The sources uncovered by the WP:BEFORE are good. A bit slight for a standalone article. Therefore a slight merge to Gang Green#Second hiatus (1990–1995). There are a number of possible redirect targets; I chose this because of what Trouser Press wrote: "Klöver has roots in the mighty tradition of Boston’s Bud-guzzling skatepunks, Gang Green, in the persons of guitarist Chris Doherty and drummer Brian Betzger. [...] As of early ’96, however, Klöver had folded and Gang Green was back in action." Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are usually some reliable sources to be found for major label albums released before the early/mid-2000s, when both the print media and music businesses were healthier. There are mid-to-longish articles in The Morning Call, The Boston Globe, and Telegram & Gazette, with reviews in the Daily Herald and Daily Breeze. An entry in the Encyclopedia of Punk Music and Culture--can't read it, but I'm sure it's only a small paragraph or two... Caro7200 (talk) 23:45, 7 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.
I originally made this as a delete vote, but I'm changing it to redirect since I don't see any good reason to delete the history. -- asilvering (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is part of the ongoing caste-based bias in Indian history. The practice of caste pushing has migrated to Wikipedia, often through coordinated efforts (meatpuppetry indeed). Creating articles for self-gratification and caste pride is becoming increasingly common on Wikipedia. Fails enough notability and not enough significance to have a seperate article, and the article body itself is biased and OR.--Imperial[AFCND]07:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect In light of offering of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS above, I went further through the sources. This article is a duplicate/WP:CONTENTFORK of Man Singh I, who led troops at the Battle of Haldighati. Consider Raged Pratihar's sources:
@Raged Pratihar Please stop posting images into the AfD discussion, it messes up the formatting. You have not addressed what the sources I quoted say, you have simply made an assertion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - only substantial contributions are by a likely sockpuppet, but not eligible for G5 since it wasn't created by the sockuppet. Jdcomix (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem like a notable event. There are no records cited of casualty figures or combatant numbers. The British commander isn't even noted. Not to mention, this article is written pretty poorly and with a clear nationalist slant. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commenttr:Samsun is featured but as far as I can tell does not mention this - I have linked this discussion on that article talk page in the hope someone knows better than me. Also if the clashes with British were significant I guess one of you military experts can find an English language source Chidgk1 (talk) 06:39, 7 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.
There is no RS coverage of this program. This is a program run by a UAE government charity. The only coverage of this program is by sources that are not independent of the UAE government. thena (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The cited history calls this Temple Station, which is what it looks like. I'm not seeing evidence it ever actually developed into a town. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Jengod, is this a vote to Keep this article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with all the other articles on unincorporated places. What is the point of these? If anyone thinks they are worth having at all, could they not be moved to a new article List of unincorporated places, with appropriate sub-headings Indiana etc.?
@Liz thanks for the ping. it's definitely not a keep vote. I love expanding geo-stubs and ghost towns articles to save them from deletion, but this one has a vanishingly thin trail, and is probably not encyclopedic, but I just don't have any enthusiasm for it either way. If someone wanted to improve it, maybe those links could help? I'm an inclusionist for the most part so my personal bar to actively vote delete is very high. jengod (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, simply because there is a paper trail and there's many, many other communities that don't even have that, much less any info about it written on Wikipedia. It is also listed on Google Maps as Temple. SouthernDude297 (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Sources used consist of an article saying it is being built, a local mention that it got a new roof and a local article about HOA fees. The guidelines at WP:NBUILDING points out that most buildings that aren't historically or architecturally significant "require significant in-depth coverage." This topic lacks significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More sources alone aren't the answer. It needs to be significant coverage. Articles like the roof getting fixed or HOA fees aren't significant. Every city has the tallest building in the city. That doesn't make it notable. The only real difference between this and any other high rise along the river is a couple of stories in height. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a subject to have a Wikipedia article, it has to be notable. There are a few ways that notability can be obtained, varying from topic to topic, but in general, a lack of significant coverage will get an article deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:28, 9 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.
I'm not finding much of anything in a BEFORE search on this musician other than YouTube videos of a few of their performances. None of the usual press reviews of notable musicians. The article is part of a walled garden on the Munshi/Munsi family. Of the current citations, the Ghosh book is used as a source in all of these Munsi articles, and it is not clear if it is a connected source. The Eklund source is connected as an extended family member. The musician does not meet inclusion criteria for WP:NMUSICIAN nor WP:GNG. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 18:37, 30 July 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.
16 years ago when this was first nominated it was allowed on a technical sng pass and someone noted it needed sourcing. Well 16 years later it's entirely bereft of a reliable source and pornbio has been consigned to the ranks of deprecated guidelines. Fails gng and ent. SpartazHumbug!18:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He obviously disagrees with your assertion. You stated she had 3 significant roles in notable films. What were they? The Wp:onus is on you to show what they are here. SpartazHumbug!07:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’Obviously’? So the page still has no source? OK. I will assume good faith then. As for the rest of your comment, unless you are joking (it’s rather funny), I will assume good faith too: again, just read the page. You need to click on the title of the article on top of this page. I’m not going to copy paste the whole page here. And, by the way, what did you find during your BEFORE? Also, during the 1st AfD, the page was not ’allowed on technical sng pass’ but with a reference to (ANY)BIO (no technical mention of PORNBIO) and with a mention of ’definitely some claims to notability’. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)09:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Lloyd Rains also clearly meets the requirements for the notability of actors for another reason: her prolific and noted contributions to the field; and probably passes the threshold for general notability requirements given the amount of ’’multiple independent sources" mentioning her importance in the said field, her roles and performances..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)09:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as we need to hear from more editors. An aside though: Are we really going to talk about "noted contributions to the field" for porn as if it were the sciences, the arts or diplomacy? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!18:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to relist aside: Yes, we certainly are. Especially in the Golden Age of Porn and with directors and artists that had such a strong and honest conviction they were playing an important part in the underground culture of their time and in the history of film. Various films with Lloyd Rains are genre films (horror, thriller, etc) that go far beyond what could be described as "porn" in a derogative way. And various sources, some used as references in the article (you will note that I used no sources from inside the "adult industry" and they include extremely notable and reliable film magazines and scholarship) about her films and performance do indeed mention that point, some in awe at the quality of the productions and at Lloyd Rains's abilities as an actress (one review finds her acting "insufferable", though; and that's not my opinion, which does not count and has nothing to do with my !vote and reply). Now, one might disagree and consider the result has no value, is immoral, tasteless, shocking, silly and trash, and not like it. But it's definitely a "field" in my opinion and her contributions to it were clearly prolific, and noted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know that none of what you said relates to any policy and your assertion of special treatment of porn is belied by the depreciation of pornbio SpartazHumbug!10:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a small-town municipal recreation centre, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for local buildings. As always, arenas are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media -- but this is referenced entirely to the self-published websites of entities directly affiliated with the venue -- the town government, the local minor hockey league, the local junior hockey team and a local real estate agent -- with not even one hit of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i mean you could just not be a nerd and just allow it lol, those are valid sources unfortunately you are not going to find scholarly articles on a arena Jp3333 (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. It isn't our job to keep an article about everything that exists, even if we have to rely on sourcing self-published by directly affiliated entities to do it — our job is to keep articles about things that have third-party journalistic and scholarly coverage to establish that they're notable, and to not keep articles about things that don't. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you just made that up, "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge", "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales" so keep going on your powertrip. Jp3333 (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see sigcov of this local arena here. I think it probably exists somewhere in a newspaper archive, so someone might be able to make an article on this topic, but I don't think we're going to turn it up during this AfD, if ever. Here's the two local news websites: [4], [5]. They're not great. I've just nominated a related article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scugog Community Recreation Centre. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has anyone given consideration to enhancing the Uxbridge, Ontario article with a partial merge/redirect? That article is not particularly well organised, but coverage of this Arena could fit in the Attractions section, providing something of an WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relising to consider suggestion of a possible redirect or merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!18:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uxbridge, Ontario#Attractions. Thanks to AllyD for the suggestion, which in hindsight is obvious. Since there doesn't appear to be any possibility this article will be kept outright, I'll go ahead and merge the content into that article now, so that it's mentioned there. -- asilvering (talk) 21:52, 6 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.
Non notable online TV that received only passing mentions in all sources referenced. The claim of winning award does not improve its notably because the award categories are clustered with other supposed winners. Other available sources not cited in the article only give passing mentions in reference to interviews conducted by the subject. But those do not count for notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another of my favorite constant topics which come up here often; Yet Another Non-Notable Nigerian YouTube Music Show®️. Nate•(chatter)17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: By virtue of the awards won. This is equal to awards won by some entertainment brands in the UK and US. And winning it three times definitely means NCREATIVE or GNG can be satisfied. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not understand what the nominated meant by The claim of winning award does not improve its notably because the award categories are clustered with other supposed winners. because winning awards for three years is an evidence of notability. Best, Reading Beans09:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We may be nearing a consensus that these awards establish notability, but it would be useful if a few more voices could weigh in. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk)14:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same as usual mayoral election results. Easily fails WP:NEVENT, Lancaster only has a population of ~60,000. Last mayoral election I will be doing for a while, as I don't want to overbear everything with more articles. Allentown will be next. -1ctinus📝🗨01:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: due to its failure to meet the standards set by WP:NEVENT. The city in question is small, with less than 60,000 souls. Thus, we need to find sources beyond routine reports before we even start writing. This election, lacking concrete, lasting effects on the people living in the city, and receiving little media attention, likely does not need its own article.--AstridMitch (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Stating that something is useful in a vacuum does not help assess its encyclopedic value. You need to say why something is useful or useless. This way, other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic according to Wikipedia's policies. Arguments of something's usefulness, uselessness, or value devoid of further context are not valid or persuasive."
Articles like these lead to hundreds of unmaintainable mayoral election stubs without claims to notability that clog up the site. -1ctinus📝🗨17:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Neither of the "keep" opinions makes an argument as to why this election is notable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators, please take into account arguments based on Wikipedias guidelines for notability when weighing arguments, especially the part of WP:NEVENT that states that "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." -1ctinus📝🗨20:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
note: This article was created ten years ago, WP:PRODded, and recently undeleted as a result of user interest at Wikicurious: Editing Wikipedia for Beginners @ Civic Hall; it was just undeleted, and as far as I know no one had time to add anything from the past 10 years to it, nor has the person who asked for its undeletion seem to have made any changes to it yet. I've added a few links just now but I imagine there are more, as he is still getting coverage, both local and national. Was there a lack of WP:BEFORE? Tduk (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is a lack of clarity in the history, and a paucity of decent references in noteworthy publications. BTW NONE of that is very clear from the history, and I'm wondering if User:GiantSnowman wouldn't have done better to restore it to draft space. As for BEFORE--well, a Google News search really gives no reason to believe this is a notable subject. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was essentially just 12 hours old when it was nominated for deletion. And the editor who requested undeletion (User:WillStopUrThemeSong) hasn't even had a chance to expand it yet (disclosure: I was with Tduk at the same edit-a-thon event and also encouraged the user to do this, they appear to be a perfectly good faith editor who knows about secondary sources etc. and thought they existed). This nomination seems premature - a notability tag and an encouragement to the restoring editor to make sure they get to improving the article would have been better. (Maybe this is an argument to have restored the article to draft space first, but eh, given that it was in the mainspace before and prods are overturned on essentially any objection, I think the direct restoral to mainspace is fine.) See Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. SnowFire (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My statement is correct. The article was formerly at Matthew Silver and was deleted for 10 years from 2014-2024, you can see this in the logs. If you had clicked on WillStopUrThemeSong's contributions, you could see User_talk:GiantSnowman#Matthew_Silver_Article_Restoration where WillStopUrThemeSong requested undeletion so the article could be expanded. Wikipedia isn't a job, it's completely unreasonable to expect that a user requesting this kind of undeletion be ready to pounce within the hour on the article after undeletion to make the desired upgrades and expansion - it's out of a requesting user's hands when precisely the deleting admin will restore the prod. Hypothetically someone requesting undeletion of a prod could have FA-level, perfectly cited content available, but them not editing it in immediately on a Sunday doesn't mean anything. SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on the "12 hours" part - GiantSnowman restored at 06:41 UTC, and you nominated for AFD at 18:48. That simply isn't enough time, especially when the requestor has not made an intervening edit. Like I suggested above, if you thought the article was still deficient, a notability tag would have been a more reasonable way to express this concern, which would allow the requestor time to actually update the article. SnowFire (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more recent sources; really I was trying to do as little work as possible as this article was revived as part of an editing event, and I wanted it to be used as to encourage a newtime editor and educate on how to bring an article's quality up. Tduk (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems he's still an artist [6], but that doesn't prove notability here. The sourcing used in the article is about what I can find, the Rolling Stone piece being the best one. Interesting bit of local history, but I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be draftified, but still leaning towards delete, because even if it is draftified, it may still not meet WP:SIGCOV; the sources still do not seem to independent and reliable enough, based on RS Noticeboard Archives. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Describing someone as "a man who runs around NYC in his underwear saying and doing radical things" covers at least 8-10% of the city's population, and the numbers are often much higher during the summer. Any particular underwear-based street-performing radical-saying individual would need more in-depth reliable and verifiable sources than what's listed in the article. Alansohn (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matthew Silver is a well-known artist and is covered by major media. His street performances and media presence meet wp:p standards for notability. Yakov-kobi (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that with the more recent, less local sources, which are about him specifically, the article is more substantial than when it was nominated. Tduk (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My previous comment was more procedural that the article should have had more time before being AFD'd, so on the merits... I think Bsoyka's additions suggest that this is certainly on the keepable side. Maybe running around in underwear is silly, but if the press sees fit to write it up, that's still meeting WP:N, and Rolling Stone shows this isn't just local papers (but local papers count too!). SnowFire (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version of the article shows sufficient coverage by secondary sources, in particular Rolling Stone producing a documentary short. BrightVamp (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any WP:ARTIST standards like "important figure," "widely cited by peers or successors," or "been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." A few of the references do not support WP:GNG, like the citation to the user-generated site "Know Your Meme," where the entry[8] on this topic describes itself as "currently being researched & evaluated! You can help confirm this entry by contributing facts, media, and other evidence of notability and mutation." Other sources are largely either local, WP:ROUTINE, or WP:ONEEVENT of getting detained by security. I've been trying to find some justification for how this might almost scrape by WP:GNG, but even if so, GNG is "not a guarantee that a subject merits its own article." Elspea756 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSONG, nothing much to add. Apart from the several unreferenced sections, this article makes no credible claim of importance or significance for the song. The musician himself is non-notable too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While @Vanderwaalforces is correct about the status of this article's subject specifically regarding WP:NMUSICIAN, it does seem to fair slightly better by WP:GNG given a number of the citations point back to reliable sources such as major publications. Also, the subject appears to be an up and coming musical act with not very much but nonetheless, a number of verifiable articles citing solo works and in a few more cases, co-citations with notable subjects via creative associations. On a recent edit to this article, I noticed a few bigger publications confirmed hitherto unverified sections, and replaced the citations on the affected section. If the subject is essentially an upcoming musical act gaining decent coverage for its works, a better alternative might be to watch article for a while for any improvement on its adherence to WP:NMUSICIAN, before an outright deletion. Kevtutado (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few unreliable sources- Ref 1) by Khazan Singh was published in 1914, and the author is not a historian. Ref 8) by Mark Brentnall is a self published source with no information available about the author. Ref 7) by Amarinder Singh, the author is a politician not a historian. In addition, refs 2) and 3) are improperly cited, do not have a page number or a proper url to a page discussing the subject at hand and thus fail WP:V. The remaining sources make only passing mention of this battle/conflicts between Sansar Chand Katoch and Ranjit Singh, and subsequently focus far more on Chand and Ranjit Singh's alliance against the Nepalis; the actual "war" content between the 2 in these books fails WP:SIGCOV by a long shot. The article's information is best suited as a prelude/context in the page Nepal-Sikh war due to the aforementioned proportionality of coverage surrounding the two's alliance. In addition, the creator of the article created numerous low quality pages to inundate Wikipedia with articles aggrandizing his religion's military history.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear opinions from editors with more experience at AFD and, ideally, with this subject area. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!16:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced. The previous discussion (which I started) were articles that only stated the country competed, with no other information. Those should be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are other sources and the nominator clearly did not do a WP:BEFORE. These all mention Anguilla's appearance at the games. Together it should be just enough to pass WP:GNG.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is a stronger consensus for a Merge. The article being discussed could easily overwhelm the skimpy target article, Anguilla at the Commonwealth Games. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!16:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting a merger; very little of these pages meets notability through their reliance on WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, and what's left would take considerable effort to extricate. U-Mos (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said this in 2017 I am not sure Wikipedia is the proper place to document lists of endorsements for political candidates (Notable endorsements covered in multiple independent sources, probably as part of the main campaign page). Is AfD the proper place to hold this discussion, though? I still feel that AFD is not the right forum to determine whether we should retain all endorsements. That said, the main topic Clinton 2016 endorsements is notable, and it can be assumed that a page split (based on size) can inherit the notability from the primary topic. - Enos733 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it violates Wikipedia:Political endorsements. If such a ridiculous result can be somehow justified based on the current text of the guidelines, then the guideline text needs to be revised. I cannot find any list of endorsements in WP:RS that even remotely resemble this one in scope. Therefore, most (99%?) of mentions in these lists are WP:UNDUE. --Викидим (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you agree that the endorsement guidelines are either ignored or defective. If so, why keep the article until the guidelines are fixed? The deletion of these lists and discussion of the WP:ENDORSED can peacefully coexist IMHO. Викидим (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a media company, which I believe meets the following reasons for deletion:
#7, lack of reliable sources; #8, notability. I cannot find evidence that this company is notable. When looking for outside coverage, most of what my search turned up was either material on the company's website, LinkedIn pages, or job listings. Of the page's nine current references, four are primaries from the company's own site. In the first third-party reference, the Time article, the company isn't mentioned until more than halfway through the article. The ONErpm link is dead. The Television Academy link contains only a passing mention, and the Rolling Stone article doesn't mention the company by name at all. The Billboard article does focus on the company but looks suspiciously like a press release, and Billboard hasn't been assessed one way or the other in the list of reliable sources.
#1, copyright violation. The history section in the article is a thin, uncredited reword of an advertising blurb in the company's website and also used elsewhere, such as here. While there's a reference in the first paragraph, the reference doesn't include that text or clarify its origins.
There's also apparent conflict of interest; most of the article was written by a handful of accounts that have done little other editing, and then only on pages about artists connected to this company. One of the accounts, LynnGrossman, is also the name of the company owner, as given in the Time article (on page 3).
Additionally, if this page is deleted, the redirect Secret road should also be deleted.
Altogether, the impression I get is of an article that was written as advertising by people connected to the subject. Additionally, the company's website promo copy seems to have been paraphrased in the article body without context or attribution. And, even if the page were rewritten completely by outsiders, the company still isn't notable. Moonreach (talk) 16:38, 6 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.
Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Note that says it can be expanded by German article isn't relevant as there are no useful citations in that version that supports notability. The other 2 languages are similar, no citations that can support notability. DonaldD23talk to me16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian page has FOUR references that can clearly support notability! (+1 in a blog), including a full in-depth article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine!!! I deproDed the page (today) and indicated it was improvable....A redirect should have been considered anyway. Always should (before a PROD, before an AfD) if one has no time or will to check the sources. A See also on the page offered an obvious target. And I have only checked the other Wikipedias...... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)20:28, 6 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.
Redirect to Brian_Finch#Career: but I am pretty sure sources exist (I didn't even look; no time). I deproded the page (today; same nomnator) and indicated it could be improved or redirected, if I remember well. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC) (I didn't remember well my deproD edit summary; edited; see below-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)00:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]
You comment on deprod was "Not uncontroversial", nothing at all about improving or redirecting. Since it was deprodded, I felt that a discussion on notability was better than outright redirecting anyway. DonaldD23talk to me23:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources I found in this search on British Newspaper Archive largely were passing mentions. The best sources are these two sources which each provide a few sentences of coverage:
The article notes: "Deborah Makepeace plays a teenager in The Chinese Puzzle, a six-part thriller serial filmed on location on the South Kent coast, beginning in November. The serial, written by Brian Finch, marks the professional debut of 13-year-old Michael Tattersfield. Producer is Bill Sellars, director Alan Bell."
A flying squadron holds its reunion at a pleasant country inn, but the festivities are interrupted when strange events begin to occur at a nearby unused airfield, and young friends Robert and Paul stumble unwittingly into a kidnapping and blackmail plot.
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Some of the sources linked in the article (like the first and third) don't even mention "Godenu". The fourth source mentions Godenu only once, as the "Gbi-Godenu Volta Region IFAD/SCIMP Project", seemingly a different thing. The second source does mention Godenu, but it's pretty brief. Other sources linked aren't reliable or aren't independent. I can find mentions of Godenu, like in this article, but that's it. toweli (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Page had been overwritten by an IP contributor to talk about an entirely different company. I have since reverted all edits since that point. @Amigao, not sure if you want to take a look at the restored article for whether that meets notability standards or not. Hamtechperson19:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this will be thorough on this one, since lots of these mayoral election deletions have ended as trainwrecks for me. This article is a vialation of WP:NEVENT, as it fails to have significant lasting coverage that fails to qualify. THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC NOTABILITY FOR MAYORAL ELECTIONS, as shown here, here, here, here, and here of articles of similar size or larger to Allentown.
A quick WP:BEFORE fails to find any significant lasting coverage as well on Google or ProQuest.
Now, it looks like the article is long, so it must have good sources? Not to establish notability. Let's see if any of these sources match the description of "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." per WP:EVENT.
No coverage at all? The citation says "Daddona's unsuccessful 1969 campaign", not 1977. Either way, its barely lasting coverage, just an offhand sentence in a UPI article.
Scope of the coverage of the election in the article is "Fischl beat out incumbent Joe Daddona. Daddona later succeeded Fischl, who didn’t seek a second term.". While it is lasting, this is not significant.
NOT ABOUT THE ELECTION, BUT ABOUT FISCH DECLINING TO RERUN
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
If deletion seems too much, I propose two alternatives:
Merge all the Allentown mayoral election articles for future maintainability and navigability
(which is better in my opinion). Redirect to Frank Fischl, which most of the coverage seems to be on.
Still doesn't change the fact that as an Allentown election, it is notable enough to warrant a page. You'd have to challenge Allentown, the third largest city in Pennsylvania, as not being notable enough to have it's election pages exist. Scu ba (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
regardless of it's current citations, Allentown is the third largest city in Pennslyvania and as due to this it's elections are notable enough to warrant a page. should we go and delete the 2009, 1997, 1993 or really any pre 21st century buffalo election pages? Deleting election pages for major municipalities breaks precedent. Scu ba (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I listed articles that clearly show that there is no precedent for municipal elections to be inherently notable in the top. -1ctinus📝🗨00:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The elections you listed where for minor cities, such as Fontana, California, which is the 21st largest city in California. Allentown is the 3rd largest city in Pennslyvania. There is no consensus that minor towns elections are notable enough, however, major cities warrant their elections having pages. Scu ba (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy states that an election is notable automatically because it’s a large city? There is none to my knowledge. -1ctinus📝🗨01:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Trivial mention in the media in connection with other people or events, but lacking the in-depth coverage necessary. Seems to have been created largely for advertising. AusLondonder (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There's a brief biography of the band on AllMusic, it's mentioned in a review of another band's album ("Bemberger, Hughes and Peterson also played together in an obscure band called Gabardine, which released one EP before disbanding in 1998.") and there's another description here (I have no idea if Hard Noise is reliable). toweli (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This subject has a single reliable, in-depth source (Curbed, which is currently owned by New York magazine). There is no other in-depth coverage of this blog in reliable sources. Basically it's a neighborhood blog in the vein of West Side Rag or ilovetheupperwestside, rather than an actual publication with significant coverage. Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nom and contributor that the curbed source provides sigcov but none of the others really do. Also the fact nothing has actually been written actually about the blog since what seems like a brief moment in 2015, suggests lack of notability. Editing84 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Article is now updated with additional independent sources that clearly establish notability, including a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy citation that explicitly states that it's a top journal in its subfield, easily satisfying Criterion 1 of WP:NJOURNALS.
Now updated further with more independent references, including Barbara Partee's contribution to The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics, which names the journal as part of a notable development in the field, thus satisfying Criterion 3 as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botterweg14 (talk • contribs)
Comment: Janssen/zimmerman ef: not independent (Zimmerman is an editorial board member); Philips reference: self-published blog; Haspelmath: in-passing mention on a blog; Partee ref: impossible to evaluate without a clearer link; Potts: self-published blog and also not independent (Potts is an editorial board member). So, no, "speedy keep" is absolutely not justified. Rhetorical question: if this journal is so crucial, how come it isn't indexed in any selective databases? --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I have now updated the article again so that it cites an earlier edition of the SEP article, for which Theo Janssen was the sole author. Since Janssen is not among the 403 members of the editorial board, this is an independent source. Since this settles the issue of notability, we can discuss your other concerns about the other sources on the article's talk page if that is what you would like to do. Botterweg14 (talk)13:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oppose moving to draftspace: journals like this often need years before they become notable. Draft space is not for storing articles on non-notable subjects hoping that one day they'll meet the bar. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I can see the case for WP:TOOSOON, and if that ends up being the consensus I would want to move the article to draft space instead of outright deleting it. However, my judgment is that the papers in this journal have already garnered enough citations (and, FWIW, media coverage) to satisfy Criterion 2. Botterweg14 (talk)16:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick dig, the three highest cited paper have 22, 17 and 13 citations. This is nothing. Minor individual profs have better citation records. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}13:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't participate in the DIII AfD, but I think "delete" was there and is here the correct result. The individual component templates serve a useful purpose in the annual Division II season articles (e.g., 2012 NCAA Division II football season), but I don't see sufficient commonality to warrant collecting them all in an additional list article. Cbl62 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A common commercial op amp. In my opinion it does not meet the Notability criteria to warrant its own article. Did not find sufficient independent coverage. It is mentioned but not in depth. As opposed to the 741, which has evident historical significance, the LM358 is not particularly special or impactful in electronics literature. Alan Islas (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main issue with deleting LM358 is that it's a widespread, industry-standard "jellybean" part - they are everywhere, source-able from multiple manufacturers, used in places ranging from audio applications (now obsolete?) but also motion and light sensors, power supplies etc. Perhaps it's so common that it's invisible!
Even the reference on List of LM-series integrated circuits states "Several generations of pin-compatible descendants of the original parts have since become de facto standard electronic components."
I don't know if there's enough "real" sources available to keep this, but as ICs go there's more in this world than, say, 68030s...
Some options might be to expand this article - talking about its ubiquity rather than its characteristics perhaps - or else merge this in Operational amplifier (a new category of "other historically significant opamps"?), or spin it into a general article of historically significant opamps.
Note that there is also the LM324, a quad-channel op-amp in a similar category, and the LM321 (single-channel version). Neither of these have an article, though.Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Could use a tiny bit of work but I do not see why this should be deleted at all. Already a lot of other similar articles but for different part numbers and they all seem in-line with what is needed. If it must be deleted then please make sure all these parts and their info end up somewhere else - I could see all of these part numbers being combined into a single article perhaps or grouped by similar function. But I think it's fine the way it is / just needs some TLC. Colinstu (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article was boldly created by a now blocked PAID editor after I had declined it at AFC for lacking reliable sources. After doing some searching I still don't find sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Nobody (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 doesn't apply here because the user created and moved the article to mainspace before they were blocked. G5 usually only applies to pages created by sockpuppets, and there is no evidence of that here. CFA💬16:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NCORP. Found a few press releases under their previous name and that's about it. CFA💬16:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. Significant coverage is not visible. Was not able to find better or deeper coverage myself. C67911:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 12/17 sources are either stats or non-independent of Hawkshaw. Donegallive - Hawkshaw injured an opponent, Courier - he's playing after concussion, Daily Record 1 - "while Dean Hawkshaw has stepped up his rehabilitation from a knee injury", Daily Record 2, routine transfer news and Cumnock Chronicle "GLENAFTON brought new signing Dean Hawkshaw, pictured, into the starting 11 on Saturday and he made an instant impact." That isn't a GNG pass or a pass of BASIC. Dougal18 (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. One Daily Record source is decent - where is the rest? If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just from googling his name, there are at least five stories online which focus on him (so not mentions in general match reports or counting any of the stories from his 60-yard goal). The Ayrshire Post have also published at least six stories about him specifically, I don't know how many of these are online though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be deleted per WP:NLIST as "List of disparaging nicknames for settlements" is not notable as a set. There has been insufficient discussion of the set in reliable sources which establishes its notability as a set. Also per WP:NOTDICTIONARY "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide". TarnishedPathtalk11:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page had a very specific and unusual origin. Disparaging nicknames for places kept coming up at WP:RFD, and there was a lack of consensus on how to treat them. While redirects don't have to be neutral, pointing them to the places seemed unsatisfying because there typically wasn't any information about the name, which meant there was potential for reader confusion. The result was this list, where context and references could be provided for the names. Consensus can change, of course, but deletion risks reintroducing that problem to RFD. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to have this content, then one list is best: everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. Bearian (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What little content in both of these lists is actually attributed to relaible sources can and shoud be merged into the articles in the settlements themselves. The rest is not properly sourced and therefore should not be hosted anywhere on Wikipedia. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the disparaging nickname isn't noteworthy enough to warrant mention in the article (and thus require a redirect to a placeholder article) then it has no any actual connection to the topic. We don't need to collect them here unless there are sources that show this grouping itself to be notable. czar14:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO given the backstory provided by BDD, I'd suggest that we post some sort of discussion regarding disparaging nicknames to VPP. But if we are to discuss here (and you're more than welcome to copy over my thoughts and responses from here to there if such discussion is created), despite of TarnishedPath's NLIST and WWIN arguments, I concur with BDD think that if we delete the landfill, we end up littering the rest of the city, and creating a ton of new RFDs, which even though redirects are cheap, can overflow RFD like crazy. Furthermore, given the cultural relevance of many disparaging nicknames (such as Michigan being "That State Up North" to Ohioans), we might get a ton of people who create that redirect, only for it to be brought up at RFD over and over again. It might be best to keep not because it complies with policy, but as an exception to it, as containment rather than deletion would be better overall for this problem given that it is near-certain that this issue just won't stay dead. If it requires that we change policy in order to do so, procedurally it might be a drag, but I don't see a reason as to why we aren't capable of doing so. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No clear indication of notability, does not pass WP:GNG. All search for references show cursory mentions in "List of Micronations" or "List of places to go in Vienna" Soni (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kugelmugel was mentioned in 'Atlas Obscura' book. In german wiki there is a section 'Reactivation' and reference to viennese 'Kronen Zeitung' of 30th May 2004, that it has 'opened its borders with Austria'. Might be more notable than most of micronations. Kolijars (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, not 2004 but 2024 it is :) -> Kronen Zeitung, Wien-Ausgabe vom 30. Mai 2024, Seite 29. Kolijars (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If kept the article should be reworked to be about the unusual house rather than a micronation. The dewiki article begins with "Kugelmugel is a spherical house with a diameter of 8 metres..." Drop the micronation infobox. Reywas92Talk15:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article subject does not show up in any online searches except for YouTube, social media, and one website newtimes.co.rw. My previous edit was to remove almost all of the article sources (almost all pointing to New Times articles), which were simply puff pieces and did not factually support anything in the article. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that's here is a farm whose three long barns (I'm guessing for hogs?) haven't changed in a half-century, and the south end of a passing siding. It is the latter that is likely the cause for the name. Mangoe (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly just a siding or other rail point. The name does not appear on any map I can find until 1958: [19] and it was never more than a building by the tracks. There was a Thomas Bluff Road nearby, but big deal. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This location is only notable at the local level, given its minor status hasn't changed much across the decades. TH1980 (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You only list those notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it a valid navigational list, with more information than a category can have, so more useful. Category:Paleontological sites exist so perhaps a rename is in order to list of Paleontological sites. DreamFocus16:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the arguments from the previous discussion about deleting this list still apply (I can’t seem to track down the archive entry for that deletion discussion, despite having reread it least week? Now, the same search brings me to this current discussion. I think the previous one was in 2017). My summary of that and past talk page discussions:
This list is far more useful than a category or set of categories because it has more information than categories can include.
This list can be sorted in multiple ways (primary notability, age, continent or country). From a geology perspective, sorting by time period is often more important/interesting than sorting by region. Some people sort by notability or use the tags to find types of sites. If we split it up, we have to maintain lists or categories for all of combinations of sorts and sub-sorts. (And then we get to argue about where to put the divisions between time periods in the past couple million years).
We have, in fact, made a solid attempt at defining a fossil site. The reason entire formations are listed is because some formations outcrop at many sites in a general region and listing every outcrop is neither feasible nor particularly useful. This has been discussed in the Talk at some length and is mentioned in the list intro. Ideally such formations would each have a listed type locality or primary site, but no one has yet done the research to add those to every previously listed formation. (Sometimes these localities are already in the primary article for a formation, but no one has yet added them here.)
If we actually apply the inclusion criteria discussed in Talk to delete list entries (rather than just to new additions) the list will get tidier. Deleting the list itself would remove a valuable and popular navigational tool.
Keep maybe turning it into a disambig. Firstly, it's different from Trojans or Spartans because phoenix club is a separate concept in sports. As a result, there is a significant amount of clubs named Phoenix in one of many spellings (Phoenix, Feniks, Fénix, Phönix), which at least creates a legitimate disambiguation. I don't mind converting it into a disambig but it is too long to be merged in an already huge main disambig Phoenix — NickK (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Phoenix (sports) or Phoenix (sports teams). The entries properly belong in Phoenix, but as NickK has pointed out, the latter dab page is already very long, so WP:SPLIT applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB per Clarityfiend at either title proposed by this user. Fails WP:NLIST due to lack of coverage of these teams as a set or group, but could serve navigational purposes. FrankAnchor15:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional discussion relating to the disambiguation proposal would be helpful in attaining consensus for a particular outcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline would be WP:NEWSORGINDIA. An example would be this reference which based on this recent discussion cannot be used to establish notability. No byline or editorial oversight. Outside of NEWSORGINDIA, another reference would be this which is from the creator of the show. Then this which is an interview so not independent. Being that this would need to meet WP:SONG, I do not see any reference that shows that it 1) is on a national chart, 2) won a significant award, or 3) been independently released by numerous artists. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just plain economic news, and even as economic news goes it's not notable. The decline was almost cancelled the next day (I would have nominated this even without the bounce). Market volatility, especially over the summer, is routine. I also want to point to the discussion on the article's talk page. -- zzuuzz(talk)06:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: WP:NOTNEWS, recentism, original research. There is no time perspective yet to decide wether this is a major and historical event or just one more market volatility episode. Not encyclopedic and hasty article, imo. PedroAcero76 (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE- This article is unnecessary at the moment, as there hasn't been a significant downturn to warrant a title like "2024 Stock Market Decline." The term could refer to any minor or major decline this year globally. It also appears to be politically motivated. John Bois (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT. This page is incredibly biased on the US. It also is not news, the stock has mostly recovered so there is no reason that this is a page on Wikipedia yet. An argument for completely redoing this page is if you focus on Japan however stocks have recovered so far so I see no need. I believe that this page should be deleted and if the page creator has a history of this maybe a look into his past should be done. Beppi121 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the title of the article encompasses the entirety of 2024 while only talking about early august. If by some miracle this article is kept it needs to be renamed to specify the event. Beppi121 (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOTNEWS. This article was created prematurely, poorly titled even if it was valid, and likely created for political reasons — early edits include political language/blaming. Jsknoll (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stated WP:TOPIC is far too broad for WP:GNG, and the article doesn't even describe a correction, let alone a notable one — at least WP:NOTJUSTYET. Despite giving this article some time and attention, its suffers from incredibly poor and spotty quality, especially as world markets have broadly recovered a considerable portion of Monday's losses throughout Tuesday, weakening any potential for broader narrative. As for the Japanese decline specifically, it currently has a mention on List of stock market crashes and bear markets where it fits better and is of somewhat more noteworthiness. --Tim Parenti (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely why it shouldn't've been created in the first place. In the U.S., the current "dip" is not significantly different than what was experienced in late May 2024. August 5th was notably bad (and worth including in a list), but there is no evidence (yet) of a "2024 stock market decline." At the moment, the market is up in the past six months, YTD, and nearly even over the past month. Jsknoll (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wikipedia is not in the business of holding onto speculative articles that could later prove prominent or notable, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Plenty of global market events of similar scale do not have their own article. For now, this is easily kept to relevant mentions on relevant articles. If it later becomes a significant long-term phenomenon like, say, 2022 stock market decline (which occurred over most of that entire year), there will be plenty of reliable sourcing for an article then. --Tim Parenti (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the market (in the U.S.) is (slightly) up relative to where it began this week.
This article was created for political reasons, and it should be removed. It causes intentional bias simply by existing. Jsknoll (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article violates WP:NOTNEWS and, as such, relies entirely on breaking news sources. Stock prices largely recovered within the next day, but even if they had not, the article—at least, as currently written—doesn't demonstrate any long-term significance for this topic. Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reading the article, I don't think it's substantial enough to justify its existence. Mateusmatsuda (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails NOTNEWS, a short burst of coverage is not sufficient for notability either (per GNG or NEVENT). Type of article may have been better suited for Wikinews and only if it developed into a long term market effect, creating the article on en.wiki would be appropriate. --Masem (t) 03:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted as it documents a historical event in New Zealand history. The failure of New Zealand security forces to protect an event with a head of state was national news and prompted discussions between New Zealand and the UK around security arrangements. Ashok.fernandez (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this person isn't notable enough for a biographical article. As for the incident itself, I can only find 2 articles about it, which depict it as a failed gatecrashing attempt with minor repercussions. It seems there are few viable sources to support the claim it was a historical event, or really much of anything at all. Melonbob (talk) 06:46, 2 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.
This appears to be a vanity page for a musician. While his body of work is extensive, I cannot find any substantial online coverage of him to fulfill WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. The second reference states that he has topped the UK music charts twice, but this appears to be a fanzine of questionable reliability and I can't find any mention of him at the official chart website.~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've searched the official charts database, and I agree with the nominator, I am unable to find evidence of charting (though potentially it could be so far back in time to not be available online), including under his alternate name. However - there is a WP:RSMUSIC Allmusic staff bio available, which is both non-trivial coverage and confirms gold-certification. Potentially with more verification and coverage this may be a keep. ResonantDistortion13:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO ALL - I am the ARTIST - COMPOSER/recording artist. This page looks as though it was originally created by fans. However I do ask it is NOT deleted WHY >> I am an international award winning artist (instrumental music) 6 gold disc, 1 platinumn and a life achievement award, at least 4 million fans international. I also own a record label managing other artists. A 33yr career. My own radio show also. UK based. Numerous hits. Career is still ongoing. Instrumental music doesnt tend to be found in charts or have the hype of pop music so whilst I am not as trackable you will find me all over itunes, spotify, Amazon, Facebook, youtube, google, as one of the most famous artists of my genre. Medwyngoodall (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO ALL - I am the ARTIST - COMPOSER/recording artist. This page looks as though it was originally created by fans. However I do ask it is NOT deleted WHY >> I am an international award winning artist (instrumental music) 6 gold disc, 1 platinumn and a life achievement award, at least 4 million fans international. I also own a record label managing other artists. A 33yr career. My own radio show also. UK based. Numerous hits. Career is still ongoing. Instrumental music doesnt tend to be found in charts or have the hype of pop music so whilst I am not as trackable you will find me all over itunes, spotify, Amazon, Facebook, youtube, google, as one of the most famous artists of my genre Medwyngoodall (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the notability guidelines Wikipedia follows for keeping articles on musicians: WP:MUSICBIO. We need reliable sources (WP:RS) to show the article subject meets the criteria. At present it's unlikely there are enough sources, so if you can provide such references that would significantly help. (Note I have been unable to verify the Gold certifications via the British Phonographic Industry website, so help on that would also be useful). ResonantDistortion07:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only the first 2 sentences are about Fenercell; the remainder is about Avea (now part of Türk Telekom) and a broad discussion about mobile networks in Türkiye. In that state, it would have been better titled as Avea. Or reduced to a 2 sentence stub on Fenercell, which would sit with the redirect on the tr.wiki article. Regarding the "Fenercell" branding, that uses other providers such as A1 Telekom Austria Group elsewhere [20]. AllyD (talk) 13:36, 6 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, Marc Douglas Berardo may not be the best target article as it's up for an AFD deletion discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, still waiting to see if redirect target article is Kept. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:45, 6 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 and improve H&H as mixtures may indeed already be a section elsewhere; but that’s not the only interpretation. Budding mathematicians might be interested in the mathematical meanings of H&H, and for them I’d like to see the current short paragraph expanded rather than swept away altogether. Nick Levine (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got a GameSpot review - that appears to be all there is with regards to significant coverage. Due to this, fails WP:GNG. Anyone searching for sources should not confuse it with the different 2007 and 2009 games of the same name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More electioncruft articles, except all of these are in a town that is not even in the top 100 largest towns in the United States. Not notable for the usual reasons, Wikipedia is a political database. Fails the general notability guideline, as all sources are WP:MILL in local news stations or papers. Additionally, no coverage is sustaining, failing WP:NEVENT. I am nominating the following articles as well:
Weak keep - I'm struggling with this one. I am mostly persuaded by your argument, however, I am a sucker for well done election articles with good sources, images, graphics, etc. It may be better served at ballotpedia. I think it's worth keeping as a source of accurate information with pretty graphics. My city is a little larger than Shreveport and our mayoral election is on Wikipedia with far less information. I would't want it deleted. Perhaps a faulty reason I'm giving to keep, but I think that it just scrapes by as a source of general encyclopedia information. Bluefist talk02:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument against deletion seems to emphasize its inherent importance (WP:ITSIMPORTANT). However, on Wikipedia, importance is determined by significant, independent coverage, and unfortunately, there isn't a rule that makes municipal elections automatically notable.
Redirect to List of mayors of Shreveport, Louisiana. Other than the 2022 article, the articles are only sourced to primary sources and mostly about candidates without stand-alone articles. The additional coverage of Adrian Perkins and the 2022 election is likely because of editor interest rather than availability of sourcing. And the sources for 2022 are just WP:MILL coverage of candidate entries, endorsements, and results. List of mayors of Shreveport, Louisiana is the only plausible redirect target; it seems reasonable enough as an alternative to deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer, all sportspeople must meet SPORTCRIT #5 regardless of meeting a sport-specific criterion. Where is the SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an article on a sportsperson; these are not comparable, especially as bundled noms almost always fail and the keep !voters weren't even arguing to keep on GNG grounds. I don't think the keep arguments were correct there, but that was a completely different situation. JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could those participating in this discussion offer their opinions on what should happen with this article? It would be appreciated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it might be too soon. I don't see anything other than mentions in event coverage. But there are mentions in event coverage; [27] is the best one I found; [28][29] are closer to name-drops. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found even more non-routine, independent feature coverage in some trades and books. Every sentence has now been cited and almost all of the cruft has been culled. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying part of my comment from the other AfD: I don't see sigcov of this local arena here. I think it probably exists somewhere in a newspaper archive, so someone might be able to make an article on this topic, but I don't think we're going to turn it up during this AfD, if ever. Here's the two local news websites: [30], [31]. They're not great. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment: a merge to the article on the town was proposed on the Uxbridge AfD and would work for this one too. I went ahead and merged the content in already, so I could withdraw this nom and WP:BLAR the article, but I strongly suspect the BLAR would be reverted, so I'd rather let this AfD play out in full. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find multiple independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this band. I couldn't. Cullen328 (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cullen328. I'm not sure if these are the sources you are looking for, but here are some that I found.
The only source out of those that could possibly contribute to notability is the first one, the others just mention the band or aren't reliable sources. Interviews don't establish notability, although the pre-interview portion has a bit of commentary, so there's that too, I guess. toweli (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, anyone want to look over these sources? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is terribly outdated as the street has been renamed Rruga Alfred Uçi.[32] It also isn't true that it is entirely a pedestrian street. Only part of the street is. In a good case. People tagged it that way yet it can also be considered a living street. This problematic quality and the lack of sources lead to the conclusion that the article should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Demneri Street should be selectively merged into Xhavit Demneri. Just mention over that there is a street after the late footballer in Tirana as "legacy". People have missed that above. gidonb (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete[33] says the most notable things he did were to win a junior competition at age 15, and having famous relatives. Notability is not inherited. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]