Merge to Finnish famine of 1866–1868. The role of diseases in the famine is discussed at https://www.duodecimlehti.fi/duo10652 (in Finnish) which includes some offline references that could be used (e.g. Turpeinen 1986, Pitkänen 1993; but I don't actually have access to these). Making such a strict separation between the famine and the diseases associated with it does not seem very natural, and it would be better to discuss this in the parent article, which gives the proper context for the epidemic. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator initially placed a PROD tag (with the same rationale) before later taking it to AfD — with the PROD tag remaining as well. Since it is up for AfD, I have procedurally deproded. Notwithstanding that, I offer no opinion regarding the article itself at this time. WCQuidditch☎✎04:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Finnish famine of 1866–1868. While there looks to be plenty of Finnish literature to support a notability pass, based on a (admittedly very brief) literature search the typhus appears to have been just one of multiple diseases rampant around the time of the famine. If this was a long and well-developed article, I'd see an argument for keeping it separate, but it's not and thus I think handling this in the broader context is better for our readers. And nothing prevents a future split if the relevant content somehow expands to overshadow there rest of the famine article. -Ljleppan (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. Easily meets WP:BASIC. Coverage includes academic books about the role of third parties in American politics (like this 2012 volume published by University of South Carolina Press). Over her 30+ year career in politics, she has been referenced a lot in national newspapers, not just local. Given the volume of coverage involving Oliver, this will take some time to sort through but definitely worth keeping. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am reminded of the consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Redpath and Redpath was a national figure of the third largest party in the United States versus one of three founders of a state-level, third-party with regular ballot access. The mention above I think fails WP:BASIC as WP:BASIC explicitly precludes trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources. The mention in Challengers of Duopoly is exactly that.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP of an engineer created by a likely meatpuppet. Contains swathes of unsourced claims and no clear claim of notability despite many expansive statements. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sign of notability. His LinkedIn says "refer wikipedia" for information so this is likely some attempt to promote. Surprised it survived this long. CFA💬22:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I contest this as the article as sufficient references as suggested per Wikipedia Policies for a book. The article has also been reviewed by other editors.Gardenkur (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Article was created 16 years ago by User:Jeff serr@yahoo.com, who remarkably, still regularly edits their article/resume. High and low I have search for sources to support notability, without success. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stub article that seems to be little more than a dictionary definition - a search for sources indicates that there may not be much scope for well-sourced expansion. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Maybe once we have actual information on what is in the leaks and if Iran is really behind it, the article can be more than stub-length.
A 17th century Slovenian mayor is hardly notable enough to keep a page here. Although he was mayor of Ljubljana, the capital city of Slovenia, which could be grounds for some notability, no sources exist which make significant mention of his life or do anything more substantial than say his name.
Here are all existing sources I could find about him:
[3] (which apparently consists of articles from Wikipedia according to this site here)
Comment. Slovenia was not an independent country at the time and Ljubljana not a capital. This weakens the case for NPOL. The first source mentioned above is very obviously a Wikipedia collection. Several other mayor articles are in the same dire state, including Horacij Carminelli and other successors. Many of these only duplicate List of mayors of Ljubljana and can be redirected there. In that list, a few other details such as birth and death year can also be added whereever known. Geschichte (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was all I could find [5]; just not enough sourcing for our needs here. Sourcing now in the article is a list of mayors from the city, not helping notability (and a primary source). Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The cited source [2] names A) his reelection B) German name: Under "Georg Viditsch" you will find him several listings in google books plus a secondary literature that states that he was judge at Laibach afterwards. Axisstroke (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we should avoid having contemporary notability standards for historical figures for earlier epochs. Just because a person isn't highlighted by contemporary historians doesn't mean he wasn't notable during his time period. The name has different variations, Georg or Jurij, Vidic or Viditsch, probably some other variants in Latin. A mayor of a mayor city in this period wasn't a 'local politician' as we understand it today, that person would have been a person of significant notability. He also served as 'Stadtrichter' of the city. Here we see his heraldic shield. He is mentioned here across story of several pages, but I can't make sense of the Fraktur script, not sure if journalistic account or prose. ([6] mentions a Georg Vidic born around 1540 in Blečji Vrh, as the first known in a genealogical line of Vidic... but DOB doesn't really match our Georg Vidic) --Soman (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timothy Williams (actor) - I am finding no coverage or reviews on the book, and no information at all on the listed publisher of the book. As stated in the nom, the author may not be notable themselves, but as long as they have an article up, Redirecting to that would be appropriate for now. Rorshacma (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do we have reliable sources confirming the book was written by Timothy Williams? If so, I would argue for redirecting. However, if we don't even have proof Williams wrote the book, it should be deleted. Ping me if anything shows up. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade I was unable to find a reliable source stating it, as afaik there are no reliable sources that mention this book. The only thing I found is his IMDB bio, which states "In addition, he is the ghost writer behind two cult classic novels: "My So-Called Career in Hollywood," the autobiography of 1960's failed sitcom writer E. Klass, and "I Am Not Lost in Space!" the fictionalized autobiography of iconic TV character Will Robinson, and the first 'tie-in novelization' based on the 1960's series published in over 40 years." That could of course not be true, because IMDB.
Upon looking at this, I have now realized there is a high chance that the creator of this page is Timothy Williams - their username starts with TW, the number string is "3767" vs his birthday of 30 July 1967 and the only things they ever edited was Williams page and the pages of his works. So, well, at least he thinks he made it. I think it should redirect but uhhh looking at the history here I now realize we may have bigger issues PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When this page was made, there may have been a source about it that was reliable (it could be unreliable for all I know). Now it is a permanent dead link, and more than that it is the only review available, failing NBOOK (which needs two). I have found nothing else except a handful of fringe-looking hits on Google Books and one very good source that discusses the author but only mentions this book in passing (I have added that source to author's page though as it is not in good shape). Redirect to author Jamshed Akhtar? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123 Good catch! According to DeepL this is what the review says: "The author of the book is Jamshed Akhtar, an Indian writer and researcher specializing in electrical engineering with an interest in the study of religion, and a member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy of India. The book presents exciting information about the origin of life and man extracted from his analysis of the words of the Holy Quran. We learn how the first molecule of life was created on planet Earth, what was the mechanism involved, where did this event take place on the primordial earth, and what happened next? It tells us how life is related to man, how the first human being and his partner were created, and where they started their lives from the beginning. The research also discusses creatures such as the jinn and angels and the concept of paradise for Adam, within the parameters of the Qur'an and modern physics. The book discusses the case that revelation is an extraterrestrial phenomenon, and offers a mechanism for verifying information that has the potential to anchor the perennial debate between creationists and evolutionists."
This, IMO, does not help its case much, this is basically just summing up what the book says. Less a review and more the "Book Notes" describing books you sometimes encounter in western journals as well (in fact, the arabic section title seems to translate to that). PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the cringe-worthy prose of early revisions ("one of the finest sons of the soil, who shines in the civil and political society all by his own radiance ...", etc.), this appears to have been created as a memorial, which is not what the encyclopedia is for.
Searching online and offline in English and Bengali found nothing beyond the short obituary and death anniversary notice, a primary source program listing, and bookseller sites. It doesn't amount to significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.
I could not find any reviews or sigcov covering the book. All the evaluative material is sourced from the book's own website or the book itself which is not usable. There are two passing news article mentions in articles about the author and nothing else. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misinformation corrected in regards to record deal not being secured -evidence of such clearly provided in articles . Personal information removed about family, as is appropriate. Denseem (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No point of view of skew was taken on this articl, simply correcting inaccuracy and removing personal information Denseem (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Denseem, you don't need to make 5 nearly identical comments saying the same thing. It can discourage participation from other editors and the best way to come to a consensus to have sufficient editor participation in deletion discussions. LizRead!Talk!00:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see 1.5 good sources about him - the AL source is substantial; the first Irish Times is brief but is about him. In the rest he's listed as a collaborator with not much about him, or they are interviews. I didn't find anything else about him. NOM seems to be correct that there are COI issues and there appear to have been possible WP:SOCK issues as well. Good to keep an eye on. Lamona (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that those articles are not about him; he is only name-checked there. So those don't count toward notability, even though they can source some information in the article. Lamona (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin was strongly under-defended and hardly prepared, and in just two hours it was basically incapacitated as a forward base for the Allies. The Australians suffered extensive losses in aircraft as well as 236 people killed. Yet, less than a month later, Darwin was operational again and a staging point of retaliatory attacks by the RAAF, although it is still surprising that Darwin was so ill-prepared. As Bob Alford indeed states in his excellent Darwin 1942: The Japanese Attack on Australia, after the great successes of the Japanese, 'It was evident that an attack on Australia was more of whether and not if' (p. 30). Illustrated with many excellent photographs and above all stunning art work, Alford provides a much-welcome study of a little-known campaign, and Osprey is to be applauded for daring to take the risk of initiating a study on such a relatively small-scale battle.
Weak keep. On Rawat's Google Scholar profile [8] the first two items are co-edited volumes and the third is a survey paper. The actual research contributions start at the fourth item. But I think there are still enough well-cited research contributions (albeit in a high-citation field) to make a case for WP:PROF#C1. ACM Distinguished Speaker is not enough for #C3 but it is also suggestive. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to neutral, leaning weak delete because the promotional history of editing is a significant problem and the weak evidence for notability listed in my comment above, while valid, does not outweigh that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @David Eppstein Yeah you're right here but I also added his individual research contributions in an article. Besides, I got that what you want to describe, I will see what else could be added to make that more notable Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @TechnoSquirrel69 I want you to revert the tag for "Nominated for deletion". You could had add the other tags for the notability or you can use the tag for the lag of sources. It's just a humble request. Besides, I will make sure to follow all the guidelines accordingly. Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Shariq Khan 1, I just want to note that the subject's notability is not within your control as an editor; their notability will remain the same regardless of the state of their article. The articles for deletion procedure requires that the deletion notice remain at the top of the article for the duration of the discussion, which will last at least a week. If the article is kept at the end of the discussion, the tag will be removed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @TechnoSquirrel69 Yeah i can understand that but the subject has done a lot in his career and i think there shouldn't be any notable issue for publishing an article according to Wikipedia guidelines. It might take bit time to get well managed and notable. Thanks to you for guiding me in this particular area. Also it would be really great for me if you could help by guiding me what else should i add to make the subject notable, I am still in learning process and that's the reason i am trying to publish articles on some random notable subjects. Thank you! Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, adding material to the article will not make the subject notable. To become notable as an academic, the subject needs recognition by his peers: heavy citation to his publications, fellowship in major scholarly societies, named professorship or distinguished professor title, and the like. See WP:PROF. Nothing we do here on Wikipedia is likely to have much effect on any of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @XOR'easter I am totally disagreed with that point Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement because there is nothing in the article which triggers anything for an advertisement, spam or something. Besides, the argument for passing WP:PROF#C1 the article meets most of the notability guidelines for academics which can be quite enough for the subject's notability. Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A classic example of a marginal publication record that is borderline for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else to demonstrate notability. When a BLP is borderline I look to see if there are significant peer awards or other recognition. I see nothing that is convincing. For Shariq Khan 1, arguing here does nothing, you need to improve the article to demonstrate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual's activities have not been topic of secondary reliable sources and there is no significant coverage. If you look at the article, it only provides information about the person's education and later acquisition of the relevant position. The position held by the individual and the award received do not alone make him notable. The references given do not meet significant coverage; they are merely brief news reports about visits, congratulations, and meetings. Additionally, it's worth noting that there are suspicions that this article was created through UPE (see). It is one of several articles created in multiple language sections for advertising purposes using paid editing. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any credible claim of notability here; press reports merely describe him as a Hamas official.Search throws up less than nothing TheLongTone (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a search among RSes brings up nothing on the subject besides the assassination, which itself doesn't seem overly significant in the scope of the war, so the article seems to fail WP:BLP1E. TheKip(contribs)05:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hyper-local museum that is local and about local things. Since it's an article about a company or organization, the relevant guideline for evaluation is WP:NCORP which this article does not sufficiently pass, especially on the lack of significant independent reliable coverage in media beyond the local audience base. Graywalls (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete. Not notable. Article was set up by a now-blocked user who recently commented as follows on his talk page: "Yes, I set the Notability bar lower because I think certain people and places need recognition" [9]. That says it all, when something in his local area isn't notable, he sets up a Wikipedia article to give them more recognition. Cart before horse. Fortunately, it isn't Greg Henderson who "sets the notability bar" on Wikipedia.Axad12 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Axad12:, the nomination isn't based on who created the article, but based on having the appearance of creation of a non-notable local feature.Having said that, this article isn't Greg related. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; Greg never touched this article. That's why it's usually best to stay focused on sources and notability guidelines in AfD discussions. Left guide (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My error here was an exceptionally stupid and incompetent one for which there can be no excuses. I have struck my vote in its entirety. My apologies. Axad12 (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi, I wrote this article. I am not related to Trotter's Museum. The Trotter Museum primarily focuses on early California art, particularly paintings. These artworks are created by renowned artists whose works are sold at auction houses for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Therefore, it's inaccurate to claim that the museum is hyper-local. The article includes links to these artists, making it easy to verify that they are not local. For example, Granville Redmond, a deaf painter, is represented in the museum and is a beloved figure in the deaf community. Charlton Fortune is one of the most important American Impressionists. The museum features these paintings as part of its permanent collection, unlike the Monterey Museum of Art (which has early California art but does not have it in their permanent exhibit). There are numerous books that mention Trotter's Museum and Gallery contributions, including prominent works by Scott Shields, the director of the Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento, which I referenced in the Wikipedia article. These are nationally recognized publications.Puncinus (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Puncinus:, do you mind naming three best sources you believe to confer the notability of this company so other editors don't have to go through so many sources? If the subject is notable, there should be 2-3 sources that demonstrate the notability. Because this is a company, it is expected to be able to meet WP:NCORP standards with WP:ORGIND and WP:AUD in mind. A whole bunch of shallow/insignificant coverages can not substitute for in depth, significant coverage on the subject in order to demonstrate notability just like you can't substitute twenty 0.05 carat diamond for a 1 carat diamond. Graywalls (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question I can find no sourcing outside of Wiki mirrors, which is odd because there should be some sourcing including the Shields ones currently referenced. Was it known under other names besides the Trotters' antique shop? Clearly not passing N:ORG at the moment but wonder if something we're missing so not !voting as of yet. StarMississippi01:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken that there is no sourcing. Trotter Gallery is mentioned in numerous books about early California paintings and travel guides. Here is a partial list (at the end of the reference I added how it is quoted in the text):
List of sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Patricia Trenton, Sandra D'Emilio. Independent Spirits: Women Painters of the American West. University of California Press, 1995. - Trotter Galleries, Carmel.
Steven A. Nash, Bill Berkson, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. Facing Eden: 100 Years of Landscape Art in the Bay Area. University of California Press, 1995. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove.
Scott A. Shields. Artists at Continent's End: The Monterey Peninsula Art Colony, 1875-1907. Crocker Art Museum, 2006. - Terry and Paula Trotter of Trotter Galleries.
EC Pennington. A Southern Collection. Morris Museum of Art, 1992. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, California.
WS Morris. A Southern Collection. Morris Museum of Art, 1993. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, California.
Nick Kanas. Star Maps: History, Artistry, and Cartography. Springer, 2019. - Trotter Galleries in Carmel and Pacific Grove, CA.
Lora Ann Sigler. Clothes Make the Character: The Role of Wardrobe in Early. McFarland, 2021. - Trotter Galleries.
Art of California, Vol. 4, Issues 1-2, 1991. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, CA.
Worth, Vol. 17, Issues 1-6, 2008. - Trotter Galleries, CA.
Antiques, Vol. 158, 2000. - Trotter Galleries.
Monterey Life, Vol. 10, Issues 7-12, 1989. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, CA.
Wendy Van Wyck Good. Sisters in Art: The Biography of Margaret, Esther, and Helen. Prospect Hill Press, 2021. - Trotter Galleries.
Nancy M. Evans, Neil A. Evans. Exploring the Monterey Peninsula: Big Sur, Carmel, Monterey. John Muir Publications, 1994. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, CA.
Peter Hiller. Life and Times of Jo Mora: Iconic Artist of the American West. Gibbs Smith, 2021. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, CA.
Art Now Gallery Guide, Vol. 8, Issues 4-6, 1988. - Trotter Galleries, Pacific Grove, CA.
Phil Kovinick, Marian Yoshiki-Kovinick. An Encyclopedia of Women Artists of the American West. University of Texas Press, 1998. - Trotter Galleries, Carmel, CA.
SA Shields. Legends of Bohemia: The Monterey Peninsula and its Early Art Colony, 1875–1907. 2004. - Terry and Paula Trotter of Trotter Galleries.
Nick Kanas. Terrestrial and Celestial Pictorial Maps. In Star Maps: History, Artistry, and Cartography. Springer, 2019. - Trotter Galleries, Carmel and Pacific Grove, CA.
SA Shields, J Burton-Carvajal. Will Sparks: California's Mission Painter. tfaoi.org. - Trotter Galleries.
E Kornhauser, S Vittoria, RJ Geary. Jules Tavernier and the Elem Pomo. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2021. - Trotter Galleries.
S Landauer, WH Gerdts, P Trenton. The Not-so-still Life: A Century of California Painting and Sculpture. University of California Press, 2003. - Trotter Galleries.
@Puncinus, could you please identify the three BEST independent secondary reliable sources that provide SIG COV, along with links? That would really help. Significant coverage ABOUT the museum-gallery is needed, not just mentions, or sources that are about the artists or others affiliated with the institution. For example, fully independent newspaper articles, academic journal articles, magazine articles, book chapters, etc. that provide in-depth coverage about the museum gallery itself. Thanks in advance, Netherzone (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Pennsylvania: Another remnant of the looser non-GNG inclusion standards of 2009 in this topic area, which at times seemed to be more about existence (which is not, and has nothing to do with, notability) than the significant coverage required by the GNG. If SIGCOV existed (as opposed to the usual FCC databases, and brief mentions [that aren't currently in the article, but probably wouldn't be SIGCOV anyway]), it would have turned up by now; under today's standards, we no longer need anything more than an ((R to list entry)) here. WCQuidditch☎✎04:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the coverage of her wedding, which is extended, there are reviews of her 2019 book, coverage of her children's line, collaborations with different brands. The article is well-cited and provides coverage spanning a wide range of dates. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because multiple, independent, reliable sources cover the subject in detail over a range of aspects. Perhaps the nominator is thinking that there would not be such coverage if she were not married to royalty, or it is only because of her royal status that she has made her achievements. We do not have such criteria in our guidelines. Thincat (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is really a troublemaker, only targeting articles about irrelevant or deposed Greek royalty—just look at their AfD history. I don’t want to say anything about putting her sons' articles up for AfD, but I never expected the nominator to be so Superman as to nominate the titular Crown Princess of Greece for deletion. I was shocked. She is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and is more notable than the consorts of other now-deposed German royalty. Please do some research on Google first before making an AfD nomination. There is plenty of coverage that meets WP:GNG. Please don’t use AfD as a weapon—Wikipedia is not your stress-relief zone. Thanks. 45.132.235.203 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC from significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as a notable person. The nominator clearly did not carry out any WP:BEFORE checks before nominating this. Someone should WP:SNOW close this.
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. Please make sure to search in the native language of articles you nominate for deletion. Here are three academic papers specifically about the organization in Korean: [10](pdf)[11][12]. Here's a history article that discusses the organization on a website run by National Institute of Korean History ([13]). I can search more upon request, but I'm certain there are more. The 1988 Olympics are considered a pivotal moment in South Korean history; it was heavily covered in the South Korean press. seefooddiet (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - SOCOG was the key organising event behind the Sydney Olympics - it existed for over 7 years, there would be plenty of material on the work that it carried out, though this is probably early internet days so much of it would be hard copy material, particularly in the NSW State or other libraries. It's simply ridiculous to say that it's not notable. At best it should be a redirect to 2000 Summer Olympics. Cavepavonem (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything on Google Scholar or Google Books that wasn't primary or trivial mentions. I checked newspapers.com and there were only trivial mentions and job listings – no in-depth coverage. If someone finds enough secondary coverage to expand the article, I would be happy to change my vote. But we can't just say there is "probably coverage somewhere" if no one is willing to get it. At present, we're probably best off adding a short section to 2000 Summer Olympics with what little information is available. There is currently only one trivial namedrop that isn't even linked in that article. CFA💬14:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep or Redirect SOCOG was a very notable organisation in Australia, organising the best ever 2000 Sydney Olympics. Its merchandising designs are kept in the Powerhouse Museum, its archives are in the NSW state archives, there is a comprehensive final report on its activities. It does meet this part of WP:GNG "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." SOCOG had a considerable impact on athletics, culture and entertainment, recalling it ran a parallel arts festival. I can give the links to its archives, its collections kept in museums, its reports, the NSW legislation that set it up. The issue with the SOCOG article seems to be that it has no references, especially no secondary references and so it is a poorly written article. If another editor is able to find secondary references I am sure the article could be improved to show notability. For example there was some controversy around SOCOG and our national broadcaster, the ABC, reported regularly on it, such as a human rights discrimination case, the Minister for the Olympics getting bored at SOCOG meetings. I think that sometimes the nominators for deletion of Australian articles, don't look in the right places for sources. I just searched in the Wikipedia Library and got 3,273 hits in journals about SOCOG.
Keep. Covered in some books here and here, which give critical evaluation of the series; also some sections in magazines[14]. Some are entries on the author but they primarily talk about the series. In any case if this is kept it should be retitled as a series and structured around that instead of the main character. I found several interviews with the author talking about the series and individual books on Newspapers.com and several things more or less saying it was published and little else. They contain little evaluative material and are questionable independence wise but would be useful for building the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally re-edited the 'AGUIKE' article when it was originally written. However, I must caution that there are those who parade themselves as editors on this platform who have altered and stripped the entire article, leaving it almost empty. These 'editors' have become obsessed with this article, making edits to create a void and then sending emails to the author asking for money to write a proper article. The author shared those emails with me. If there is one Nigerian musician who should be on Wikipedia, it is the man who now goes by the name 'AGUIKE'. He should be among the top ten. During his time in Nigeria, media houses did not have an online database. But if you google the man's name, there is enough evidence of his contributions to the entertainment industry and his accomplishments. Please remove the delete tag on this article. Tamarlewis (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamarlewis: How do you know Newyorkgm? If you received emails asking for money, please forward them to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. CFA💬21:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article rises to the level of notability. Although we can have articles on people with significant media coverage despite no significant accomplishments, that requires depth of coverage in independent reliable sourcing that we also don't have. Searches didn't find anything better outside the article. Not quite an A7 speedy, but close. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. I wrote the article because my view is that she is notable, in the sense of "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor..." (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)), because she is the international head of Mensa, which is itself a notable organisation. For the record, I am in the process of gathering other references and citations (my plan is to talk with her later this week). If it turns out that the consensus here is that the article should be deleted, I will continue to improve my local copy of the article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ben_morphett/Therese_Moodie_Bloom) until it is in a form that is acceptable to the broader Wikipedia community. Ben morphett (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some digging and didn’t find anything particularly notable about this person. She’s mentioned as a regional official of MENSA, but that’s about it—no major media coverage or awards. Being a member of MENSA doesn’t automatically make someone notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines, and since MENSA is just an organization, not an award, I suggest moving this page out of the mainspace. If the creator thinks there might be some good sources out there, they can work on the draft in their sandbox and submit the improved draft for review later.50.46.167.81 (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged for notability for ten years. It looks very doubtful to me - plenty of sources, but about non-notable awards, local coverage, listicle and stuff that doesn’t really look in-depth. The article looks to me like PR based on the success of prior PR. . Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and article issues. The keyword "Jan Vydra" on search engines find other men with the same name instead of this person, failing WP:V too.
Another long-time stub of a Slovak footballer named Matúš, he last played for Spartak Trnava in 2021 before disappearing from the football world. My Google showed nothing better than brief mentions and routine coverage, including this one. I've checked corresponding articles in other Wikipedia languages but none of them provide significant coverage; the Slovak one has been tagged for notability issues since 2021 so it obviously will not help copy over English article. ⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆10:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is based on a guideline that has been abandoned following NSPORTS2022. The fact that someone has made over 100 appearances in a fully-professional league or senior national team is no longer supported. This article needs to actually meet WP:GNG in order for it to be kept. ⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆11:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I didn't state that their number of appearances was sufficient. Note how I didn't even write "keep" and how I said I'd look for SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No enough reliable and secondary sources to establish notability. Only few advertorials by mostly unreliable media, no album and winning of unreliable award Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable league, unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG. I haven't found any coverage online, though admittedly, I'm not familiar with this topic area at all. As such, please ping me if sources are found. Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discovered page after the South Korean boy group of the same name. [1] and [2] don’t work. The only sources are a mention of the band and an interview, don’t see a reason to be kept. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment, it would probably be better to have the article moved to '20th anniversary celebrations of the independence of the Republic of Macedonia'. The event seems notable in its own right. --Soman (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NLIST. One of 20+ extraneous articles created by now-WP:CBANed user Geo Swan, unnecessarily breaking out the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees into country-by-country counts. The large list includes detainees' nationalities. If separating by nationality is necessary, the chart on that page can be reformatted to enable such an examination. What this has led to is pages of various encyclopedic quality and accuracy, when maintaining one article, out of date in its own right, is more than enough. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, the nominated articles are very different from each other (Danish and Swedish has one entry each, Afghan states there have been over 200). AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, somewhat for the OP's concerns, somewhat for WP:BLPCRIME issues. I realize it's a broad interpretation, but these are lists of people who have been imprisoned by a government for doing something the government deems wrong, and generally have not faced a trial and conviction. Looking at the lists, there are a lot of non-linked names and red-linked names, and many of those that are blue-linked, their page is just about the fact that they were so imprisoned, so these qualify as otherwise-not-notable folks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all Duplicates main page, where I've combined the letter tables so the sorting works. No, these pages are not different from each other, they are all redundant to the main article and none are needed separately. Reywas92Talk17:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to one list. Guantanamo being Guantanamo I would argue that a list of all inmates is potentially encyclopedic but I don't see why we would need it to split it into multiple articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious notability. I spotchecked several of the sources and most are not independent, dead, or do not discuss this specific software package (as opposed to Semantic MediaWiki which is clearly notable) in sufficient depth to qualify as significant coverage * Pppery *it has begun...04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. There were almost 800 detainees at Guantanamo, not all of them notable, especially by Wikipedia standards. Being detained at a famous prison does not confer notability, otherwise everyone incarcerated at ADX Florence should have an article as well. In the almost two decades since many of the standalone pages for detainees were created, many of them have properly been redirected to the list articles. Ahmad is another such non-notable detainee. Longhornsg (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an article for concept of a clue, I don't really like. For a simple concept, it is as dull as an article for the concept of quality, say for, which there is not because that page is just a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary may provide explanations on how to improve this article, but I'm focused on deleting it. So, what do you think? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This type of article is known as a broad-concept article and they can often be hard to write without looking like dictionary definitions. Theoretically there probably should be another broad-concept article at Quality, but there isn't. Since this is such a common term, I don't see how this wouldn't meet GNG. CFA💬04:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article defines or gives examples of 1) the concept (information), 2) its different values (share/give/pay), 3) how it is relayed (discovered/shared), 4) its mechanic (ludeme/cheat), 5) its format (straight/cryptic/riddles/contradictions) 6) its etymology. All of this can eventually be expanded and more concrete exemples can be added. "clue" may seem to be a simple concept, but the article shows there are many aspects to it that may not seem obvious at first glance. Writing something that is obvious (or "dull") is because what is obvious to one reader may be a valuable insight to another. As stated in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Major_differences, Wiktionary entries are about words themselves, while Wikipedia entries are articles about what words denote. This article falls into the latter category. --Bensin (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Definitions ("contain nothing more than a definition") – No. The article also contains use, value, form, and examples. It also has a well sourced section on context clues.
2) Dictionary entries – No. "Encyclopedia articles are about [...] a concept", which is the case here.
3) Usage, slang, or idiom guides – No. "Clue" is not a slang term.
It fails (1) since it's nothing more than a couple of definitions, with the rest being WP:OR. Where are the sources on clues as a concept? If there were even a single one there, I might think differently. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is more than definitions, as I listed in my previous response. Yes, I have had difficulties finding sources for clues in games, possibly because most of it is common knowledge. I'll try and find some. Is there a particular statement that you believe to be untrue? However, the section about context clues is well sourced. --Bensin (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the sources being other dictionary entries tells you what you need to know.
The article also contains use, value, form, and examples those things are very typical of what you'd find in a dictionary, the corresponding wikitionary entry has all of those things. in fact usage guides are specifcally mentioned in point #3 that Bensin quoted above as being characteristic of a dictionary entry.
It also has a well sourced section on context clues that is just another dictionary definition of a related term - having two dictionary definitions doesn't mean the article fails NOTDICTIONARY any less. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources for context clues are dictionary entries. Those sources are articles that support the facts in the article.
Can you quote the part of the wikitionary entry that contains how clues (not the word clue) are used, their value, or their form? The wikipedia article is about what the word denotes, not about the word itself. --Bensin (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't seem to be a broad-concept article, so much as a WP:CHIMERA article instead. I'm looking at the examples given at WP:BCA, and I just don't see this coming even close to any of them. Take the example of "particle" there (in physics). There's a core concept that all particles share that can be written about encyclopedically, as a broad topic. But the only thing that's common here is "a clue is something which hints at further knowledge". That's it, and that's merely a DICDEF, which isn't suitable for an entry here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: AFDs are not a vote count and I see arguments on both sides of whether or not this article meets WP:DICTIONARY or not and how that might impact whether to Keep or Delete this article. At least, that's how I judge the totatlity of this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These changes have been made since the article was nominated for deletion. In short: 9 sources have been added, sturcture has improved with sections, three new sections have been added: "Context clues", "Clue words", and "See also". --Bensin (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (Uncertain, considering a redirect to Inference or similar instead) - The historian and semiotician Carlo Ginzburg refers to "conjectural disciplines",[1] comparing the use of clues for making conjectures to the use of symptoms for making diagnoses. (Although, this type of theorizing seems more appropriate to include in Forensic science or Conjecture.) Dascal and Weizman (who appear to be some kind of philosophy-adjacent linguists?) proposed "a model of contextual information required for the interpretation of speaker's meaning in written texts. We have further differentiated between context when used for the determination of utterance meaning and speaker's meaning (- as a clue) and for the detection of gaps and mismatch (- as a cue)."[2] Literary historian Franco Moretti writes of clues as a literary device and a historical trend in detective fiction (e.g. [3], where he cites historians, literary critics, philosophers, and psychologists all writing about clues!). All of the above are at least moderately cited. All of this is to say: trivially, the concept of a clue meets WP:GNG (and I think is clearly distinct from something like evidence). Should all of the above conceptual work be discussed on a page called Clue (information)? I'm a little skeptical of that. But I think it serves readers better to keep the article for the moment. WP:CHIMERA seems to suggest we create e.g. Clues in detective fiction, Epistemology of conjecture, and Context clue as separate articles, all linked from Clue.
A tangential comment: the disambiguation page Hint links to Clue (information) as the first entry. In education, there's a huge body of work on hints (what makes a good hint, how to create good hints, when and how to give hints, etc.) I don't think that "hints" as a concept should live on a page called "clue", so it should probably be a mission for a future editor to create Hint (education). Suriname0 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Clues, Myths and the Historical Method. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1989. ISBN0-8018-4388-X.
Speedy redirect There's literally no content or secondary sources here, just the text that could be at Wikisource. Next time try PROD or a bold BLAR and see if anyone objects. Reywas92Talk16:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find independent SIGCOV. There are news articles talking about the school but they are about incidents at the school rather than any deep coverage on the school. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary schools in New Zealand are generally notable. There will have been in-depth coverage in the 1970s when the school was established, but those records aren't generally online. Schwede6610:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Paperspast and didn't find SIGCOV in the first 20 results. The closest thing would be an article on an arson at the school but it's just run of the mill news reporting and nothing that can be usable for an article about the school specifically. Also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Schools are no longer presumed notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schwede66. The only newspaper covered by PapersPast for this era is The Press in Christchurch, and most likely The New Zealand Herald would have more coverage for an Auckland school. While most of the coverage in The Press is of routine sporting results, there was mention of the MBE awarded to the first principal and a defence against criticism by the second principal, which I've added to the article. I also added the 1998 arson because it follows an arson a few years earlier already mentioned in the article. The other interesting mention in The Press was Boy copies film lynching, but that could have happened at any school so I chose not to include it. I searched ProQuest for details of the earlier arson but couldn't find it, although there are many mentions of the college in it which might be useful to expand the article, and also Newspaperarchive.com. Both of these resources are available at WP:The Wikipedia Library.-Gadfium (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Looking at the four refs in the article, the first is discussing a large company failing and just mentions a quote from Seven Leaves' CEO on the subject, the second and third are merely routine coverage, and the fourth merely briefly mentions Seven Leaves' branding strategy along with several other companies.
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.
Leaning Merge with Godenu. If this is notable, then there should be news/media stories about individuals who have been awarded this honor, or even obituaries mentioning it. A search of Google news and Bing news did not show any. If anyone knows of any Ghanan newspapers with such articles, that might change things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Merger or should this article be Deleted? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I support Pyeongchang's assertion that the SWC is "the pinnacle of speedway". We allow bios of sports that is the pinnacle of sport, so why can't this? SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subjectLibStar (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Like the majority of articles, sources determine notability, an analysis would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sources are mentioned about the crossed square cupola. It is merely an exhibition and the problem of arranging images had already been discussed in WT:WPM. Also, many related articles on those tables, I suppose, does not have any sources. That being said, I think they could possibly be deleted together in here, but sadly this is for one article only. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: I doubt anything has changed since the first nomination, back in 2016, that sufficiently resolves the notability concerns here. This is actually the second time this year the creator has created these lists — the first attempts, in January, were speedily deleted as G4 (the 2016 nomination closed as delete). I don't know if G4 is still sufficiently valid here, but the potential of persistent recreation will inevitably lead to salting sooner rather than later. WCQuidditch☎✎05:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have the ability to see prior versions of this article. Though if it appears that the content was copied, then I would definitely say speedy. Conyo14 (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: per WP:NLIST. No more now than in 2016 are there reliable sources discussing these broadcasters as a collective group, and I defy the article creator to proffer any. The guidelines of list creation require more than "Ooh, I think this would be neat!" Recreating this was borderline abusive, and adds to the growing list of such actions that Khoa41860's racking up. Sooner or later Khoa41860 needs to learn how to operate within policies and guidelines, or ANI will do the job for them. Ravenswing 14:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to delete when I fully update the list up to the most recent Conference Finals, and all errors have been updated. Also, I need to cite more reliable citations with publications like CBC, TSN, NBC, and ESPN/ABC without any YouTube videos. Khoa41860 (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from a quick glance at Google books there are various mentions of this battle. Notability is not temporary, so if it was notable at the time it is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. AfD is not the place to raise quality concerns. --Soman (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I am a frequent recipient of harassment and targeting by an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster-[19] who created more than a dozen burner accounts in just the past year solely to target me. His socks most recently targeted my AFDs and PRODs- [20] and [21] and [22] and [23]. The most recent examples are this- in which his IP/proxy removed my PROD on the article Katoch-Sikh war, 2 admins have stated that this was almost certainly HB block evading- [24] + [25]. He has also employed meat puppetry to target AFDs and PRODs. Note that this IP also created a draft for Katoch-Sikh war, the same page HB's sock targeted, very heavily indicating sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at play here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry what, It upon their own determination rather He isSockpuppet or intruder but definitely non of your expedition but suspiciously why did you creating pointless arguments you don't have any right to blast decretory statement on someone else you might face some serious consequences for such speculation @Southasianhistorian8MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In addition to very obviously being HB's sock/meatpuppet, you can see the IP and the account are clearly operated by the same person since they both submitted their drafts (Battle of Rori Sahib, Battle of Ambala, and Katoch Sikh war) minutes apart from each other-[28] + [29]. At the very very least, these votes should be accorded zero weight and obviously proves my point of a sock/meat campaign to target AFDs/reinstate articles which aggrandize their religion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you but how regressively your oppressing other on behalf of their religion with propagating your pathetic statement you need to be calm down sir for our bothMasterofRepulse (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Low quality article about a non notable event with limited coverage within sources + the third ref does not contain a link to a book whose content can be verified. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]