that it has been deleted via AFD. The objection was WP:V, declaring the single source cited to be unreliable. It also pointed to a proceedings over a prostitute of this name 200 years later who was ultimately acquitted. Whether it was the WP editor creating this article or the compiler of the source cited, someone is guilty of WP:OR and has created a WP:HOAX article. The reference in another article must also be removed as OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD - no reason given. Rationale for PROD was Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search suggests that this website, which has only very recently been set up, meets WP:NWEB. The sources used are either primary sources or do not mention the website even once.Spiderone(Talk to Spider)14:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The sentence "He blends haunting melodies with vivid lyricism, bringing stores of love, loss, longing to life in a complex array of song" is promotional language, and is in the voice of Wikipedia.
There is also a draft (which may have been created to prevent draftification). If the article is deleted, the draft may be kept.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Album received no pro reviews or other reliable coverage per the requirements at WP:NALBUM. It is sometimes mentioned briefly in articles on the singer overall, but even those are rare and unreliable. The article attempts to make a statement of notability about how the album received fan funding, but that was not particularly unusual even in 2008 and there are no sources to back it up anyway. The singer's article may also be deleted soon; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verity and the Shades. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. Notability rests on apparently being the first crowdfunded album in South Africa, and there was a news segment on South African TV about what was then seen as a novelty [35]. But that seems to be the only thing vaguely notable about the album: it only sold 2000 copies worldwide, the follow-up appears to have been abandoned, and Verity now works as a motivational speaker. Richard3120 (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article does not establish that Beloki meets academic notability. As was noted by User:Curbon7, most of the article is about the Paradigm of the Cart, and does not establish the notability of that concept, and does not establish that Beloki was the primary author of the concept. Moved by author from draft space to article space twice. Moved from article space to draft space by User:Onel5969. Probably belongs in draft space, but author obviously wants it in article space; it is their right to move it to article space, where it is the community's right to discuss its notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's virtually nothing of relevance in GBooks and GScholar. The article makes a pretty obscure reference rearging his degree and position. No evidence of satisfying WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that Euskaltzaindia meets the "highly selective and prestigious" criteria of WP:PROF#C3 (their membership is limited to 24 but they have significantly fewer members than that, suggesting that the pool of Basque experts to choose from is not very large) and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Repeatedly-recreated promotional biography of a racing car driver who only races in Formula 3, which isn't "fully professional" within the meaning of WP:NSPORT. DGG says on the talk page that this might be speediable, but since the last AfD it was accepted at AFC by Primefac, and also, the outcome I'm seeking is not just delete but delete and salt -- so I felt AfD was the best venue. —S MarshallT/C12:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - I consider this an extremely rude move. I went to the talk page, I have requested proof of content problems, got no replies, and instead of the discussion the same people again start an AfD. This is not good. --grin✎21:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has been pointed out before, but I'll say again that WP:NMOTORSPORT is questionably useful, in large part due to the questionable definition (and example) of a fully professional series. And arguably she satisfies point 3 "Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest" (whatever that is supposed to mean) since she competed in the W Series which it is certainly possible to argue is of wordwide interest (indeed if deleted she'd be the only red linked driver who competed in the 2019 W Series, although she was a promoted reserve driver). I'll also note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivien Keszthelyi (2nd nomination) was passed as keep since, as far as I can tell there is some substantial coverage in non-English sources, in particular in Hungarian (hence this article having equivalents in several languages). I can't assess the reliability of the sources given (by, for example, User:Largoplazo in the 2nd nom discussion), and much of what I've said above could be described as WP:OTHERSTUFF, some am not yet going to give a !vote, but I'd hate to see an article deleted for the wrong reasons. A7V2 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(She is en route to Formula 3 (international), and was suggested to target Formula 1 but since she's Hungarian it seems impossible for financial reasons. The Hungarian article seems more updated than this one, especially since all edits seems to be reverted. --grin✎22:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Notability is established, i don't even know how anyone would want to delete this article. it has over 30 reliable sources, the Hungarian article has even more, including serious newspapers, specialized sport magazines, television reports on large country-wide channels... You know, people outside of the UK/USA are notable, too... Xiatalk to me22:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and just as comment, since when is it a requirement for notability that the sources have to be in English...? Then we wouldn't have content about 90% of human knowledge, which Wikipedia aims to accumulate, if I am not mistaken in my 15 years spent as a Wikipedian... Xiatalk to me22:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is really disappointing what I read on the talk page. You want to delete an article because somebody recreated it, but you cannot say what is the problem with the article? I don't see any serious problem with the article, the person is notable, and the article lists her major results as facts, with reliable sources. She is as professional as Lewis Hamiltonwas back in 2004/5. Samat (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keszthelyi notability is unquestionable. She competed in national and international championships. There is coverage of press vehicles from different countries, in different languages. It is the 4th time that the article is proposed for deletion, twice the decision was to KEEP, in just one the decision was to delete. If the article is promotional, someone can do a review. Minerva (talk to me) 23:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is supported by reputable sources whose coverage of her is sustained and non-trivial. (Just to pick a few examples cited in the article: [36], [37]) They are independent and cannot be dismissed as "promotional". Note that WP:NSPORT makes clear that an article is merited if "the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria"; Keszthelyi is generally notable and as a result it does not matter whether or not she is "fully professional". Adumbrativus (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. only races in Formula 3, which isn't "fully professional" within the meaning of WP:NSPORT is a statement that by implication suggests NSPORT is the only criterion. It's not. WP:GNG exists, and this passes that. I hope it was not being suggested that a subject that passes GNG but fails NSPORT should be deleted as non-notable. - The BushrangerOne ping only04:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the point I raised is that we have decided in different ways whether one or both sets of criteria are necessary; I see no stable consensus over the years. I definitely have a preference, which is that both should be necessary for NSPORTS, but my reason for it is not based on general consideration about the abstract preferability of one set of rules over another, or even about the general way in which we determine notability ,but more specifically because of my own view that we have overcoverage in many parts of this general field, and that a more restrictive standard is the best way of dealing with it. We're not of course going to settle this general question one way or another by this or any other single AfD, but a good way of testing the extent and nature of present consensus is to bring afds in a few doubtful cases from time to time. Not repeatedly or disruptively, but from time to time--I think I get involved in perhaps one or two relevant afds to this matter a year). I'm not sure I would support salting, because the individual might in the future obtain successes at higher levels. I
And I should say that I very strongly believe that we should not discriminate against non-English language sources, especially for articles dealing with non-English language subjects, or people in non-English language countries. The only rational reason for English preferred is accessibility of sources, since this is the enWP and anyone reading an article hre must inherently know how to read English,. In fact, I'd prefer that the rule were worded "we should use the best sources available, and, if the best sources are non-English, the best English sources also". DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was the regular driver duties for Round 4 in W Series, and she scored point. If deleted she'd be the only red linked driver who competed in the 2019 W Series. The Article has 10 english references from 40. --Dodi123 (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a notable Hungarian, very young driver. Unique in Hungary. First in history in many results with correct references even if those are in Hungarian (I added English titles). JSoos (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an article on someone who clearly passes biographical notability criteria comfortably which far surpasses whether she meets the SNG or not. There are multiple sources discussing her at great length so clearly is notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)17:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is definitely notable, we have many sources, English and Hungarian as well, and the article is quite expanded so far with relevant information. nyiffistargate12:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyiffi: - Really? Point to one English language source. I'm a little surprised by the outpouring of support for this girl. Daddy bought her a race car and sock puppet bought her a WP page. We're meant to filter junk like this out. What's driving this support? Some kind of fancruft? NickCT (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grin: - Is that a "no", you can't provide an English language source? What communication are you taking issue with?
I don't want to be a hater, but this subject clearly gets very little coverage outside of Hungary. That certainly doesn't mean she's not notable, but the onus is really on our Hungarian buddies to point to high-quality sources that grant her coverage. NickCT (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: - The article has a few English sources as said above, please look at the references, I can count at least 5 English sources (2nd, 4th, 6th, 18th, 36th, 39th), and I didn't even count the passing mentions. I'm trying not to consider your questions provoking or rude, but I don't think that is the proper way to argue about any topic. 'What's driving this support?' Well, who should defend her if not the Hungarian buddies? 'Daddy bought her a race car.' Why is that a problem? Enwiki has a very well written article about Paris Hilton. :) Someone wrote about Keszthelyi as well, it's not a big deal, it's an article to keep. nyiffistargate20:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyiffi: - Ok. So your English language sources are; Style & Race, volkswagenag.com, Auto+ Women in Motor Sport. No. 10, Speedqueens, Speedcafe, W Series. The only source there which looks like it might approach moderate quality is Speedcafe. Seems like weak tea.
re "Why is that a problem?" - I guess it's not. Lots of people buy their way to fame. Hilton is a good example. Of course, Hilton at this point is pretty notable for several things. As far as I can tell, Vivien is only notable b/c her dad bought her a race car. NickCT (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, strike my comment about Speedcafe. I think it's a PR distribution, which would put it in the lowest category of sources. NickCT (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: How is the W Series website not a reliable and high quality source? It is the official website for the racing series in which Keszthelyi competed. Is the Formula One website not considered a reliable source about F1 drivers? I would strongly recommend reading both the W Series website, and the Wikipedia pages on W Series and the W Series 2019 season, to help understand why Keszthelyi is considered notable. Perhaps part of the reason for disagreement here is merely a lack of information. Hyperion35 (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: I don't intend to comment about the sources (since, as it has been said before English sources are not compulsory), but I object the following: "Daddy bought her a race car", "sock puppet bought her a WP page", "junk like this", "what's driving this support", "fancruft". I am not sure you really would need detailed explanation, but I'll provide them if you request so. I'd advise against it as it clearly not helping anyone. I'd prefer just avoiding such comments and concentrating on the remaining relevant questions about the deletion process; I also suggest that the comments about the improving of the article shall be directed to its talk page. Thank you! --grin✎23:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: While I still find your tone unacceptable (I am not your "bud") let me try to help you to have a better view of why I (or rather we) have a problem with your "opinion". I believe majority of the people here never really cared about the lady in the subject; as for me, I have not heard about her until I was asked to review the situation. You believe that when there is a, how to put it, "abuse of seniority" (quoting the UCoC) and fellow editors come to help then it is a "fancruft"? Try to realise the situation when the policy say that national relevance is an acceptable notability criteria yet you (and other fellow deletionist editors) do not speak the language, and they try to ignore that english-only sources are not compulsory... what would be the way, in your view, to resolve this other than the said language editors come here and tell their own opinion? And when else than for the AfD (which has a time limit)? So please realise that addressing the fellow editors (who spent time familiarise with the topic and the problem, read the discussion, form an opinion then took the time to formulate it) as "fancruft" is expressively rude. This probably also reflects on your statement "I don't know what is"; at least you ought to realise what you think you know may not be aligned with the reality. And, yet again, I kindly ask you to communicate respectfully with your fellow editors. Consider us speaking a foreign language so avoid slang which you may consider "friendly" while others may read as "offensive" and "marginalising". --grin✎09:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: Leaving aside the crude nature of the comment, the question of whether Keszethyi's father purchased her car (this seems unlikely, since the W Series is not a Constructor's event, and all drivers competed for 22 spots out of a large pool of applicants) is irrelevant to notability. Lance Stroll's father is part owner of his racing team (Aston Martin, formerly Racing Point), and yet this does not affect his notability. Lord, if we're going to disregard every wealthy scion in Formula racing, there's not going to be much left. Hyperion35 (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperion35: - Stroll's daddy bought him a car too. But Stroll races Formula 1, which I think is a little more notable. But regardless, I'm not really trying to say that someone buying their way to notability isn't legitimate notability. I'm more concerned about the sources. NickCT (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: What are your concerns about the sources? Many appear to be in Magyar, which makes sense since the subject is Hungarian. But there are plenty of English-language sources including several from the W Series website itself. If your concern is that the article needs more English-language sources, then by all means go find some more sources. The sources issue has been discussed repeatedly and does not seem to be a matter of contention. My understanding is that the primary question is whether this racer meets the notability standards. Hyperion35 (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep I believe that the initial motion for deletion may have involved a misunderstanding. Keszethyi competed in the W Series, which is run using cars meeting the Formula 3 standard, but it is not the same as saying that she has "only raced in Formula 3". Competing in the W series meets two of the standards of WP:NMOTOSPORT as it is a professional series, and it is clearly a series of worldwide interest (especially the inaugural year of the series). As to my first point, please see [10] where a presumably reliable motorsport publication states that the inaugural series had a $1.5 million total prize pot, with $500,000 going to the winning driver. Further, the W series is clearly notable as an all-female motorsport competition, which is unique in motorsports at the moment. Keszethyi appears to have been one of 20 drivers to have competed in at least one race, and one of 17 to have finished in the points in the inaugural season. I placed the word inaugural in bold because this also gets to the core of notability. Finally, I am confused as to why this is the 4th attempt to delete this article. It is even more confusing as none of the pages of the other drivers in the W Series appear to have even one AfD. I will certainly admit that I am a relatively new fan to motorsports, but Keszethyi and the other inaugural drivers of the W Series strike me as rather notable figures. But don't take my word for it, the Motorsports article I referenced has several quotes from presumably notable individuals, as well as an explanation from that author, as to why the series is notable. Hyperion35 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge the Philanthropy of Elon Musk article. That section is way too short to have ever been considered for a split in the first place. The main Elon Musk article is only 30kb of prose so I'm baffled why it needed to be split so much at all. The views article is more justifiable so weak keep on that one. HAL's "agressive summary style" was very aggressive, and the articles for Einstein,, Charles, etc. are substantially longer than this one. Just because it "makes sense to have subarticles" doesn't mean there should be several short subarticles, with a not-so-long main article left behind. Reywas92Talk20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless there is some guideline that states its an unnecessary fork other than the nominators feelings, then keep as there are plenty of citations for notability of Top 2 richest man in the world. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a question of whether there are enough sources or not. Please read the background information linked above. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 11:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and leave to normal editing and discussion to resolve. Forks and WP:SPLITs are two different things. From WP:FORK: "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." I don't see the basis for starting an AFD; the talk page discussion the nom links was barely two days old when this AFD was created, and does not provide an argument for outright deletion (which is apparently not what the nom wants anyway) or the impression that consensus was impossible to achieve as to how best to organize this content. Not getting immediate agreement is not cause to start a compulsory, bureaucratic process with a deadline. See WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Model who fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Tagged for notability since 2015. No significant, independent coverage to be found, at least not online. The only possibly valid source cited in the article is "Melody Woodin. German Vogue", but there's not even a date in that citation and I can't find evidence that such an article exists. If it does exist, that's still not enough on its own to fulfil any notability requirement. Lennart97 (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong keep - Per WP:AUTHOR. One of the greatest historians of tango and one of the few (if not the only) to approach the issue of the development of tango in Paris in the early 20 century per cited sources. The article still lacks a satisfying number of citations, however, but this is no enough reason to delete this bio--Darius (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure he does pass WP:AUTHOR asnd soem of these sources for notability need to be found, because the current ones are thin, and seemingly mostly just mentions, or an Amazon page for goodness sake.Pipsally (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point one. Provide a source. point 2 movie shorts that aren't actually about him in the first case. Point 3 they are largely passing mentions in the source currently cited in the page.Pipsally (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards", reads section "Additional criteria", so even, to say, criterion 2 is by itself enough. BTW, the second documentary is clearly about Zalko and his work.----Darius (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep He gets more than a few hits in Google Scholar as an author and as a mention in a few articles. He's written books on the subject but not sure how important they are. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, discussion participants -- I'm the person who composed and posted the article now under discussion. Following your comments, I would like to state and emphasize that within the narrow field of tango scholarship, Zalko is indeed considered an important figure. I've done several things with the article recently, which include: [1] adding sources to demonstrate that Zalko is in fact a respected tango expert who's cited by researchers and scholars (with citations appearing books, articles, papers, MA and Ph.D. theses, websites and even Wikipedia articles; [2] describing his most important book (Paris-Buenos Aires: 100 Years of Tango in French and Spanish) in more detail to emphasize its contribution to the field of tango.
-- and I'd like to add here that I found several Wikipedia articles in which he was referenced: that of César Stroscio (in which all 8 of the footnotes are sourced to Zalko's book) and those of Alberto Neuman (article in French), Alberto Neuman (article in Spanish).
I'm rather new on WP and would like to thank all those who have added and formatted the article.
I would appreciate it if you would recommend leaving the article up since I think it's been demonstrated that it has value and that its subject is notable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebbieOrigami (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:BASIC: no significant coverage can be found in any independent secondary sources.
Almost all references are to articles published by the subject himself, the only independent sources merely give him a passing mention alongside 9 others. Doesn't qualify for WP:POLITICIAN. ninety:one11:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being chair of a political party's youth committee is not an automatic notability freebie under WP:NPOL, and the sources are not getting him over WP:GNG in lieu. You make a person notable for something like this by showing that he's been the subject of media coverage written by other people, not by showing that he's been the author of media coverage about other things. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Draftify It is not absolutely certain that this event will take place in any particular form (ie, as an official SOTU, etc.), and therefore this violates WP:CRYSTAL per consensus. Personally, I would wait until at least a hard date is announced before moving this back to mainspace, but in the meantime it should not remain as a published article. (non-admin closure) –MJL‐Talk‐☖19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Speaker has not sent an invitation to the President to address the Congress. The sole citation is to an AP calendar which anticipates that a speech is upcoming, but it is not confirmed. The Constitution does not mandate that a speech to a joint session occur in February, I can find no other sources to confirm this speech will occur. The page originator is unwilling to note that the date is undetermined and given that it may not happen at all the existence of the article in general seems presumptive. ShepTalk07:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails crystal ball regulations. There may be a speech, that may be notable, but until we have reliable sources covering the actual speech enough to show notability we should not have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, date is unknown (as can be seen in the last question at today's press briefing) and due to covid may end up in a different form Empire3131 (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is a highly-anticipated speech with at least the level of hype/coverage that a regular SOTU gets. A ton of articles discussing Biden's plans broadly mention an expectation that Biden's agenda will be fleshed out during this speech. For SOTUs, we always set up the page as anticipation for the event grows. If this was the 2022 SOTU which no sources are discussing yet, I would absolutely support deletion. But this article is already receiving wide coverage. WP:CRYSTAL is about events whose importance can not yet be definitively ascertained and which have not yet been widely covered, or which are not certain to happen; this event will almost certainly happen, be extremely important, and has already received significant mention. PrairieKid (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks the like speech might actually take place in March (1; 2; 3). Ironically, however, all the commentary about the speech possibly not happening until then kind of proves the notability of the speech. In any event, if it takes place in March rather than February, the article can just be renamed. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the page, I don't have a problem renaming the page (a page move), but I'd rather wait until the date is set. Taking the month "February" out of the title for now isn't going to help much when I will eventually need to add the word "March" before long anyway. Why end up changing the name twice when it only has to be changed once? So, as opposed to changing it now and changing it again in a few weeks, I'd rather change it only in a few weeks when March gets here. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnsmith2116, the idea is to remove any month from the article title, and only add it back in if there is a second speech to a joint session of Congress this year. For instance, if Biden ends up having another such speech in September, then at that point, "March" would be added to the title here. How does that sound? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per this discussion, I have opened a move request—please see Talk:February 2021 Joe Biden speech to joint session of Congress#Requested move 22 February 2021. 66.234.210.119 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete It's an article dedicated to the anticipation of a speech that might happen on some unknown date in the future? Not very encyclopedic in nature. Publish when there's a speech to publish. Tennis Anyone?Talk20:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote #1 is supposed to support a discussion by the White House press on the State of the Union,2021, BUT nowhere at the press text do the words UNION or STATE OF occurs. FALSE CITATION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.206.205 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of the 2021 "State of the Union" because this isn't a state of the union (otherwise it would be at 2021 State of the Union Address. Instead, it's a speech to a joint session of congress. Search the transcript for "joint" and you'll find the discussion. Empire3131 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: something that hasn't happened yet, and hasn't even been scheduled, doesn't deserve an article. It's just something someone said in a press conference; it's just a glint in Biden's eye. It totally violates the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy, and there's no way of knowing how important or notable it might (or might not) be. Richard75 (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Oppose - I don't see the argument here. This article has been here for a long time and lists of notable people are allowed WP:LISTPEOPLE. This one is no different from other list of surname articles like List of people with surname Smith (in fact we have entire category of such articles Category:Lists_of_people_sharing_a_surname. Evaders99 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the very definition of grouping people by shared name. Just because people have this last name does not mean they are overall related. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and our early days were a lawless wild with no regulation of content. Having been around a while is in no way a sign that something is actually notable nor that we need an article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
BEFORE searches do not reflect any independent, significant media coverage of this game that was supposed to launch in 2012 and is still listed as "upcoming" on the game's Facebook page. Thus, it seems to clearly fail WP:GNG as far as I can tell. DocFreeman24 (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I am a web developer of Vibhawa Question Bank. This is a real organization situated in Matara, Sri Lanka. I have added some references to verify it.
Speedy Delete existence is not notability. Considering in addition that you are the developer, I think this could be speedy deleted as advertising. See WP:COI. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Courtesy nomination on behalf of an anonymous IP who claims to be the subject, stating "Its inaccurate and hurtful to my life." See also discussion on my user talk page. As for my own opinion, leaving aside the current unverifiability of the subject's identity, the material in the article appears to be properly sourced to a degree that would earn at least a tepid keep from me. --Finngalltalk06:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:From Korey to Fingall :Check my facebook page, Finngall. I will post your name on it to verify it is me. And yes some if the information is properly sourced but it is clearly biased and incorrect. Not to mention the many good things I have done in the last 10 years not mentioned on here which were listed but reverted. My military records are public information and I served honorably until 2011 not 2005. There are links to those documents in this page. Furthermore the charges mentioned on here were dropped and that was reported by the same paper who did the original reporting. I would need a trial to present the amount of information needed to alter this correctly. So I feel your "tepid keep" is clearly the wrong decision as so many others already voted to remove this article. Why must I have something about myself I do not want that is a teaspoon image of my life? Here is the article - https://www.thedailystar.com/news/local_news/film-explores-veterans-and-ptsd/article_2bd493d2-4d91-594e-8a45-ef5625f1cf92.html This is the same paper this site uses for the original listing of the nonsense about me getting arrested. Read the line - "In 2011 was charged in New York with selling heroin. The charges were dropped and he was charged with misdemeanor facilitation." So to be clear the information about my military career is wrong, the information about the arrest is wrong and while it may have some loose "sources" they dont reflect the truth. So if a page is full of misinformation and it keeps being reverted back after my attempts to correct it the page should be considered toxic and being trolled and be removed even more so because I am the person who the page is about asking for it to be taken down.KoreyRowe
Note to all that the previous AfD discussion was in 2006, before many of the events listed in the current article occurred. As for the "why" of an article, this is an encyclopedia whose purpose is to provide information about notable subjects. It's not a social media site for people to tell the world about themselves; neither should it serve as a repository for hit pieces. We don't want the negatives to be given undue weight, but if that's all the verifiable information we have from the sources, then there's little that can be done.
If the consensus is to delete the article, so be it. If it is kept, then the fact that's we've got more eyes looking at has already resulted in the article being improved. Your wishes are being taken into account, but the outcome will be determined more within the framework of Wikipedia's policies and procedures. My "keep" opinion (note that it's not a vote--the final determination will be made based on the weight of the arguments rather than the numbers) is based on the notion that there has been sufficient coverage of you in the media to merit an article--positive or negative makes no difference. If more positive coverage is included, great. If better information to balance the arrest reporting is found, great, but we need that from secondary sources, not from your say-so. In any case, thank you for listening and discussing. --Finngalltalk17:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:From Korey to Fingall: Thanks for your feedback Finngall. I agree with everything you said. I am just trying to get fair and accurate representation. So if I may make some notes on the article as it is considered for deletion. The annotations at the bottom - Link Number 1 is broken, Link 2 is broken, Link 3 "my say so" not reputable, Link 4 a repost from a non-reputable source, The Daily Star. I can't have my cake and eat it too so why can this article? I have offered sources on the arrest here - https://www.thedailystar.com/news/local_news/film-explores-veterans-and-ptsd/article_2bd493d2-4d91-594e-8a45-ef5625f1cf92.html. THIS IS THE SAME PUBLICATION USED AGAINST ME BUT IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO ASSIT ME IN CORRECTING THE BAD INFORMATION? Please also see my comments at the bottom of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B0A4:70D:74D4:AABE:5E28:5FC7 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Korey, you won't usually find a large number of people who are sympathetic to "I want my Wikipedia page deleted because it talks about parts of my life I'm not happy with" -- WP:NPOV is a foundational tenet of Wikipedia. (There have been recent similar subject-requests-deletion debates that seem to be headed towards 'no consensus', which is a de facto keep.) I looked at the page history to see the changes you'd discussed that were reverted; they were reverted because they weren't sourced. If you re-added that information with reliable sources, following the guidelines in WP:COI for requesting changes to an article about you, I think there might be a better shot. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for the feedback. I understand I will not find much support on this. Here is my counter argument. How can a source not be reliable when it is the same source already used on the page? The Daily Star is used as a source against me but when I had it updated to reflect the fact that of the charges were dropped from the same publication it was deemed not reliable; because I think overtime the standards changed. Maybe I am wrong. Furthermore, If I have the page against my will why am I not allowed to update it with positive information from reliable sources about new films or accomplishments? If the page cannot be deleted why can it not be at least non-biased? As it supposed to be a historical document of sorts should it not be? I have consistent press about me that is positive from LA Weekly, to RT, Military.com even. Are non of these usable?
I've made some edits to the article according to the sources you gave and cleaned up the superfluous Daily Star ref. I do think there's a bit of a balance problem in the article and it could do with some work, and I understand why you're unhappy with how it looks right now; the edits you proposed there are reasonable and I've balanced it out accordingly. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I thank you from the bottom of my heart for that, all I want is a fair representation or none at all. However it is still largely inaccurate and please allow me to explain. I was honorably discharged, stop. No more. I served two tours over seas for this nation. Why are unproven non-prosecuted allegations worthy of this article? If I deserted for real, and was in the wrong I would have gone to jail. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the reason I was not was because I was never in the wrong? Because I was never actually AWOL and that I served this nation honorably? I have been charged with crimes, sure. I admit that. But I was never prosecuted for them. I am not a felon. I am a business owner, husband and father. I am trying to live my life and I can't tell you how many jobs I have lost because of this article. I would like to restate that I would like this page deleted, I do not seek notoriety or fame. KoreyRowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B0A4:70D:C0FB:E0F6:BE08:3A17 (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now allow me to take on the heroin allegation, which also was not prosecuted and as you know as posted above the charges were dropped to a MUCH lesser crime. So in the new edit done by Vaticidalprophet the line about this uses a new link from the Post Standard that is only a repost of The Daily Star and references that link directly in the article. This is known as fruit of the poisonous tree. If the Daily Star is not a reputable publication then the reference here is also by proxy not of the standards required by Wiki and should be removed. Additionally, if you go to the link where my military records is posted you will also see the letters from my professors who backed me up on why I was there in the first place. I admit that is when I learned making docs could go to far but should I also be guilty in the court of public opinion of something I did not commit? https://web.archive.org/web/20140130214357/http://www.koreyrowe.com/2014/01/my-life-your-business.html
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. After extended time for discussion, participation has dropped off and there is a clear absence of consensus to delete. BD2412T23:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another Gwen Stefani article on a song that does not meet WP:NSONGS. This song has not charted, does not receive coverage independent of album reviews, and has not won awards or was certified. The only seemingly notable thing is an unreleased music video, but I am curious why a music video which has never been made available to the public should have an encyclopedic entry. This sort of information is best reserved for fanwikis, but on Wikipedia, it is potentially fancruft and puffery. HĐ (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Information regarding a shelved music video is included because several sources have written about it. I do not think its release status should determine its encyclopedic value if reliable publications have reported on it. With that being said, I would like to work on expanding this article, but I'm sure my efforts will be inefficacious. Carbrera (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
As long as the sources are not reserved to album reviews, and there is enough information on the song itself, then it is okay. HĐ (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "The only seemingly notable thing is an unreleased music video". The content of articles is not subjected to WP:Notability. Unlike the other Stefani song currently at AFD, this article is not built exclusively on album reviews and satisfies WP:GNG. (CC)Tbhotch™16:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And please, it's 2021. I've been here for 10 years listening over and over again that songs that have charted/received awards are inherently notable, and those who don't are to be removed, and that misconception has been debunked by WP:NSONGS itself. (CC)Tbhotch™16:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the article’s sources are outside album reviews, so I do not see how that makes the article ‘not built extensively on album reviews’. I do not say that charting makes it inherently notable. I only suggested that chart positions may contribute to a larger indication of notability and could therefore generate successful search for sources. As if I were not familiar with NSONGS, I have participated in songs AFDs on charted or even certified songs. So do not act as if I were a newcomer uninformed of NSONGS, sir. HĐ (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly your knowledge concerning NSONGS is questionable as you seem unaware of the following sentence: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". The article is clearly not a stubish/startish one. It has "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", and most of its information would be lost when merged (assuming that someone will do so if the AFD succeeds) into LAMB. (CC)Tbhotch™02:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think, except for the Music video, the song can satisfy a standalone article. Instead of creating articles for each and every song, a more likely alternative is to expand the album's article L.A.M.B., which is currently lacking a "Production" section (which can encompass the current "Background and composition" section). Merging this article (except the "Music video" section, obvs) would not constitute WP:TOOLONG given that the current size of L.A.M.B. is well within readability. Critical reviews derived from album reviews are rather trivial per NSONGS. The music video, if really necessary, can be mentioned at Gwen Stefani videography in an "Unreleased videos" section. If the song had independent coverage, then I am more than happy for it to have a standalone article. With only two sources for the "music video" section, I think it can be tagged with ((overly detailed)). HĐ (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No-no, I'm not talking about the music video ("notability aside"—WP:NOTEWORTHY being specific), I'm talking about the article as a whole. Even though it is mostly built upon LAMB reviews (now that I see it thoroughly, it has "Live performances" which are not album reviews), "there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", so detailed that it includes details of the music arrangements, comparisons with other pop songs, and the description of its live performances, details that, as I said, most likely will be lost when merged to LAMB. (CC)Tbhotch™16:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still I do not think such information is needed as I find it rather fancruft-y (like... artists performing their songs live should not be inherently notable)... However I respect your opinion on this matter, and I want to note that I do not intend to canvass other editors into taking my side. HĐ (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am uncertain if the coverage on the song and music video is significant enough to warrant a separate article. The two citations currently used in the article about the music video does show some promise, but I'm not sure if that is enough on its own. That being said, this is a rather difficult one (at least in my opinion) to do a search on since the title is very generic. I am not confident enough to put in a vote either way, but I wanted to respond to the above ping. Aoba47 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright. Don't feel obliged to give a definite vote to keep/delete. I agree that the title is generic and a search on this particular song is challenging. I was really doubtful if the video is notable, but I will wait for other editors to chime in. Thank you for the comments. HĐ (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. given no sources that cover the song independently have been added (or identified) since the nomination. I don't think two references (both of which are just three sentences) regarding the existence of an unreleased music video snippet is enough. There remains uncited statements in the paragraph even with those sources. Given that there are no other signs of notability, such as charting or certification, (which I am taking into consideration here) I believe there are multiple articles where some of the information here could be written elsewhere. Heartfox (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is a loose consensus that this article meets WP:NSONG. While there is some support for merging the article based on inadequate sourcing, arguments in favor of keeping the article suggest that coverage of the song and its music video (in addition to charting in Canada) is sufficient to establish notability. (non-admin closure)gobonobo+c14:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Meet the Woo 2 Apart from the music video (which receives a few passing-by articles) and the #100 peak on the Canadian charts, there is not enough information for a reasonably detailed article. A short paragraph mentioning this song at Meet the Woo 2 would be sufficient. HĐ (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: 15 sources is a decent number and the song's charting may only be classified as indicating notability per WPN:Songs, but it also has a music video and I would have not passed or even reviewed for GA if I had my doubts. --K. Peake06:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the content of the "Music video" section, not quite. Single quotations like sweet and simple don't add substance. The staff of SOHH commented that Pop Smoke and Lil Tjay "premiered their new 'War' music video to the masses".[15] Does this even have any meaning to it..? HĐ (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: the song may only have a small number of sources, but the appearance in GTA being mentioned helps constitute notability despite it not charting. --K. Peake06:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. The sources here are second- or third-tier and being one of hundreds of songs in Grand Theft Auto V doesn't qualify for making this song important enough to warrant its own article. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of the same kind of sources really. The essence of the article seems to be that the artists thought it would be a hit and people in the online hip-hop world liked it ... and then it didn't chart anywhere. Kind of odd. That said, I don't have strong feelings about this one, so if it's kept, that's okay with me too. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if not a lot of sources are independent of the song, they talk about it in good detail rather than just reviews or other fluff. --K. Peake06:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striking this as you can't vote multiple times in an AfD. A discussion is relisted to generate a clearer consensus, not to allow editors to reinforce their already expressed opinion (although you're welcome to add followup comments to your original vote). Bungle(talk • contribs)18:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
See Talk:2 × 2 real matrices#This article must be deleted.
Summary:This article is written as an essay: it consists of a succession of assertions, often vague and using undefined concepts. There are many pieces of proof, but the results that are supposed to be proved are rarely stated. Thus, everything in this article is WP:OR or WP:original synthesis.
It is not clear that there is enough sourced matter for an article with this title.
The article is full of topics and terminology not found in any of the standard linear algebra textbooks, such as split-quaternions, involutory matrix, split-complex numbers, and profile. It certainly seems like WP:original synthesis.
The purpose and level of the article are not clear.
There is an odd emphasis on equi-areal mapping (a top-level topic in this article).
Strangely, lowercase letters are used for matrices, except for the identity matrix.
It is not useful to say things like "Two matrices have a sum given by matrix addition".
The definition of matrix multiplication is not given in a precise way. (What does one do with the dot products? Which ones go where?)
There are many vague or otherwise strange statements, such as "M(2,R) is a union of planar cross sections that include a real line" and that for the split-quaternions "there is a similar union but with index sets that are hyperboloids".
Given all this, deleting the page seems warranted. It would be easier to rewrite the article from scratch than to try to fix all the issues, though it is not clear that there is a need for an article with this title. Ebony Jackson (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this article needs rewriting from scratch then that can be done by simple editing, without deleting it first, and I would have thought that it's pretty self-evident that this title should either be that of an article or a redirect. Most high-school students encounter two by two real matrices, but many do not encounter any other matrices. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about that; if you take an algebra class that uses matrices to solve systems of linear equations, you'll probably see 3 × 3 after you see 2 × 2, at least. XOR'easter (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I bow to your superior knowledge. It's well over 40 years since I was at high school, and I expect that things have changed since then. In my day two by two real matrices were used to illustrate linear transformations of the plane, but I don't remember having studied any matrices beyond that at the time. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Different qualitative sectors of 2d transformations (click to expand)Keep but rename and rewrite.
IMO there is important material here, and there is unity of content (ie it does all deserve to be taken together in one place), but this is absolutely not an introductory article about 2 x 2 matrices for people meeting them for the first time eg in the context of high-school mathematics, so IMO the current name of the article is inappropriate; and it also needs a much stronger lead to clarify exactly what it is about.
The real subject I think we have here is how the different possible linear transformations around a 2D fixed point can be classified into different broad groups, see eg Linear_dynamical_system#Classification_in_two_dimensions or [38]. (cf also the thumbnail right) This is a basic topic covered in introductory courses on dynamical systems to motivate the idea of different possible sorts of behaviour around fixed points; it is also useful background to have in mind whenever eigenvalues of systems are important, where the existence of either distinct real eigenvalues or alternatively a conjugate pair of complex eigenvalues can distinguish solutions into different qualitative sectors, with the possibility that small changes to the system may produce qualitatively interesting bifurcations between the two.
References and discussions of these different qualitative sectors of behaviour should be straightforward to find in books on nonlinear dynamics and bifurcations. As far as I remember from the '90s there was material on this in the introductory books on nonlinear dynamics by eg Thompson, Glendinning, or Arrowsmith. I am sure there would be similar material in other similar introductory books, as well as texts at a more advanced level on bifurcation theory.
Discussions in the dynamical systems materials tend to get to the different possible behaviours via considering the different possibilities for eigenvalues and Jordan Normal Forms. I think following that line here would be useful and would strengthen the article.
The article then specialises to the case of area-preserving transformations (also a topic of considerable interest in dynamical systems). The two generic sectors of transformations now correspond to rotations, which can be represented by a unit complex number, or to an area-preserving squeeze mapping (a.k.a. a hyperbolic rotation), which can be represented by a unit split-complex number (the hyperbolic analogue of a complex number). It is very useful to get a sense of how these are the twins of each other, and to see how they fall out of the mathematics of 2d transformations. This paves the way, for example, to appreciating Lorentz transformations as a hyperbolic analogue of rotations, and understanding how both can be represented in geometric algebra, generalising up from complex numbers and split-complex numbers. (See hypercomplex number for an overview of these objects).
Finally the article looks at how the two distinct sectors can be understood when 2x2 matrices are used to express other types of transformations, for example in projective geometry. I think the material here could be expanded and made more immediate, but it seems to me a very relevant thing to also cover.
So, in summary: I think that there is a topic here, that coheres as a whole, and is worth an article. I think the material we have currently is worth keeping as a starting point for that article. But I think the current title is not right and should be changed (eg perhaps "Classification of 2D linear transformations"). I think content should be added, as to how the existing material relates to eigenvalues and Jordan normal forms. And I think the article needs much more orientation in the lead, that it's about how the overall algebra of 2D linear transformations can be classified into different sectors, and how these sectors relate to specific sub-algebras. But as I think there is a real worthwhile topic here, and IMO the present text gets us at least part of the way to it, I think the !vote has to be keep. Jheald (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion must eventually be closed by an administrator, which probably will not be a specialist of this subject. So, such technical comments must normally be placed in the talk page of the article, and replaced by a summary focusing on the WP:deletion criteria. IMO, this long post can been summarized as "Keep for transforming it in another article with another title and another subject". This is definitively not the right way to create a new Wikipedia article.
More precisely, the suggested new title is "Classification of 2D linear transformations", that is the classification of the elements of the general linear group There are several such classifications in the literature, but it is not said which one is considered here. I suspect that this is another one that is intended, which is forbidded per WP:NOR. In any case, the article is not about but about the ring of 2×2 matrices, which contains this group as its group of units.
Also the post contains contains several assertions that are mathematically nonsensical, such as "2D fixed point" and the assertion that the section on area preserving transformations is relevant here. It is a standard fact, is stated in several WP articles, that linear maps preserving areas are exacly the linear maps of determinant one. So, a section introducing differential forms is definitely out of scope in an article that considers only linear maps. D.Lazard (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just deleted a whole lot of text that was under-sourced, hard to follow and generally of niche interest (that 2-by-2 matrices can be written as split quaternions comes up far less often than wanting to find their eigenvalues, for example). XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My cleanup attempt was undone, so I restored the "reads like an essay" tag. At the moment, restricting to real matrices seems rather artificial to me. Yes, for some applications a real matrix is what you use, but even there you can end up talking about complex numbers anyway (e.g., eigenvalues for a dynamical system with circulation around a fixed point [39]). XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The suggestions for fixing the article would seem to make it a page of Theseus. The title would have to be changed, the content rewritten, the focus altered, the lede changed to summarize the rewritten body — and, probably, the sources replaced with more standard ones. I generally prefer it when articles can be fixed rather than deleted, but the topic implied by the title is artificially narrow; writing better content about it would naturally end up writing about a broader class of mathematical objects. XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia projects in different languages have different standards for inclusion; whether an article exists in one doesn't really say much about whether it should exist in another. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed delete. (I am the opener of this thread, and, I have not explicitely said that my !vote is "delete", although it should be clear from my first post.) D.Lazard (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment . The object of this article is the same of that of Split-quaternion must be kept, at least as they deal with isomorphic structures that have exactly the same properties. Thus merged them may seem a good idea (such a merge has been proposed, and resulted to "keep"), but it is not. Split-quaternion must be kept although the topic is rarely used in modern mathematics, at least for its historical interest. Split-quaternion was a mess, and I have almost completely rewritten it. In this rewrite, I have put more emphasis on the isomorphism of the two structures, but it appeared that redirecting 2 × 2 real matrices there is definitively not a good idea, as a reader searching information on 2 × 2 real matrices will certainly not find there what they are interested in. 2 × 2 matrix does not exist, and Real matrix is not an article but is a redirect to a definition in Matrix (mathematics). So there is no place for redirecting 2 × 2 real matrices. As nobody has proposed any reasonable target for a redirect, and no specific encyclopedic content has been suggexted for 2 × 2 real matrices, I do not see any other solution than a deletion. D.Lazard (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed keep: This article serves rotation matrix as a fuller explanation of imaginary units than given there, and links here. It also provides context for polar coordinates and a place for representation of split-complex and dual numbers. Thus there is a natural readership, indeed it averages 40 views per day. The nominator has not claimed any inaccuracy but has disparaged the references. He says it is OR but the topic arose first in the nineteenth century. Complaint that the content lies beyond elementary linear algebra texts is true because ring theory is encountered at an elementary level. A perturbing issue with the nominator lies in use of row vectors in the projective line section, as he has called this approach "fringe" at Talk:Real projective line. Reference to Row and column vectors shows several geometers preference for row vectors when composing geometric transformations. As for the attitude to OR, see Talk:Split-quaternion#Complete rewrite of section "Profile" where he is uninhibited. This article provides useful stepping stone for students moving on to abstract algebra or Lie theory. Rgdboer (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that rotation matrix had a section linking here. However the link was in a paragraph containing undefined notation, and the whole section used confusing terminology (for exemple the ambiguous term of "matrix plane" instead of "two dimensional subalgebra"). I have fixed this section, that presently does not links here.Also, "useful stepping stone" is a personal opinion that is not supported by any argument. Moreover WP:Wikipedia is not a textbook. D.Lazard (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly polar coordinates and rotation matrices are important topics, but the present article 2 × 2 real matrices does not provide a helpful way to learn about them, so one cannot say that they are "served" by this article. There is no linear algebra text, there is no abstract algebra text, and there is no Lie theory text that attempts to introduce the subject by presenting the selection of topics listed here. Ebony Jackson (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
D.Lazard was right to say that it is a fringe convention to write functions to the right of their arguments (I was arguing this too in my comments and references given at Talk:Real projective line), but in any case, that is a small point compared to the more serious issues with the article raised above. Ebony Jackson (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's possible to write something about 2x2 matrices in particular (e.g. as 2D rotation matrices and representing complex numbers), but nothing of the current article contributes anything useful to the topic. Not even the section "2 × 2 real matrices as complex numbers" because it's confusing readers more than helping them. --mfb (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an article without a clear purpose. The content of the article is a grab-bag of topics that use 2×2 real matrices but are not about 2×2 real matrices. Everything it says is better said elsewhere in individual articles on those topics. When that content is excluded from the present article, there is nothing left. Moreover, I can't see that ever changing. There is really nothing to say about 2×2 real matrices that could not be said of matrices generally, or all 2×2 matrices, or of the group SL(2,R), etc. On their own, 2×2 real matrices don't even have historical importance. Consequently I see no way that this article will ever contain useful content. Ozob (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that the article as written is a bit of a hodge podge of random topics that don't really belong on a page about 2x2 matrices, but I'm not sure I agree that 2x2 matrices don't deserve their own wikipedia page as a topic. Certainly there would be a great many people (most of whom are not mathematicians such as we are) who would go to wikipedia looking for a page that describe 2x2 matrices in an elementary way. These people would obviously be disatisfied with the page as it currently is, but I would think they would also be disatisfied if there was no page at all, and that they have to go to the examples in the general matrix page to find a discussion of 2x2 matrices that isn't general theory about nxn matrices. This may not align with the intended goals of the project, so I'm not presenting it as an argument to keep the page, but I think from the user perspective there would be demand for a page specifically about 2x2 matrices that present the nxn matrix theory in an introductory manner.Tazerenix (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought that the description of this article might be hyperbole, and a cursory glance made it seem alright, but once I actually read each section it seems almost like a fever-dream, or some kind of mirror-version of a standard math article. The pageview statistics on this page make it seem like it's not a popular landing page for people googling, and the info people might want for 2x2 matrices seems like it would be better suited for a textbook than a wikipedia page. However, I believe someone could come up with a 2x2 matrix page, but it would be completely new content and essentially nothing from this page would belong in it, so I believe that this page should be deleted. Brirush (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not really convinced that the subject warrants enough notability to have its own article. From what I'm seeing, they are just someone who writes their own (arguably controversial) political views on social media. Fails WP:GNG.
I'm sure many have come across way more controversial social critics who do not have their own Wikipedia article, so I'm not sure why this should be any different. (In fact it seems like this was only created back in June last year). ShelteredCook (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not really convinced that the nominator has interrogated the sources presented in the article at all to prove their assertion that it fails GNG. Also their overall "argument" is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and WP:BIAS (and what relevance does the time of creation even have?!) Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at the 9 sources in the article. I'm still unsure as to why you felt the need to create an article for this subject? Where's the notability exactly? ShelteredCook (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I removed the AfD from India-related discussions, I see no link to India in the article apart from the ethnicity of the individual. --Soman (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has been referenced in numerous Singaporean newspapers,The Guardian, ABC Life and The Atlantic. Coining a new term and sparking a discussion about it warrants having a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worlder2020 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding his obituary in a newspaper, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge with Vein matching. There's some bits and bobs here that could be usefully added (some details on the scanning method, for example), but the overlap is substantial. I agree that this is an unncecessarily split-out subtopic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city. Unlike the other mayors of North Bay that I nominated earlier today, I was actually the original creator of this one, a decade ago when mayors were still considered "inherently" notable so long as the city cracked 50K in population -- and while I did try to include some content that actually mentioned some specific things he did in office, by 2021 standards it's far from clear that I was able to do enough. He never got the same range or depth of nationalized coverage that his predecessor got, so I had to rely on a very small handful of hits from the local media -- and while I was able to mention some things he did in office, I wasn't able to go into much detail about them, so it's not at all clear that he actually passes WP:NPOL #2 as it now stands. But since I'm not the only person who's ever edited the article, I can't just speedy it on "single editor disavowing own work" grounds either. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just calling a city "regionally important" is not a notability freebie that exempts a mayor from having to get over WP:NPOL #2 on his sourceability, or from the article actually having to contain any substance about his political impact. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to meet our requirements for politician notability, and North Bay is not such a significant city that they mayor has anywhere near presumed notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The only "keep" argument, "Mayor of a regionally important city", is a weak one in the face of guidelines and practices that say that such offices do not establish even a presumption of notability. Sandstein 19:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a person notable primarily as mayor of a smallish city, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they're minimally verifiable as having existed -- the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the ability to verify a few stray biographical facts by finding his obituary in a newspaper, but on the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features essentially none of that, and doesn't cite nearly enough coverage to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy the notability criteria for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just calling a city "regionally important" is not a notability freebie that exempts a mayor from having to get over WP:NPOL #2 on his sourceability, or from the article actually having to contain any substance about his political impact. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Trivial pass of NCRIC, but the presumption of notability afforded is extremely weak for such cricketers, and there is no evidence that WP:SIGCOV exists. Only available sources are wide-ranging databases, which may be enough for inclusion in a list (no suitable one exists to merge/redirect to), but it is not good enough for a standalone article. wjematherplease leave a message...15:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article cites no sources, and I can't find any reliable sources that make non-trivial references to the paper. As such, the group does not appear to meet WP:GNG and the group's page should therefore be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
5 references are from Youtube, 4 are from bogus sites like wikivisually, reference 1 doesn't open, 2 is an interview, 6 is like internet CV, Some of Forbes Thailand references don't open, and rest Forbes coverages have been repeated or are not published by core Forbes editorial team (taken from PR NEWS). Dial911 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason given to support deletion. The subject is clearly notable, given the amount of coverage in third-party reliable sources, which the nominator has not even claimed don't exist. I'd be happy to comment on the reliability of each source individually, but invalid arguments such as to delete an article because of links being dead and sources being in Thai are completely against policy. AfD is not for clean up. Regarding the YouTube links, the first and third ones are episodes from nationally broadcast terrestrial TV programmes. The second is produced by Forbes Thailand; the fourth is a self-published source, which should be fine for WP:ABOUTSELF matters. Only the last one is questionable. I have no idea what "bogus sites like wikivisually" is supposed to refer to. So two of the Forbes Thailand links are PR pieces. The other four are cover articles from the print magazine.[41][42][43][44] The nom has forwarded no argument to disprove their reliability, nor those of the other sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Covered by Forbes Thailand articles as mentioned by Paul 012 above. Thailand top newspaper Thai Rath also has his name tagged in racing sport section with lots of news articles (click individual pictures and rows to go to published news piece) [45] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is completely PROMO at present, *but* AfD is not cleanup ... (tone that follows is as polite as possible) content is irrelevant in determining notability, that is the point of BEFORE. Billionaire head of family business that is ranked 15th wealthiest in Thailand according to Forbes. Multiyear coverage in Thai and foreign RS. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another isolated siding, whose article is being used for a coatrack for a local park. Even if the park is notable, which I doubt, this spot surely isn't. Mangoe (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
YouTube account that does not meet criteria of WP:NWEB. The articles provided as sources are not about the account, it's only mentioned as an entry in various lists. The HuffPo piece is a contributed article and not written by a staff member. I am unable to find significant discussion of the account in multiple reliable sources. ...discospinstertalk02:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An innocuous enough short bio, but I don't think Moore meets WP:NAUTHOR or WG:GNG. The Emmy nominations (not wins) don't add much weight. Searching for material under "Carroll Moore" gets swamped, unsurprisingly, while the full name "Carroll Byron Moore" is very sparsely served [46]. I don't believe this is clearing any applicable notability guidelines. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure how multiple Emmy nominations don't add much weight, given that the very first WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." If Emmys don't qualify as "well-known and significant" then I am not sure what would. At any rate, I've added two more sources to the article, one of which cites multiple Variety issues (though I haven't yet been able to check those). Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Those Emmy nominations are shared, each with at least six other writers. Also, none of the sources are about him specifically (IMDb doesn't count). I Remember Television talks a little bit about his duties on the television show Two For The Money, putting it just above passing mention. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting: WP:SIGCOV explicitly states: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" (emphasis mine), so "none of the sources are about him specifically" is not a valid argument. Gnomingstuff (talk)
Comment: Although a search for "Carroll Moore" "gets swamped," as the nominator said, a selective search for February 1977 coverage in newspapers.com turned up a number of obituaries for this "leading television and Broadway playwright," including in the Boston Globe, Detroit Free Press, Tampa Bay Times, and Santa Cruz Sentinel. So it's clear that coverage exists, if one knows where to look, and had Moore lived to see the internet age, it seems likely that the nominator's duckduckgo search would have put notability beyond doubt. And that's without even getting to the three Emmy nominations, which as Gnomingstuff points out, are clearly "several" nominations of a "significant award." Being shared does not diminish that, and as a writer, a shared nomination is to be expected. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: obituaries are generally good for establishing notability. I can't access these (I'm not going to toss my credit card details to "free trials") - could you excerpt/include some here or in the article? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Frankly not sure how much these short-form obits are worth - this is the kind of notice put into the newspapers by relatives, not the independent "denkschrift" type assessing a legacy. I don't believe these help make the case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Boston Globe obit is from the Associated Press, and the last I checked the AP was a news organization, not someone's relative. (Also, the fact that it's an AP obituary and ran in a newspaper means that it's possible -- not guaranteed, but possible -- that there is a longer version cut for space, this is very common with newspapers running wire stories. Of course there also might not be.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usernameunique has ably demonstrated that further work would be productive and so our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Emmy nominations should be enough for WP:GNG even if shared. I mean, it's three Primetime Emmy Awards! Writing for "The Danny Kaye Show" is impressive, "Rhoda" even more impressive. Has Broadway credits too - in addition to writing for TV, he wrote at least two Broadway plays "Make a Million" and "Send Me No Flowers", the latter made into a movie with Rock Hudson and Doris Day! Surely that's more than notable enough for a playwright. I think all of this, plus a few other credits and sources and credits mentioned above, give him enough notability for an article. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
What about absolute numbers, there are far more Americans than Koreans, not to mention the other four countries where Smith is the most popular surname. Doesn't this show that it's slightly absurd to have some kind of arbitrary limit beyond which a name is too popular to have a list article of notable individuals.----Pontificalibus19:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the very definition of grouping people by shared name. Just because people have this last name does not mean they are overall related. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and our early days were a lawless wild with no regulation of content. Having been around a while is in no way a sign that something is actually notable nor that we need an article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. Although these could be considered people "surnamed Lee", really they are people surnamed 리 or 이 and transliterated as Lee, which is a reasonable point of distinction from other formations of Lee. BD2412T23:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Mentions in half a dozen local publications, two industry services (including a feature article) and one national newspaper. Easily passes notability threshold. Oppose merge, relevant content is not already in the target article. Lilporchy (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Expertwikiguy: Unfortunately all evidence points to the contrary. There needs to be significant coverage (not mentions, which Lilporchy bases their argument on), from multiple reliable sources, and at least one of those should not be local or of limited interest to satisfy WP:AUD, a component of NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per some of the sources in article as well as these:
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.
Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
