The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A short mention in a 2006 piece from The Mercury News: Beachhead Solutions in Santa Clara sells a $129-a-year service, Lost Data Destruction, which enables an administrator to send a command to destroy data on a laptop that has been stolen. If the thief tries to hook the laptop up to the Internet, it will send a message to the administrator and trigger the data destruction. – Teratix₵12:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. The funny part is that I can't find secondary sources to verify the articles content. The already existing sources, unfortunately are primary sources/nearly connected sources that doesn't even order any solution to WP:N and WP:V. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!07:44, 4 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 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.
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. And the third source is just routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 20 June 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete the title using another script doesn't help searching; regardless, I can't find mentions of this. The sources are listed as marginal reliability per Cite Highlighter, and I don't see any others we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 27 June 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This should probably be deleted or even merged in some way to Chinese clothing, since only one person was involved and there's a lot of overlap with the existing page. Looking at the talk page I suspect it was a class project of some kind. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator, Bai0926, has userfied the article so it is no longer eligible for AfD. Part of the article was a blatant copyvio and a lot of it seems to be WP:CLOP. I've tagged the blatant parts for RD1. CFA💬14:39, 20 June 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG. The sources available in the article only appear as simple mentions, which is not enough to demonstrate notability. And the history of contributions to the article assumes a WP:COI. Ciudatul (talk) 11:57, 20 June 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It does not seem that this department of the business school is notable by itself, all references are incidental do not shown notability. Relevant information can easily be covered by the business school that it belongs to the E. J. Ourso College of Business article. This article seems to almost be a sales prospective for the department and has no general value. We could merge this with the business school, but I see little worthwhile content for merging and so I believe the best option is to delete this article. Sargdub (talk) 01:06, 20 June 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 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.
Line of succession to the British throne was merged and redirected in 2015 as a result of Talk:Succession to the British throne/Archive 2. This page is reliant on a single source that does not in fact list people in line. It lists descendants of the Electress Sophia who would be in line if they renounced their own religion, became Anglicans and adopted British nationality. In reality, for anyone so far down the line to inherit the British throne, the world would have had to endure a catastrophic disaster of such monumental proportions that it is extremely unlikely that the monarchy would exist. This content is not suitable for an encyclopedia because it is one wikipedian's selection of whom they consider to be the notable descendants of Sophia that is not representative of a wide-base of scholarly sources. DrKay (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All your concerns would be satisfied by changing the title to List of living descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Also, the selection of living people is formulaic and not subjective, and thus does not fall under WP:OR, and further sources can certainly be added to refine the listing; these are reasons to improve the article, not delete it.
Also, the 2015 discussion is not relevant; the merged article only contained the short list of descendants of George V, and the outcome of the discussion was in fact to keep text referring to Reitwiesner's list. Lastly, your nomination itself is factually inaccurate: they need to be Protestant and not specifically Anglican, and I don't think there's a legal provision that they be British citizens; George I was certainly not when he ascended.Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay: I'll strike that part, but the other arguments stand. Do you have a source to support that, under current law, the monarch needs to be specifically Anglican and a British citizen to be in the line of succession? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with anything? Are you saying that we must maintain a list of people that has been put together randomly just because one of them that is non-British or non-Anglican might have a chance of ascending the throne of the United Kingdom? Well, that requires the mass elimination of the first 60 in line which is unlikely to happen any time soon. The whole list is nothing more than hypothetical cruft. Keivan.fTalk02:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is hypothetical when we don't have secondary sources grouping all these people together based on what their place could have been if the line of succession were to be extended that far. At the moment it's just a genealogical entry and WP:SYNTHESIS. Keivan.fTalk06:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is nonsense to state "if the line of succession were to be extended that far." There is a law that specifies the complete line of succession, and it does extend to everyone specified in the law. Your assertion that this later parts of the line of succession will never be used itself violates WP:CRYSTAL. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A law that you are interpreting yourself and then drawing conclusions about who could potentially be in this lengthy line of succession that no secondary source actually covers (i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS). The presumption that all these people could also drop dead together which would then force the Parliament to go look for a potential monarch from descendants of someone who died 310 years ago is in fact WP:CRYSTAL. Keivan.fTalk06:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually incorrect to represent this as "a law that you are interpreting yourself". The article is based on an independent secondary source. There are many other secondary sources on specific branches that could be added. WP:SYNTHESIS allows routine calculations, which I believe applies to extracting living members from a list of people, a task that is completely mechanical and allows for very little personal interpretation. I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This article does appear to violate WP:OR. However, if the editors of this article wish to improve it by adding reliable and diverse citations and sources to an acceptable degree, then I think the article could remain. @Antony-22's suggestion to rename to article to List of living descendants of Sophia of Hanover would be another good solution to the issue raised by the AfD, as the article's current title does feel quite misleading. Mjks28 (talk) 13:15, 22 June 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 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.
Could not find substantial coverage of the duo or recognition of their work, so no apparent notability by our standards. This should probably be redirected to Leon Thomas III since his article mentions the group multiple times and includes all the same credits. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoLeon Thomas III. It turns out that the duo was nominated from a Grammy Award ([1]), though that seems not to have generated significant media coverage. I agree with the nominator that most of their media mentions are in articles about Leon Thomas, while his partner Khris Riddick-Tynes seems not to have done much outside of the partnership. It can all be described at Thomas's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling they would have a Grammy nod given the popularity of the artists they work with, but Grammy.com's search function broke recently so I couldn't find it there. Saw that article, but I must've missed the words "Grammy-nominated" in it. Thanks for the catch. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:38, 22 June 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 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 person is not notable; sources are about companies or projects. Many facts are just there with completely zero sources 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:53, 20 June 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 person is notable, he meets WP:BIO — he is a CEO of the biggest mobile operator of Ukraine for many years and has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the person. He also has several awards and honours — Head the best leaders ranking according to Forbes Ukraine, Lead Ideal Managers (a ranking of the telecom industry's best executives), he made it into the top 10 executives of Ukraine, top 20 most successful leaders of Ukrainian companies and many others. --Perohanych (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Keep. The page reads pretty much as his personal CV, but there are numerous sources (primarily in Ukrainian) with non-trivial coverage of the person. Probably passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the person's notability. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. The page is REFBOMBED and contains only passing, routine mentions. There are no good, reliable sources. Profiles on Forbes are not reliable at all, nor are press releases. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But mentiones sources are not paid or superficial news! They do contain an in-depth analysis of the person. It is not just a profile on Forbes, it is a profile in connection with the fact that Forbes recognized Komarov as the No. 1 person among businessmen in the whole country! --Perohanych (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Terwin corporation doesn't meet NCROP - no reliable independent of the subject sources; advertisement, Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The corporation is notable, it meets WP:ORGCRIT— it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the corporation. It is one of the biggest corporations in Ukraine with $1,6 billion assets and $1,7 billion revenue (2023). Before the Russian invasion, the revenue exceeded $2 billion. Nowadays, the corporation is building logistics hubs in four regions of Ukraine (Odesa, Lviv, Dnipro, Kyiv) with a total investment of more than $500 million. Of course, this and other activity of the corporation has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. --Perohanych (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the company notability per WP:NCORP. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. Google News is not a measure of notability. Every source should be analyzed, and I have done this, concluding that all the sources met in the page and here provided by the author, are only superficial mentions or routine announcements with no single source providing in-depth, independent media coverage. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Let's analyse every mentioned source:
The text of European Business Association is entirely devoted to Tervin and provides enough about the size of the corporation.
This text of Forbes is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's composition, assets and revenue, as well as information about the founders
This text of Liga is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's history
This text of New Voice is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the largest companies that make up the corporation
This text of Interfax is entirely devoted to co-operation of Tervin and the state Agency on investments.
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.
While the phenomenon of using the middle name as first name could have an article (and is already discussed at Middle name#Middle name as primary forename), a list of every single notable person doing this would likely be way too large, and I haven't seen them discussed as a group in reliable sources. For virtually any person on this list, them using their middle name instead of their first name is at best trivia, and not connected to their notability, making this ultimately non-encyclopedic. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged as A3 since the page consists of only links elsewhere and contains no other content whatsoever. I'm surprised it wasn't tagged under this criterion by another reviewer before.Keep since the article has been improved considerably, and is completely different from the empty stub that I nominated for speedy deletion. CycloneYoristalk!02:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expanded the article and sourced it. If it is kept, the title should probably be changed to Famous people who use their middle names as their first names, and it should probably be alphabetized too, and it also needs categories.Isaidnoway(talk)01:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The expansion is good, but doesn't address the problem of this not being a defining characteristic of the vast majority of people mentioned, making this listing indiscriminate. Indeed, the vast majority of sources treating these people as a group are celebrity gossip sites (BuzzFeed, PopSugar...). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is compliant with our verifiability policy and our relevant guideline on stand alone lists, because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply here, nor is the criteria for inclusion based on it being a defining characteristic. If we went by your defining characteristic argument, there would be no list articles on WP. And your argument about BuzzFeed or PopSugar, or any other of the multiple sources used in the article is really not applicable, because they are not spreading "gossip", rumors, tittle-tattle, unfounded claims or titillating claims about people's lives.Isaidnoway(talk)01:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, even if what you call "independent reliable sources" aren't directly making BLP violations, it doesn't mean that they are actually considered reliable for the purpose of notability. See WP:BUZZFEED, WP:WHATCULTURE... Also, you can't really compare this to a list of lists (which exist for navigational purposes and operate on different standards). WP:LISTCRITERIA clearly states If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance? In this case, the answer is pretty obviously no for the vast majority of people listed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed whatculture as a source per your comment and RSP, and Buzzfeed is not the sole source used to establish notability, so that is a red herring. WP:LISTCRITERIA also clearly states Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X? And the answer is yes, as evidenced by multiple people listed being featured in multiple sources. Additionally, WP:LISTPEOPLE (which this list is) says - Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:
Keep Some of the references are reliable sources, others I'm not sure about. But this does get coverage in Seventeen Magazine, etc. When nominated for deletion, it was just some names without any references. Isaidnoway did a lot of improvements. DreamFocus22:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — So editors can get a sense of what the article looked like when it was nominated – June 20, 2024. I also think a more advisable title would be List of people who use their middle names as their first names, since the names on the list are so diverse.Isaidnoway(talk)02:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With @Isaidnoway's recent improvements and the plethora of sources showing that it is indeed a notable list topic, I no longer consider that the article should be deleted, and am ready to retract the nomination if possible. Thanks a lot for your work on the article! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:26, 27 June 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Just Stop Oil#2024 without prejudice against also merging relevant content with Stonehenge or other pages, as applicable. There is an overwhelming consensus that this doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Since there is no content violating policy here, there is no requirement to delete the page, and a merge is a perfectly sensible alternative. Owen×☎18:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event is fully covered in a short paragraph in the main Stonehenge article. The idea that something which happened yesterday and was cleaned up today with no lasting effects needs a whole article with the sweeping title 'Vandalism of Stonehenge' is unreasonable. Attempts to query the notability of this article, or to expand its scope to match the title, have been rebuffed by the creator, which rather smacks of WP:OWN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the title is simply "Vandalism of Stonehenge" so this article could be used to cover all vandalism attempts on the monument. Otherwise Merge as above— Iadmc♫talk 11:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator — I absolutely did not say the scope couldn’t be expanded. In fact, my only comment regarding notability of the article was to note that LASTING could not be proven, and that a reassessment should occur in a week for notability. I am not going to !vote here, however, GenevieveDEon put words into my mouth in this WP:RAPID deletion attempt. I personally ignore the nomination reasoning by GenevieveDEon for that reason, however, all other comments (keep, merge, or delete) from other editors I will be looking at extensively and appreciate all the responses. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection, I see that the large additions that were removed were from IP users trying to make the page be about the nearby road tunnel. That's obviously not appropriate in any case. But it does highlight a deeper problem: the concept of 'vandalism' is not culturally or politically neutral, and deciding what should be included or excluded from such a general article would be very difficult. As it stands, this article is still undue emphasis on a very short-lived and likely insignificant event. I also note that User:WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest. My position would be the same whatever the purpose of the protest - a separate article is unnecessary. And calling this "the vandalism of Stonehenge" was, is, and remains ludicrous. We're not here to elevate utterly trivial news stories into separate encyclopedic topics. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tag on your talk page is a required thing per WP:CTOPICS. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you. You statement "This isn't about climate change" is absolutely false, since Just Stop Oil is a climate-change related organization. Please do not focus on the editor and focus on the content. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regard it as rather targeted, because you didn't add the tag to the Vandalism of Stonehenge article itself when you created it, but only when you were tagging various places including my talk page, after I had made this nomination. And I'm not sure it's a sensible use of the contentious topics policy for you to create an unnecessary (and untagged) article about a very minor event somewhat connected with the contentious topic, and then start throwing around the template once someone challenges that creation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's about how you handled the marking of the article in question, and related pages, as being related to a contentious topic only when it served to criticise this deletion discussion. My comment stands. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? CTOPIC notices are a required thing to do. As explained to GenevieveDEon at the administrators noticeboard. After the discussion was opened up there, all the accusations of OWNing, POV-pushing, and alleged targeting were taken back by GenevieveDEon. Please don't make the same mistake and accuse me. On a brief inspection, two minutes earlier, you removed the CTOPICs notice, which you are perfectly allowed to do (with indicates you acknowledged it). In your edit summary, you stated, "where did I edit an article under that?" Does that mean you do not consider this to be even slightly related to climate change? If the answer is yes, then you are not ready to edit in the CTOPICs area. Also, before you accuse me further that I am targetting because "we want your article merged away", you should do your homework and see that I too support merging it. Please strike the accusations and I would strike this entire comment insuit. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)22:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expand ScopeorMerge — The scope of the article should be expanded to cover all acts of vandalism to Stonehenge throughout history. If that cannot be agreed apon, then I support a complete merge (the entire article content) into Just Stop Oil. I would also encourage other editors to consider the scope expansion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)12:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Vandalism of Stonehenge" suggests the article is about the concept of vandalism of Stonehenge and is confusing when it turns out to be about one specific incident. SystemPhantom (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and expand scope. There must have been similar incident etc in the past. Sourcs are good and notability fow now obvious.BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regard that as an unncessary content fork - there's not enough on this in the main Stonehenge article to warrant it. When there is, then such a fork would be worth considering. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While I appreciated the appearance of this entry when I was looking for more information on this breaking story, even then I was doubtful that it needed its own page. Also, it should be noted that I went to the Stonehenge page first, and either the incident hadn't been added yet or I somehow missed it, otherwise I wouldn't have gone to this page at all. RogueLoreBard (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I dispute your assessment Ad Orientem that this fails GEOSCOPE. I highly doubt the Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News are "local" sources around Stonehenge. The rest I do not have a direct disagreement with, but I wanted to go ahead and dispute the GEOSCOPE argument stated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't originally propose a merge at all, because there's already a more-than-sufficient mention of it in the Stonehenge article itself. (See the discussion on the talk page there about whether that's warranted.) The Just Stop Oil article needs some work in any case because it's tending to WP:PROSELINE at the moment, but I don't feel qualified to say whether merging this page into it would help that issue. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Stonehenge has been around 4,000 years and it'll be around 4,000 more. A feeble double act of environmental suffragettes taking 30 seconds to sprinkle orange flour over two of the stones doesn't warrant a mention in the main article, let alone its own. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Dictionary describes vandalism as "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property." This protest was neither destructive nor damaging therefore the title is false. 2601:1C0:577F:4070:39DB:2AFE:E080:8893 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's already mention of it at Just Stop Oil article so nothing else sensible to merge. And oppose redirect since this isn't the only time in history that Stonehenge will have been vandalised. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge without redirect Supportive of either outcome. I think Just Stop Oil is a better target article than Stonehenge as this is too insignificant to warrant being in the latter. All that happened was that a small amount of corn-based colorant was sprayed on a couple of the rocks and stayed there for less than one day. Usually I'd argue that it takes more time than this to assess if an event has any WP:LASTING impact and that trying to rush to delete based on WP:LASTING would itself be WP:CRYSTAL. But it took nothing more than an air blower to remove the corn-based dye. This was just a publicity stunt that grabbed headlines by making it seem like they were causing some serious damage to a world heritage site, but in the end, they did nothing. If they wanted to cause some real damage, they probably would have used real paint instead of corn. They got the headlines they wanted, but this is the sort of story that belongs in a sensationalist tabloid paper, not an encyclopedia. Agree that this title is too broad to make it a redirect. Vanilla Wizard 💙19:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simple protest so do not keep or rename. There is sufficient content elsewhere so do not merge. Bad title so do not redirect. No need to salvage so do not draftify or userfy. Remains delete. gidonb (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is is about a recent, one off event and I think it fails WP:EVENT on a number of fronts, including WP:DELAY and WP:LASTING. An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences. This article doesn't even mention the many other instances (e.g.[2][3]) of vandalism there have been over time so this article is WP:UNDUE. Orange sticker (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to remind everyone suggesting that this should be mergedtoJust Stop Oil that this would leave a redirect, meaning anyone searching for the term Vandalism of Stonehenge would find themselves on the JSO page, despite the fact that this is a single incident and there have been multiple incidents of vandalism carried out by various groups and individuals over the years and no doubtnit will happen again. Call for Stonehenge access ban to curb 'annual vandalism, February 2015
Delete. There's sufficient content on Just Stop Oil. If that content came from here, I believe we can still redirect to Stonehenge and mention Just Stop Oil in the edit summary in order to meet attribution requirements. Vandalism of Stonehenge is already covered in the Stonehenge article and shouldn't redirect to a group that targetted Stonehenge only in one particular act which fails notability guidelines. For example, it's hardly clear from the article how this incident is going to contribute towards the fight climate change, or change government policy towards this activist group, which could contribute towards WP:LASTING for this act. The article itself has a news media tone; hence, if the topic turns out to be notable in the future, I think it would be better to write it from scratch with newer and better sources.
If the closing admin considers this discussion to have no consensus, feel free to consider this a !vote in favour of redirecting or merging; I don't want my disagreement to contribute to a keep outcome. DaßWölf22:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have a consensus that the article should not be kept, and also that this event should be covered in the Just Stop Oil article. There is some division around whether or not any further merging is necessary beyond what has already occurred. For that reason, I suggest we simply redirect to Just Stop Oil#2024 and allow the ordinary WP:BRD process and/or discussion on the redirect target's talk page to work its magic. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)05:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: I don't think we have coverage from my reading of the discussion, but I agree with your approach. Personally, I would redirect it to Stonehenge, but I have no problem with you closing this and redirecting it to the other destination and allowing people to change the target outside of this AFD via WP:BRD. So, I would say go ahead and close this without further discussion and let people figure this out beyond the AFD. Malinaccier (talk)14:12, 27 June 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 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.
Nominating following PROD and refund request.
Appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Appears to mainly cite primary sources, with none sustaining a claim to notability. Various searches are struggling to turn up anything. Mdann52 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company went through a few name changes: first to Peninsula Wireless Communications, and then to Repeater Technologies. The company was taken public and then went bankrupt under the name Repeater Technologies. Peninsula Engineering Solutions is a successor organization, which was acquired by Infinity Wireless. https://www.infinitiwireless.com/we-are-pleased-to-announce-the-merger-of-their-two-companies/
Delete: No sources about the company found, some patents and government decisions. Listed in a paper here [4], but not really about the organization. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 27 June 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No discography or chart activity, and no third-party independent coverage. Sources are all primary, consisting of promotional interviews, press releases, and subject's hometown publication (Ottawa Citizen). 💥Casualty• Hop along. •04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the article but I'll comment anyways. Meets WP:BASIC. There are at least two in-depth Complex articles ([5][6]) - Complex is a recommended source at WP:A/S and is independent of the subject. There are many in-depth HipHopCanada articles ([7][8][9][10][11][12][13]) which are independent of the subject. There are multiple in-depth HotNewHipHop sources ([14][15][16][17][18] ) - HotNewHipHop is also a recommended source per WP:A/S. This isn't including the many Ottawa Citizen articles which are all independent and reliable, or any of the interviews that add little additional commentary. Doesn't have to meet a SNG if it meets GNG/BASIC. I don't see how this is controversial. CFA💬21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A non-neutral tone is not a reason for deletion, though. It can be fixed through editing. I think it’s pretty clear the subject meets GNG, regardless of any SNGs that might apply. CFA💬10:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Clearfrienda that together shows significant coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 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 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.
MergetoList of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:12, 24 June 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 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.
MergetoList of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:11, 24 June 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 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.
MergetoList of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A sensible medium-term alternative to Delete, and an article that can be patched up on and improved. Should sources for GNG be found it can always be returned to standalone. Comment I know next to nothing about MOTU and care about it even less than that, but this flood of near-identical nominations would give anyone with the knowledge to put together a Keep vote far too much research to do. This is yet another case of eschewing a potentially constructive discussion on talk pages that could genuinely improve articles and Wikipedia by selectively merging salvageable material to a strong list instead being turned into someone yelling "BALEET!" because it's easier. I used to wonder why so many articles are neglected. Now I know it's because passionate editors get tired of being at the mercy of lazy rubbish like this. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:10, 24 June 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 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.
Unreferenced article for an international event claimed to be held in six months' time, yet there's not a single mention of it online. The first event was a bit of a lawsuit-fest, and the best I could come up with in a WP:BEFORE search for a future event is this July 2023 article saying that the dispute was settled, with Rangers FC saying that they may participate in future TEG-sponsored events from 2024 to 2026. But the very specific claims here (Inter Miami, Malaysia U-23) look a lot like a hoax, or wishful thinking at best. Prod contested without comment (and other templates removed) by article creator. WP:TOOSOON at my most charitable. Wikishovel (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I searched and was unable to find any sources verifying this version of the event or any of the claims contained in the article; quite possibly a hoax. Left guide (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speey deleteasG3. Article is yet another hoax created by the same disruptive user. Thankfully they're blocked now. No need for any further discussion. CycloneYoristalk!05:02, 22 June 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Thanks to participants who quickly responded and presented sources. I hope they find their way into the article. LizRead!Talk!04:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this does somehow survive deletion I am able to get some photos for the article. I haven't looked much into the Museum itself so I can't currently comment on it's notability. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf04:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not written like an advertisement, instead it needs improvement, not deletion. I'm appalled to see this nomiated for deletion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from being written like an advertisement (WP:NORG), this entry fails WP:GNG. Its only sources are its own website. AstridMitch (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2024
Delete: Could be notable, but sourcing is primary in the article. I can only find various travel blogs or listings for them [19], without much coverage at all. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Disagreement here among editors on the quality of the sourcing in the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I was going to close this as No consensus until I looked at the article and saw that only one source wasn't from the official website. Where are all of these independent sources editors arguing to Keep this article are referring to? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it would be great if this article gets expanded, but meanwhile it passes content and sourcing, as is. Good starter article. — Maile (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The book notes: "Conceived in 1986 by four friends with a shared passion for historic military vehicles and who thrilled at driving their own vintage models in parades this museum has developed into a place to honor America's other veterans of the battlefront. It boasts a collection of more than 60 meticulously restored fighting machines, ready to roll at a moment's notice. Most vehicles have been acquired within a 150-mile radius of the museum. When tractors were in short supply in the 1940s and early 1950s, local farmers often relied on retired warriors rugged jeeps, trucks, and half-tracks to work their land. The Heartland's dedicated staff has rescued many from rust and oblivion, returning them to mint condition."
The book notes: "Ever wondered what sitting in a tank would be like? This central Nebraska location encourages exploration of all vehicles on display. Besides tanks, helicopters, halftracks and even ambulances are on display. Jeeps from every branch of service are lined up. From World War II to present day, about one hundred restored vehicles are ready for action. Most are still operational. Military engines are also housed here."
Hammel, Paul (2007-06-14). "Museum shows how military goes rolling along" (pages 1 and 2). Omaha World-Herald. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes: " Such moments and memories are hallmarks of the Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles, a volunteer-run, admission-free facility off Interstate 80 at the Lexington exit. It displays military memorabilia, including more than 70 restored Jeeps, tanks and helicopters, to honor those who built and used the "Arsenal of Democracy." ... Lauby, 60, is among the three farmers and an attorney three of whom are Vietnam veterans who founded the museum in 1988. ... Most of the vehicles were found within a 150-mile radius of Lexington, but several were purchased through military surplus sales or donated by veterans. Over-the-road truckers and local railroads have donated services to haul the hulking machines. ... One of the museum's six Huey helicopters was shot down five times in Vietnam; another was a medical ambulance during Operation Desert Storm."
The article notes: "At the Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles, they've got Nebraska's largest private collection of military jeeps, ambulances, armored personnel carriers and Burma trucks. On the northeast corner of the Interstate 80 Lexington interchange, they've got about 60 restored military vehicles representing every armed conflict from World War I to Operation Desert Storm. ... What Nielsen referred to as a group of naive farm boys and ranchers incorporated as a nonprofit group, took out bank loans, raised money and built the first building on the site. They opened in 1993, but only in good weather. They put the word out that if the flag was up on the pole, the museum was open."
Ward, Malena (2005-04-30). "Lex museum depicts memorable Vietnam moment" (pages 1 and 2). Kearney Hub. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes: "The Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles was founded by Vietnam veterans, but it doesn't limit itself to that era. The museum is dedicated to the restoration and preservation of historical military equipment of all types. It is at the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 283 and the Lexington Interstate 80 interchange at exit 237."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Racism by country#North America and merge relevant content to other racism-by-country articles, as applicable. There is a rough consensus that while the content is notable, bundling under "North America" is not adequately supported by sources. Owen×☎17:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see what is trying to be accomplished, organizing a set of existing pieces on racism by country. I'm good with it. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then Redirect - I concur with the original requester. Any content that happens to be unique to this article (I couldn't find any in my review) should be moved to one of the country-specific articles. Then, it should be redirected to a list of the country-specific articles. Garsh (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's try relisting this one more time. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk(nest)04:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many sources that discuss racism in Canada, racism in the USA, and racism in Mexico. I highly doubt there are many sources that discuss racism across the entire North American continent, especially as a distinct geographical entity from Latin America/South America. This article should not exist unless sources can be found that specifically discuss racism in North America as a whole. Astaire (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last three sources (Wong Hall, Wendt, Wilkinson) appear to be using "North America" as a shorthand for Canada and the US, with little or no discussion of Mexico. The first source (Smedley) is overwhelmingly about the US: it only uses the word "Canada" twice in the text, and Mexico is only mentioned glancingly in the context of colonial exploration. Sources that are actually about "racism in North America" should at a minimum discuss all three of the continent's largest countries.
The second source (Russell) is the best, but it appears to be discussing the separate countries in isolation, rather than as a coherent "North American" unit. See e.g. "Chapter 4: Immigration", which has sections on "European Immigration in the United States", "Anglophones, Francophones, and Multiculturalism" (in Canada), and "A Dearth of Immigrants in Mexico". Or "Chapter 5: Race Mixture", which has sections on "México Mestizo", "The Canadian Métis", and "Racially Mixed and Socially Black in the United States". Or "Chapter 9: Racial Contours of North America", which has sections on "Legacies of Slavery, War, and Colonialism in the United States", "Mestizos, Indians, and Criollos in Mexico", and "Visible Minorities and First Peoples in Canada". So using this source would result in the same WP:SYNTH issues that the article currently suffers from.
Keep: 2 of the 3 articles indicated as overlapping with this one were created after this one was. I think it's a matter of coverage depth and I do see reasons (content, coherence) to keep this one while having the others cover each country more specifically. Other articles such as Racism in South America, Racism in Europe, etc, exist. I don't see why this one should be deleted because North America is comprised of only three countries. Edit: please note that "racism in North America" is mentioned 867 times as an expression in Google Scholar. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:40, 27 June 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No refs on the page for many years. Not clear what the topic really means outside of GSM, not clear that sources exist to show notability JMWt (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to GSM I guess? Seems like an obscure and obsolete feature of old cellular phones used by one particular network during a transition period? I guess Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and could cover a topic this obscure, if there were appropriate references, but there don't seem to be. I just see forum posts and patent applications (which are highly technical and don't explain the term, and are primary sources we wouldn't generally use anyway). --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a generic term. The article is unsourced, and was presumably written based on a single-source: a description in a c.2005 manual about the GSM protocol. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:01, 13 June 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete — this man played minor-league American football for a few years and appeared on a bunch of TV shows of very little interest. White 720 (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It happens. But only rarely so maybe don't rub it in. I thank White 720 for not using this forum to waste anyone's time where most others would. It's a kind gesture. So thanks White 720. JFHJr (㊟) 04:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article 17 years ago after being curious about the subject's then-current project. I don't have any real attachment to the article subject, and while I can't resist a chance to save an article with last-ditch citation adding (I've succeeded before) there's no point in preserving an article for a person whose entertainment career never really took off. White 720 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Following this referral from WP:BLPN. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The sole extrinsic claim to NisWP:NACTOR. However, (the paucity of) BLP-worthy reliable sources underlying the claims to NACTOR makes it hard to support any particular prose or derivative filmography section. If we remove what is unreffed or supported only by the subject or allmusic, there is no encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An enormous number of people play division 1 college football — there are 134 teams, which have like 80 players each, and no one plays more than 4 years. So there are probably 3000 new players each year. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:40, 22 June 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 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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced article about an actor (also known as Adamo Palladino), and added two sources. One is a passing mention and the other is an interview with a family member in the local paper. I don't believe he meets WP:GNGorWP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 04:10, 20 June 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 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.
On fr wiki, it just a redirect, on pl wiki, an AfD is ongoing. BEFORE shows very little, as does the article itself. Seems that this organization was either short lived or did not achieve much outside generating a little media buzz when it was founded. I don't see what makes it meet WP:GNG - perhaps it should redirect Jean-Marie Le Pen, as is done on fr wiki? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am finding some French sources that appear to be about the party or its creation, (Le Journal de Dimanche, ici, RFI, Le Monde, Atlantico, L'express), but my ability to search more contextually is limited by my weak French, as "Bleu Blanc Rouge" is also used to name the French flag. Someone with French knowledge might want to dig into this, because there may well be sources there. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Jean-Marie Le Pen's frwiki article, he envisaged founding this new party but never went through with it. Certainly the only sources in French all seem to relate to an announcement, not to any actual activities by this party. I would suggest mergingtoJean-Marie Le Pen (which will require a bit more research to add text to his article) or, failing that, deletion. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:31, 1 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 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.
Keep there is coverage in international sources as well CNNNBCAl Jazeera. The fact that plenty of national sources RaiAnsa also reported on the following trial shows the depth and duration of coverage needed to fulfill WP:NEVENT. @PARAKANYAA: I would like to hear why you think the coverage is not sufficient to pass NEVENT. Broc (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable reviews or other sources other than a single production source. A search in Sify ([21]), Chennai Online ([22]), and BizHat ([23]) proves futile. Please find the Kalki and Cine South reviews or redirect to Chennai as all online sources prove to be a description for the city. A WP:BEFORE found a fleeting mention here (சிங்கார சென்னை). DareshMohan (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:37, 4 July 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.
Note Three new sources have been made inclusion before this went AfD but after it went up as a proposed deletion. I now sincerly reach out to editors like UtherSRG with a question of what's more to add. Everything is in there; primary sources, local sources, stats database sources, routine match coverage sources, indepth match coverage sources. And even if someone would remark on there being only two scores you should keep in mind that one score is for $5,000,000 - and is a second place in the main event (world championship) - and the other is a win in a WPT Main Event (the largest set of tournaments next to the World Series of Poker) - both these scores alone should merit inclusion. PsychoticIncall (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit silly asking for sources for such obvious results (events) as a main event 2nd place and a world poker tour win when it's obvious these events have taken place (with the selective outcome). Like asking for more sources too validate Stanley Cup or Super Bowl. That said - the three sources needed for evaluation is right there (ref: 3;4;5;6). PsychoticIncall (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a bit more specific? The sources are specialized, but they do seem to be reliable, independent, and provide non-trivial coverage of the topic. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is the only one I say couldn't be debated; of the sources have looked at, they are all about Jesse Sylvia doing something, whether it be his performance at a competition or otherwise. ✶Quxyz✶02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pokernews is fine for new about Poker (unless it's on a list of non-RSes?). The local "boy does well" article is reliable, independent, and provides significant coverage. I think we're okay on meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some people seem to have a specific understanding of what significant coverage means, interpreting that anything other than a biography should be discarded. I see it as being any coverage that goes beyond trivial and passing mentions. Jesse Sylvia is mentioned as winning some significant tournaments, and, to me, SIGCOV is present there. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:36, 27 June 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep international competition to qualify for worldwide tournament. Would it be more acceptable if it was labeled a "cup" or "championship", which is what it is? 2022 Men's EuroHockey5s Championship also has the governing body (International Hockey Federation) as the only reference, which can be typical on lesser known sports.
Keep Why is only this tournament nominated? That makes no sense with other regional qualifying tournaments being notable. And men's tournaments also being notable. Yes, it can do with more independent sources but qualifying tournaments are part of the international cycle for global tournaments. The Bannertalk16:09, 27 June 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It does not seem that this department of the business school is notable by itself, all references are incidental do not shown notability. Relevant information can easily be covered by the business school that it belongs to the E. J. Ourso College of Business article. This article seems to almost be a sales prospective for the department and has no general value. We could merge this with the business school, but I see little worthwhile content for merging and so I believe the best option is to delete this article. Sargdub (talk) 01:06, 20 June 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NBIO. Current sources are not independent (interview/written by subject) or are unrelated (focused on his daughter, not the subject). Other sources found online are largely passing mentions, with no coverage meeting WP:NBASIC. Previously soft deleted at AfD. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Congraph and Bloxter come up as sources, so this is more crypto-spam. I don't see this individual being covered in any RS and this reads as a fluffy resume. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the crypto section? Are you just anti-crypto or is there a Wikipedia policy against crypto? I am sure if I remove the writing section from Stephen King, his article would be fairly strange also. Adding it back. Pedestrian69 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a slew of reasons:
nothing on this guy's page establishes that he is notable in any way
the article's creation (and recreation) is a blatant undisclosed COI edit. The article was recreated this year by the same user who originally created it in 2022 who is in turn the same user who created his daughter's article, and whose edits to Wikipedia have almost exclusively been to promote Arie and Elise.
surely relatedly, it reads as self-promotion and family promotion to an extent that is frankly laughable. "Arie Trouw is the father of Elise Trouw, a noted musician. This connection adds a unique aspect to his public persona." - really!? This would be embarrassing to write in your bio even in a context where self-promotion is accepted. How did the editor - whether it was Arie or someone connected to him - possibly think it was okay to put this in a Wikipedia article?
besides a couple of tangentially relevant sources about Elise's music career, the only source cited for the article is the Arie's own website.
Blow this article away, and let's bring the editor to the COI noticeboard too. Users have complained about their COI editing in the past on his Talk page, and he's never engaged with any of the complaints. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that there is a lot of crypto hate here as self importance of personal subjective opinions about notability. Can we stick to the facts rather than ranting like [ExplodingCabbage]? What makes a business person notable? Suing Facebook for anti-trust? Creating billions of dollars in revenue? Creating thousands of jobs? Dozens of companies? Patents? Technologies? Being regularly interviewed and quoted by industry press? Or does it come down to "I have not heard of a person, and I dislike their industry, so I want to exclude historical factual data from Wikipedia"? Pedestrian69 (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting data point, which I might suggest is something Wikipedia might consider using, is that if you ask ChatGPT, "Who is Arie Trouw?" for example, it responds with something that supports notoriety (actually uses 'prominent' and the adjective when I asked it). ChatGPT is actively governed to not be used to query people who are not in the public eye, for security reasons. Thus, I would argue that ChatGPT is a better 'notoriety' checker than either you or I. Pedestrian69 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity bio. May be notable, but this article does not demonstrate it and is clearly written by someone who is not approaching the subject in a neutral manner. Sources appear to be self published, opinion pieces, trivial mentions or discussions on other matters and companies. Critically, sources actually about the article subject appears to have been written by the article subject. (Even to the extent of interviewing themselves.) Notability is also not inherited from his daughter. Plus the fact the article complete skips having a lead to summarise notability is a good indication there is little to speak of.--Escape Orbit(Talk)14:40, 26 June 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 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.
Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canon Sunter was arguably the most important incumbent of St Paul's church (now repurposed), the third, and most central, Anglican church in Adelaide. His activities were regularly reported in Adelaide newspapers, rating over 1,000 mentions on Trove, and there may be more to find, as the illustration appears to be taken from an encyclopedia or church history. Doug butler (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With all due respect to the hard-workings of Wikipedians who insist on adherence to all the Wikipedia dictates ... there's more to it when it comes to spiritual leaders. I've done a great many Hawaii articles on spiritual leaders. The ones that impress me with their Christian walk in life, are not the ones who necessarily made the headlines when alive. It's people like Alice Kahokuoluna and Father Damien who put their own safety aside to care for the helpless leprosy patients. The ones who don't impress me are the spiritual leaders who make the news, and hobnob with legislative leaders. Not to knock Wikipedia guidelines, but people putting their own lives and welfare on the line to serve others, just doesn't seem to arise in Wikipedia guidelines. — Maile (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tend to agree with the nomination. This is a rather well-sourced biography of a religious person, but I'm not sure what the notability is... He built a school, ministered to the faithful, other routine things. I suppose it would all get reported on at the time, but it's all strictly local news reporting on what the pastor was up to that week. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technical question: when the deletionists have whittled the English WP down to 1 million articles class C and above, or 2 million mid-importance or higher, how much storage space will be saved ? Doug butler (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This isn't a debate about inclusionists vs. deletionists but just whether or not the sources that can be located can establish notability. Let's focus on that here before closing this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:56, 20 June 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.
