User:Ace111

Richard Yagutilov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a filmmaker and photographer, and cannot find reliable sources to add. I thought it possible the Gold Remi award from the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival might make him notable, but this is not the highest award they give and I cannot find verification of the 2004 award winners. I do not think he is notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIOorWP:NFILMMAKER. Tacyarg (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Photography, and Russia. Tacyarg (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - In a BEFORE search, I am finding precisely nothing on this photographer/filmmaker other than his own user-submitted content, social media, YouTube uploads and the like. Zero significant coverage. Does not meet WP criteria for GNG, or NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

1xbet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination to deletion initiated due to:

1) WP:NOTNEWS + WP:NOTBLOG: Wikipedia article is not list of press releases and company's announcements. Notorious 1xbet Wikipedia article written like a regular report by marketing specialist to his boss about Brand marketing activities. Not any single sentences applies to WP:Notability, except Controversies (See WP:NOCRIT, which means all article's reliable sources cannot refer only Criticism) and information regarding fraud activities.

2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:SaltingbyRu-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam.

≈ In conclusion, delete/draftify and wait to further re-creation by experienced and recognized author on WP:AFC in completely encyclopedic style with many independent and reliable significant coverage references on each sentence. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep: The 1xBet article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines through its detailed documentation of the company’s background and significant milestones, such as partnerships with FC Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain, this appears to be in a similar fashion to other gambling companies such as Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred just to name a few. These sections and the controversies sections are supported by reliable, independent sources, ensuring unbiased verifiability. The content is not a list of press releases but a factual account of the company's history, developments and controversies which are crucial to understanding their impact in the industry. Any promotional language can be adjusted to enhance the encyclopedic tone and neutrality of the article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

1xbet does not look ready for mainspace, but it's notable enough to be draftified, it has to be handled through AfC. Also just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that 1xbet has to have a page in mainspace in such blatant promotion condition. TBH, Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred not doing cross-wiki spam (as 1xbet did), so they exist.

Secondly, notice WP:COI and try to improve the page in constructive way instead of defending blatand promotion. How about Draftify 1xbet and together work on the development from scratch (with other editors on WikiProject Companies) for 4-5 months before it will accomplish all Wikipedia guidelines and policies? So anxious to get an answer. Indiana's Football (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not saying that because other gambling company articles exist that this one should. It was a response to you calling into question how the article is written. My intent was to give other examples within the gambling niche that have the same structure, e.g. 'Lead', 'History', 'Sponsors', 'Controversies' sections, etc.

I agree with you that the 'Controversies' section is important. However, it needs to be a part of a balanced article, and suggesting that the article should only be focused on controversies is in blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CRITS. I want to call into question what your motive is and why it is so important to you that the article only focuses on controversies and nothing else? Do you have a vendetta against the company that influences this need for a negative bias?

I can see another user has left a comment on your talk page stating that you shouldn’t be jumping into areas that are unsuitable for new editors, as this defies Wikipedia guidelines. Unless you have been blocked before and this is a new account you have created? Your account is about 20 days old, but you have the knowledge of an experienced user – something doesn't add up, and you have all of the telltale signs of a sock puppet. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Article(s) cannot be based only on press-releases (WP:SIRS).

2. Article(s) cannot be based only on criticism (even if Criticism with reliable independent significant coverage sources (WP:CRIT)). 3.

3. So how about Draftify an article 1xbet and work on it together for a few months? For example, we can draft History paragraph instead of Ad in form of Expansion section? You still haven't answered, buddy. Indiana's Football (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no necessity to re-write the article as it is already comprehensive and well balanced. Instead of deleting and re-drafting the page, the best thing to do is to focus on improving the current article by updating references, consolidating repetitive information and making any changes that improve readability.

It is obvious you have a biased agenda as you deleted my most recent edit, which contained well-referenced information from a reliable source, whilst you made no attempt to remove any unreferenced information. This serves as proof that you have a vendetta against this company, and this is influencing and driving your agenda to re-draft the page with a focus on controversy. We can constructively edit the current article and have civil discussions on the talk page, but I don't agree to drafting a new article.

You have also ignored my previous point, so I will ask again, how do you have such a deep understanding on the knowledge and usage of advance Wikipedia strategy after editing for only a few weeks? I’m not convinced this is your first time here and I highly suspect you may have been banned before and I don’t think it would be a good idea if you drafted a new article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you about the article being deleted for the reasons mentioned above, I do agree that some sources could be improved and I have updated them. I still stand by not deleting and instead improving it via constructive talk page discussions. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: According to the 1xbet page history, User:Keith161 after puppet User:Timtime88 fallen down, created another one called Bringmethesunset to continue promoting corporate brand by loading indefinite number of press releases. Blatant promotion, probably even WP:SALT can be applied. Can you feel puppet's pain across the screen so he hurry up to defend 1xbet here? Request to check page history, user contributions and CheckUserIP could be applied. Indiana's Football (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 visits by Viktor Orbán to Russia and China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe the article needs to go for two reasons:

(1) The article's subject (i.e., three four two foreign trips), is not independently notable. Foreign trips are an absolutely routine matter for ministers, prime ministers, presidents and other heads of state. Since Orbán undertook those trips as the prime minister of Hungary, they can of course be mentioned in Fifth Orbán Government or similar.

(2) The article's topic is overly vague. Article was created four days ago under the undoubtedly POV title, "2024 peace missions by Viktor Orbán", focusing on Orbán's three foreign trips: to Ukraine, Russia, and China. Then yesterday, his fourth trip, to the US, was added.[1]. After the article, and in particular its title, was challenged via PROD,[2] the US and Ukraine trips were removed and article renamed to its current title. This even further reduced not just notability but even WP:SIGNIFICANCE of these WP:RECENT events.

Overall, I see no reason for Wikipedia to have a separate article on Orban's two foreigns trips, which will be all barely remembered in a year from now.

So, it'll be either a hard delete or a merge and redirect to an existing article about Orbán's government. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Hungary. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: It's at least 20 sources, with an extensive analysis for each point made, I'm not sure what else you could want at this point. It meets GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  My reasoning was clear: it's not notable for a standalone article. See, for every news event, you'll have dozens of sources. For every speech of a US president, you'll have possibly hundreds of rolling news reports. But this doesn't mean that each speech should receive a standalone Wikipedia article. Same concern here: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to a broader article covering the Fifth Orbán Government or Viktor Orbán's diplomacy. The article covers the trips in some detail. Yet, they do not appear to meet the threshold for standalone notability due to their routine nature as part of a head of state's duties. Adding this info to a broader context will keep the relevant historical record. Yet, it will avoid giving too much weight to events that may not last. This approach will also streamline related content. It will strengthen the details of Viktor Orbán's political movements. It will also make the new article more complete.--AstridMitch (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• DeleteorMerge Violation of WP:NOTNEWS, see also WP:RECENT. The topic is notable only as part of 2024 Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Fifth Orbán Government, and / or similar. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, an international diplomatic conflict that has already generated so many sources and comments is always notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just a polite observation that this is not an article about a diplomatic conflict, whatever that may mean. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Please save this cynical comment for others. It's just a polite note. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merge Many of the sources in the article do treat the three visits as one cohesive topic, but for now, we have no knowledge of what lasting significance these visits may have. I cannot find any real effects that have come of these meetings except reactions from various countries, but that does not constitute stand alone notability in my mind. Instead, this can adaquetely be covered in an article like the Fifth Orbán Government. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge There's not a general subarticle for his prime ministership, but shouldn't his actions during this term be at Fifth Orbán Government?Reywas92^Talk 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge Fails WP:NEVENT. It's hard to think how a single state visit by a political leader could be notable given that anything of significance in a visit would be an event (or events) *during* the visit, not the visit per se. For the visit to be notable it would need to rise to the level of something like the 1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Indeed, these two visits were subjected to an almost unprecedented spotlight, especially his visit to Moscow, and recently even the European Parliament condemned it! It can be kept now and wait. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  What sources indicate the visits received "almost unprecedented" coverage? There needs to be sourcing that indicates why the trips in and of themselves are notable separate from the long-standing policies reaffirmed by Orbán on the trips. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - the visits were a subject to significant media coverage, enough to justify a standalone article. It also has 25 reliable and verifiable sources. Overall I fail to see how it would fail WP:NOTABILITY.

Brat Forelli🦊 07:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Has attracted quite substantial and ongoing coverage in media across Europe and globally. Article obviously needs cleanup but the trip by Orbán to Russia, which is effectively in conflict with the European Union while acting as President of the European Council, has had a significant impact and resulted in consequences for Hungary, such as boycotts of meetings in Hungary by EU commissioners and Hungary being stripped of hosting a European foreign ministers meeting. Imagine if Joe Biden controversially visited Russia without consultation with European leaders and to undermine European support for Ukraine. I think we'd all agree that was worthy of a stand-alone article. AusLondonder (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Biden doesn't seem to be consulting much with his European allies. Certainly he doesn't consult its Middle Eastern policies, and just comes to the region as he likes. Yes each of such visits generates plenty of coverage. No we don't cover those trips in separate articles either. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Athanasios Tsakalidis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment? Millions? How did you arrive at that figure? Nom seems to be unaware that WP:Prof may also be met. Subject has high GS citations, but in a very high cited field. Not sure. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC).

  When I say there are millions of other academics, I mean that there's nothing special about his career that makes it stand out. If you could take a moment to clarify your position, it would be much appreciated. Now you're disrupting the consensus process just to disrupt it. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Society of Physicists of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no notability per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Macedonia. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep 75+ y.o. professional organizations. Sources are likely in Macedonian (using Cyrillic alphabet) and Greek (using Greek alphabet), so not surprising that they can't be found in a summary google search. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for same reason as above. Searching on the Cyrillic I find some pages, although I am relying on Chrome translate. It does seem to be an established organization that has been around for a significant time, no reason to delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that there is automatically no reason to delete because sources might exist. On top of that, the year of establishment is currently unverified which is a core Wikipedia policy. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

N.B., I did find sources, it was not "might". Ldm1954 (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Means the same thing to me as you haven't shared them. I see this being a keep so I guess it doesn't matter.. SL93 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the coverage provided to this organization by known existing sources would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment, as more discussion was requested. Being specific here (Google search on the cyrillic) turns up a decent number of hits. However, I cannot trust the Google translate enough. What we need is someone who does, for instance (doing a ping) EdwardKaravakis who may know others. I am posting to a Macedonian project noticeboard as well. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

hm I do not know Cyrillic, never heard of this society before and I am pretty sure that this should be of Northern Macedonia instead.. EdwardKaravakis (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thelma Rodgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Antarctica, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. PamD 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. PamD 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on this article. It's a bit of case of WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less). KoA (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Comment after relisting. Just reviewed this after the two relistings below. I think this one is still pretty clearly in the merge category from a WP:PAG perspective, especially since a keep would run into issues with WP:BLP1E policy. At the least, keep does not seem like a valid option here, and if this person ever becomes notable for more that would justify an article, it can easily be unmerged. Until then, there's always going to be policy tensions with this subject, KoA (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep or maybe Merge: it's a borderline case, but I think there's enough WP:SIGCOV to keep the content, if not to have a standalone article. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)