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 apparent signs of notability for this brand of safety footwear. The only Google results are for outlets that sell the brand, and the only news results discuss the relaunch of the brand by International Brands Group after the original manufacturer went out of business. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!15:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable brand, synonymous with steel capped safety boots in UK industry for decades. There's plenty of coverage in copyright sources. All the best: RichFarmbrough15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: "plenty of coverage in copyright sources"? I'm not sure what that means. If it means that Totectors have applied for and received copyright protection for their brand, I don't see how that adds to notability. I could expand the article with notes about their acquisition, but I am loath to do so until we've evaluated whether the article merits inclusion / improvement. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!15:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It means that there is coverage which cannot be accessed by simply "Googling". For older entities there will be easily accessible material via searchable on-line archives. For more recent entities there is likely to be material that was published after the widespread adoption of the Web, which will therefore be available. The period between 1930 and about 2000 is, in some senses, the hardest era to research. All the best: RichFarmbrough16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
"Safety Footwear Goes up in Size." 2003. Works Management 56 (12): 37., about the manufacturing capacity after merging with UKS Group's footwear division
"In Full Rig.” 2003. Forestry & British Timber 32 (5): 35., about some of the safety features in their workboots
"Brand new plant planned for Totectors". 1994. Apparel International: The Journal of the Clothing and Footwear Institute Volume 25, p. 9, about moving to Rushden.
Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph says they were the first to make safety footwear in the UK,[1] that they won an award from the Professional Clothing Industry Association Worldwide,[2] and that they're part of International Brands Group (i.e., is able to verify the last sentence in the article, which is currently uncited).[3] I think that this article is the most important find, however, as it reports some recent events but also outlines the company's history in ~200 words, which easily exceeds the standard for SIGCOV proposed in Wikipedia:One hundred words.
All of this give me, at minimum, grave doubt about the claim that this is not a notable business, and I think we should keep it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep - one of the articles about the company's acquisition has a section about its history and significance in the town where it was based. [4] I also see mention of it in ''The Victoria History of the County of Northampton'' book from 1902, and various industrial journals have mentioned them -- most of them in trivial ways, but at least one referring to them as ''famous footwear''. It seems like it has marginally enough notability. WmLawson (talk) 03:28, 11 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.
Delete: First hit in Gsearch is their own website, then it's off into un-RS... The article uses primary sources now and I don't find coverage of this church. Having the fastest growing congregation in 2016 isn't terribly notable and the rest isn't helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's significant coverage in a book (see Diamond, 2003), as well as in Indianapolis Monthly. The Indy Star coverage available can support facts in the article but doesn't go toward notability because (even though some is in great depth) it's generally coverage of new locations and inclusion in "fastest growing" lists that WP:ORGCRIT excludes. Even so, the Diamond book and Indianapolis Monthly piece should cross the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the two above, but I'd like to see a lot more about the church's history than 'it started in 1834...oh it's a megachurch now' and its history needs to be seriously filled in. Nate•(chatter)21:44, 19 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: The sourcing was slightly subpar when nominated but I just added extra sources including more in-depth academic coverage of the person. I do not believe WP:NACADEMIC is the relevant criteria, as her notability comes from her being a quack and oppositional to real academics. Additionally, per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability - in addition to the sources that describe her activities in greater depth, in total RS show she's a prominent member of multiple conversion therapy groups who's been publicly advocating in multiple countries and court systems for years.
P.S. For disclosure's sake, I'd been thinking about writing an article on Grossman for a while and had the title watchlisted - last I'd checked a few months ago I thought she didn't meet GNG but I believe sources published since then have shifted the situation.
Okay, this is much better, definitely in the direction of WP:HEY. In my view, WP:NACADEMIC applies, since she appears to be primarily notable for her “research” on LGBTQ issues. But, with this additional sourcing, she may meet WP:NPERSON's basic criteria, especially now that there is more than one source of significant coverage. Melmann20:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by the nominator - Edits since the initial nomination have improved sourcing, rendering the original reasoning outdated. WP:HEYMelmann17:57, 7 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.
Most of the sources are either regional publication (mainly the Otago Daily Times), university newspapers (Critic Te Arohi) and primary-sourced YouTube video. I only see two national sources. The first I can't access, and the second is a mention of a cannabis museum but does not go into detail. ―Panamitsu(talk)05:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd give the ODT more credit than being a regional publication; it's the major newspaper covering Otago. Yes, that is a region, but you could also argue the same for The Press in Christchurch, and I would also disagree with that thinking. The sustained ODT coverage brings this over the general notability line for me. Schwede6607:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are not 'more' sources available, but the existing ones establish the subject's notability. For example, the Critic here, establish GNG. Others include Otago Times here among others. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSSM applies here: given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions— HTGS (talk)10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreed with comments above. ODT establishes notability. Student newspapers are prone to inaccuracy and errors but I suppose they might be used in this context. Alexeyevitch(talk)09:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (orredirecttoNORML New Zealand) as lacking significant non-trivial coverage. I don’t think the ODT is an unreliable source, nor do I think regional papers should be looked down on (technically all of NZ’s printed newspapers are regional), but most of the “coverage” in the article is very sparse, and neither the ODT nor the One News sources represent non-trivial coverage of the org itself, so much as coverage of various events and people where the org was mentioned (per WP:SIGCOV example on Clinton’s high school band). I have the impression the org is currently defunct or inactive. Thanks Panamitsu, I have been meaning to nominate this article for a while. — HTGS (talk)10:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the discussion of Otago Daily Times is relevant; WP:BRANCH is extremely clear that『the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area.』Every source in this article, and every source I could find in a BEFORE search, is either local to the Dunedin area or to the university itself. (The only non-local source is really about Abe Gray and a museum, not sigcov of Otago NORML.) I would encourage other editors and participants here to engage with the WP:BRANCH criteria here, since WP:ORGCRIT establishes a higher standard than WP:GNG for organizations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The rationale for deletion being presented is that, while this is a subject of multiple pieces of significant, independent, published coverage of presumed reliability, because the newspaper is not "national", this somehow invalidates the source for GNG. This is emphatically not the case. There is no requirement that a source be of national scope, period, end of statement. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:BRANCH, the organization (as a chapter of NORML) must have coverage in news outlets/sources that go beyond its region. That is where the requirement for a source of greater than regional scope is quite clear. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, BRANCH says that it needs to have coverage outside the local area (not the region). The WP:AUD section of that guideline requires only one (1) non-local source, and explicitly names a regional source as a non-local source.
(Also, the nom says there are two national sources, and two national sources + multiple regional sources = a lot more than the single non-local source required by WP:NORG.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRANCH says no standalone article "unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Otago Daily Times serves Dunedin and its local area. There is no need to wikilawyer the meaning of the term "local." There is only one national source (NZHerald) in the article, right here, and it does not even mention Otago NORML, much less provide substantial coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:42, 10 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 article has no reliable sources and is essentially an orphan with no article linking to it. This evidence suggests the article does not fall on the notability side. WolverineXI(talk to me)15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true that the article has no reliable sources: there is a link to the Chch Art Gallery website and also the publication "Ink on Paper". MurielMary (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would pass artist notability for being in the collections of two museums as shown, but there is a lack of any kind of sourcing... I don't see books, Jstor, Gscholar or a Getty ULAN listing. Even a .nz websearch doesn't turn up much of anything. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a quick draft on the Rutland Group. I deduce its focus was on printmaking. I do not have access to the book "We learnt to see :Elam's Rutland Group 1935-1958". I hope that the attendees of Wikipedia:Meetup/Christchurch/Ink on Paper meet-up and MurielMary might take a look and see if this is worth pursuing. It is fine with me if this is determined to be non-notable subject. Hoping that New Zealanders can expand it a bit. I am offering it as an alternative to deletion of May Gilbert. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this artist article was created as part of the Ink on Paper edit-a-thon. The accompanying publication in the references establishes notability. David Palmer//cloventt(talk)07:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep her inclusion in the Christchurch exhibition and accompanying book Ink on Paper is notable, and the inclusion of photographs of twelve of her works in Te Papa's collection does count for something. DrThneed (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References used are solid and enough to reach notability standards. If she wasn't notable as a New Zealand printmaker, she wouldn't have been included in a high quality and well researched book and her work would not feature in GLAM collections. Einebillion (talk) 04:40, 12 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.
Does not meet WP:GNG. Beyond lacking a title and release date, none of the available coverage is in significant depth or particularly independent, as it comprises newspapers quoting the artists directly for vague details about their upcoming collaborative project, and one article about a concert where the artists played together (but which does not mention any upcoming album). Searching online for the artists' names only turns up coverage about prior work together. As the advertised album does not list either artist as the primary artist, and neither of their biography articles discuss the upcoming project, so the usual album ATD of redirecting to the recording artist does not apply. signed, Rosguilltalk14:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So it's an un-named album, sourced from interviews, that is coming out sometime in 2024? Nothing here is meeting notability standards; interviews can't be used to show notability and the sourcing is thread-bare otherwise. I'd have put a sentence or two in each of the singers' articles and left it as a one-liner. There is nothing notable about something that might or might not happen sometime, we aren't sure when, that two guys talked about briefly. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the above discussion. It would be best to wait until further information about this album comes out. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 12 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.
Strong Keep : The article's subject is notable. Thanthi one is an airing new TV channel from Daily Thanthi Group in Tamil Nadu. They already have one channelThanthi TV. strong source from (www.dailythanthi.com, www.afaqs.com, www.medianews4u.com, cinema.vikatan.com). It deserves to be kept. in future can we add more source. This is not TV guide, only added programs broadcast by Thanthi One. Official Web (Thanthi One, Thanthi One's channelonYouTube)--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A channel could be notable; sourcing now is very PR-ish and I can't find anything better. This is written like a program guide, not appropriate for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thanthi TV The title is a viable search term, but Thanthi One is so new that it does not have notability on its own, nor do all the writeups from related media confer notability (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). A mention in Thanthi TV that a general entertainment channel was started is about all we can do right now. It's also worth noting that this channel has no original programming, merely dubbed programs produced for other entities. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an all-rerun channel and its connection to the news-heavy Thanthi TV is very tenuous at best, so I don't feel a redirect would be proper here. Nate•(chatter)01:50, 8 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.
No evidence of any notability. The BFI source which would have been useful returns a 404 error. The other from IMDB is unreliable. Searches reveal very little, certainly nothing that adds to notability. Fails WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 13:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A prior AfD discussion ended in soft delete, so I would like to get a bit more input and get firm consensus to delete or keep the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk)14:32, 12 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 The subject has had public roles over the course of his life and written “over 45 books”. Doesn’t seem like a request for deletion should be honored here. Thriley (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless better sources can be found. All the sources are from the LDS's own websites which are too close to the subject. "Over 45 books" isn't even sourced nor are any of the books listed. — Iadmc♫talk 20:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per apparent WP:BLPREQUESTDELETEand lack of notability. All non-primary sources available appear to be affiliated church publications; not seeing any secondary and independent sourcing. The number of books written is not germane to the criteria for notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 6 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.
Unsourced and very short (4 entries) list without much context. I don't think there's much reason for it to exist as its own article, as opposed to those events being described in the Penghu article. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Penghu. A brief search did not produce any sources that list these battles in this way, which means the subject is not notable. Toadspike[Talk]07:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would present something different from the above. I do see why this list existed in the first place. According to the respective article in zhwiki, the list was based on the umbrella term『澎湖四大戰役』(The Four Battles at Penghu), which I found occasional use in multiple academic journals and media articles. (For instance, a press release of Penghu County Government[5], articles from Central News Agency[6], SET News[7], Penghu Times [zh][8], and a Master thesis[9]) So I think this list actually touches on the criteria for WP:NLIST marginally. However, I do not think this term has any historical or academic significance aside from using it as a collective referral when analyzing Penghu's history and military status. These collective terms for a group of similar battles are very common and this particular one does not demonstrate too much value to fulfill WP:SALAT. Besides, three of the four battles already have their own articles, while the fourth one (The Siege of Fort Fongguei in 1624) is also an independent article on zhwiki [zh]. It is unnecessary to include summaries of these battles when there are extensive details in the main articles, and the fact that nothing much can be written in this list would result in failing WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Therefore, I think it is more than sufficient to let the listed battles have their independent articles, and the umbrella term can be mentioned within each of those independent articles, instead of having a stand-alone list that duplicates the content. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）14:05, 10 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.
Thanks. True. But it was originally broadcast on N. Sonic and N. only. And the latter does not list the series, whereas the NSonic list does (and the first is a part of the latter, fwiw). If you find a better target (Viacom 18?), consider I agree. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)11:43, 6 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 keep. In light of the new sources found. Arguments to delete the article have not addressed the new sources, which seem to counter initial concerns that there was a lack of notability. Malinaccier (talk)13:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to Keep the article as a STUB until its contents are expanded. Redirecting this article would NOT serve the purpose. Moreover, if Tata AIA Life is nominated for deletion, then TATA AIG should also be nominated for deletion since both are joint ventures between Tata Sons & foreign financial companies. Indian English Literature (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough in-depth news articles on a recent ad campaign to justify an article (though I suggest that it be merely a section, not a whole article),[17][18][19][20][21][22], and that's before we get to the 400+ hits on the company's name in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Many of those include routine coverage, but not all of them are restricted to only routine coverage. I suggest Fortune, as it's a compare-and-contrast (classic secondary source), Economic Times (detailed evaluation of company's risks and opportunities), and maybe E4M (tying their political activity to their overall branding). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 10 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 delete. I see a consensus to delete this article, especially given some of the uncertainty brought up by David Eppstein. LizRead!Talk!23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The current sources do not provide the required coverage about the subject, as they are either passing mentions, profiles, or not reliable. GSS💬10:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the criteria, a subject is considered notable if it fulfills one of the listed criteria. In this case the subject fulfills 1 or more of the WP:Academics criteria as following.
Criteria 1a: Highly Cited publications
•The subject is among top 2% of highly cited scientists according to the Stanford/Elsevier database. 1
•The subject has also high citation metrics on Google scholar. 2 Here below is the list of some scholars with equal status having Wikipedia page and lesser citations on google scholar than this subject for comparison:
Criteria 1d: The subject has served as editorial board member of known scientific journals. 678910
Criteria 1e. The subject had been selected in competitive fellowships 1112
Criteria 2: The subject has been awarded academic awards. 13
As per the criteria for academic peoples, the subject is notable enough for having separate Wikipedia page. Joidfybvc (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Joidfybvc (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Sorry, but I think you are trying to hard:
1a: None of those mentioned qualify just on h-factor. However, Djali is notable politically, Valadkhan has major awards as does Alijani.
1d: No evidence in article. In any case just being on an editorial board does not qualify as notable.
1e: All his fellowships are minor, none meet the criteria.
2: Minor awards which also don't meet notability criteria.
Weak keep: I'm not sure the academic awards are notable; his publication records seems ok. Just passing academic notability. Lots of fluff now in the article, but we can edit that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The claims made earlier that his publication record is strong are inappropriate -- his h-factor is moderate but not notable. None of his awards are major. He definitely does not pass WP:NPROF; it is not a close call, he is far below the bar. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have many researchers around the globe who are working in different fields. Only those who get coverage in reliable and secondary sources get to have an article here. I agree with both of the users above that he does not pass the threshold for notability. Keivan.fTalk21:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have never recommended that an article be rejected on the basis of their h-factor alone. I tend to look at other metrics, and in particular I look at the kinds of articles published and the rigor and selectivity of the journals that they appear in. Unfortunately, this subject's most widely cited publications are all review articles. Such work represents important contributions to the literature, but does not confer notability for our purposes here under C1 of WP:NPROF as it does not represent contributions to new knowledge. Incidentally reaching full professorships is not, by itself, sufficient to satisfy WP:NPROF - but someone who has done that often does end up meeting one or more of the six criteria, or gains notability as an author instead. Anyway, the subject does not meet the WP:NPROF standard in any of its criteria, and the article should be deleted. Qflib (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have a strong opinion on his notability, but I have some concerns instead about verifiability of the current article. It lists him as working at some institutions in Iran. A Google Scholar profile under the same name [23] describes a toxicologist who, it claims, works in the US, at Wayne State University. The only verification of this that I can find is a Wayne State poison center hotline newsletter [24] stating that they hired someone by this name last year, but he does not otherwise appear on their web site. Is the Wayne State toxicologist the same person as the Iranian toxicologist? If so, what can we verifiably say about working in the US instead of Iran now? If they are different people, is the publication record mixed up between them? I don't know, but these are the things we should be able to verify from reliable sources to have an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 10 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 but improve with better sources. I was able to find several sources: [25], [26], [27], [28], plus the organization that created the index (not independent of course). I'm not certain about the reliability of those sources—I understand Nigerian news services are often suspect—but with that much coverage I'm sure we can find sources that meet RS discussing the topic. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced article with two articles entirely about the article subject. Even if the reliance on Nigerian sources for notability were called into question, new sources added by WhatamIdoing are from WaPo and Bloomberg. Oblivy (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong is with this one. Has sources so that's good. About notability, this also seems to be fine but I can have doubts about it. Rrjmrrr (talk) 08:18, 10 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.
Why not Merge it with a merge tag instead of an AFD tag then? Still think it should be merged, it’s just a weird choice not to use the tag. Danubeball (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No support for delete, just a vague comment on merging. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Television stations meet GNG based on their publicly available license application alone. There's an SNG that explains this but its name eludes me. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:07, 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.
Weak keep. My last comment was made quite quickly, and now I had the chance to elaborate more. He participated in the following European Championships: 2021, 2022, 2023 and the following World Championships: 2021, 2023, 2024. In addition, he won a gold medal at the 2022 FIL Junior European Luge Championships which gained some attention for being Slovakia's first gold medal in that championship. None of these achievements would hold enough weight on their own, but together I think they just might do. Then there are the sources. [29][30][31][32] (less) [33] (more passing) [34]. These were some of them, partly from a news agency (and I don't understand Slovak by any means), but at least they give some biographical overview. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source #1 can't be accessed at the moment; Source #2 and #3 are duplicated from the SME one I mentioned; Source #6 looks like a blogspot. I also was wondering if you actually use a translator or try to avoid it. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆09:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources provided above don't seem to be enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines. A few more sources would do it, but I am not seeing it here. Malinaccier (talk)20:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. This protects the BLP subject, maintains page history and allows any editor with better information to improve this article when this athlete makes news. WP:SPORTSPERSON instructs that at least one reliable source must significantly cover the subject. We're not there so far. BusterD (talk) 16:59, 17 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 no consensus. I could relist this, but it does not seem like we are drawing nearer to a breakthrough that would result in a clear consensus being reached. Malinaccier (talk)20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage of her philanthropy [35], [36], [37]. Sources 2 and 3 I've listed are more about a yoga program she founded, perhaps create the article and redirect there or to the Children's Hospital in Detroit? Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: This article was tended for several years by a SPA, whose first edit was creating a detailed version of this article..consistent with a vanity page or promotion. 128.252.172.2 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UTC)
Keep – Refs need some more recent additions, as she appears from the few recent sources to be currently active, but media coverage suggests she is well enough known for people to be wanting to read about her. Older sources need presenting as historical information, not current reports about what she's doing now, for example the cringey quote about waking up each day. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:17, 12 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 is is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information, with no context. Not remotely encyclopedic. None of these alleged battles ever happened. They are medieval literary traditions, not prehistoric events, and the dates given to them are completely arbitrary. Worthless. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: agreed that this is INDISCRIMINATE and just not very useful. i'm surprised it's lasted 19+ years. ... sawyer * he/they * talk04:33, 8 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.
Thank you. I lean delete for this, if not for the fact that we have Military history of Canada, but also that the grouping of conflicts/battles are better suited as a category. I couldn't find anything off a basic google search for this grouping, but maybe there's a book or something. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still looks like there is some debate about the content of this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:48, 12 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.
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The review notes: "Here is a shocking book: an expose of the "doctrines of demons," that have crept into our churches unaware. The number and prevalence of them is so high, I can't begin to discuss these departures from truth here. Without the adequate background of historical fact which the author provides, his claims would appear outrageous. For those who are eager seekers for truth; for those of every denomination and religion who really want to know, I recommend this book. The facts it presents—well documented by Christian and Secular sources alike demand examination."
The book notes: "Babylon Mystery Religion does not have much to say about sex; it is not prurient in the most common connotation of the word. It is prurient according to the other dictionary definition in that it satisfies restless cravings many people have. They want to believe there is a dark secret to Catholicism, and they want to be let in on the secret. They want to luxuriate in horror stories, and they want their worst suspicions confirmed. Woodrow's book shows that Catholicism's success has been due not to its merits, but to influence-peddling, fortuitous events, and underhanded dealings, even violence. It demonstrates that Catholicism is really something dark and alien to Christianity—something, in fact, connected with Christianity only tangentially, not essentially. Woodrow's thesis, which is not new to him, is that Catholicism's distinctive elements have not been derived from authentic Christianity. They are not legitimate developments, but wholesale borrowings from pre-Christian cults."
The book notes: "Babylon Mystery Religion is indebted to Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, first published in 1853 and reprinted innumerable times since. In fact, Woodrow's book would not be described wrongly as a revised version of Hislop's. The argument is that things that distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism—such as the papacy, intercession of the saints, and purgatory—are really borrowings from ancient pagan religions. With sketches, photographs, woodcuts, and a host of one-liners, Woodrow attempts to show this. From Egyptian devotion to Isis, the reader is told, comes Catholic devotion to Mary, and from Buddhism comes the sign of the Cross. St. Bridget never existed, but was merely a replacement for a fertility goddess."
The book notes in a footnote: "Perhaps the most damning indictment of Hislop's The Two Babylons: The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (originally written in 1853–1858) is Ralph Woodrow's The Babylon Connection? (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1997). In 1966 Woodrow wrote Babylon Mystery Religion Ancient and Modern (Riverside, Calif.: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1966), a reworking of Hislop's book. After some time passed, Woodrow did further study and saw that Hislop's book was seriously flawed and historically untenable. "As I [studied]," Woodrow admits,『it became clear—Hislop's 'history' was often only mythology. Even though myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities—why anything could be 'proved'!』(from www.amazon.com). Woodrow then wrote The Babylon Connection? and admitted the errors of his first book. For a Catholic critique of both Hislop and Woodrow see Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 68–69, 159–63, 219–24."
The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "More than likely, Jenkins got the name from the title of an old, rabidly anti-Catholic book, Ralph Woodrow's Babylon Mystery Religion (1966)."
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.
Speedy Keep Per WP:SKCRIT #2 and #3. An "obviously frivolous or vexatious nomination" and a nomination which is "completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided." AusLondonder (talk) 17:38, 11 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 no consensus. After two relists, editors remain divided and unconvinced about whether or not sourcing is of sufficient depth. signed, Rosguilltalk13:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An IP that added "Delete per WP:NCORP" to 3 AFDs in 2 minutes. I think the chance that the closing admin places weight on these posts is approximately zero. Geschichte (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on present citations and also have found these additional citations Insider Monkey, Seeking Alpha, itweb, and The Street. It should be noted that this is a publicly listed company on NASDAQ and there are more news articles in Google under its current name and old name "Net 1 UEPS." Hkkingg (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hkkingg, Seeking Alpha and TheStreet are, as I understand it, generally considered group blogs, not RS, and as far as I can tell Insider Monkey seems to be the same. Is there any specific reason not immediately obvious you believe those sources meet the criteria? (itweb seems to be a WP:CORPROUTINE announcement as well) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about this one. Simply Wall Street has a detailed analysis of the company's stock performance,[38] and this article (the second half) has important facts about the company (e.g., "3,300 employees in five African countries"), but there are so many press releases in the search results that it's hard to tell what's useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 10 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 Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The sources are almost entirely from DJ Mag which is a single source.
Wikilover3509 (talk) 7:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I can only find tutorials on how to use the software, nothing about critical reviews or discussions in RS. None of the sources in the article now are RS, some appear to be PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 12 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.
Comment: An IP that added "Delete per WP:NCORP" to 3 AFDs in 2 minutes. I think the chance that the closing admin places weight on these posts is approximately zero. Geschichte (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the previous AFDs, this discussion can not be closed as "Soft Deletion". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:17, 5 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.
Merge and redirect to Matt Fellowes: There is quite an important thing to keep about this company and I will say we merge and redirect it to the founder Matt Fellowes. The career section or being a new section is good to go. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!07:16, 6 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.
Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago may well be a thing, but I struggle to see where this article even addresses it. It is written like an essay and attempts to divine nationalism from an arbitrary selection of social and cultural issues, apparently with mostly irrelevant sourcing. For example source [3] is attached to the claim that calypso music is a form of Trinbagonian nationalism... the source, besides not really being an RS, says nothing of the sort. The dispute with Barbados should more properly be in Barbados-Trinidad and Tobago relations and the entire "Evolution" section, besides mostly being SYNTH, has content that should really be in LGBT rights in Trinidad and Tobago.
There is no RS that unifies these disparate topics - Trinbagonian culture, the dispute with Barbados, and LGBT rights - into a single topic about nationalism in the country. Thus, in my view, the article should be deleted. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 06:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decisive keep - "Trinibagonian nationalism" obviously passes GNG from the first page of google results[1][2][3] and would likely have even more material across WPLibrary or other databases, nomination fails BEFORE and NOTCLEANUP. Even stubification seems extreme, the bit on the history of the country could easily stay if its just renamed to "Background" or something of the sort; Seeking independence from another country is going to involve some amount of nationalistic thinking no matter what, that just falls under SKYISBLUE. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the existence of the subject can already be established through RS then whether an additional source specifically refers to the subject by name or not becomes a question of due weight, not verification. The point of a background section is to summarize plainly relevant information from parent topics, why shouldn't such information be present across multiple articles if it is relevant to all of them? Orchastrattor (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable topic based on the sources and books in the article. The problems raised by the nominator can be addressed through editing. SportingFlyerT·C17:32, 8 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.
This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are all primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. Her one-year tenure in an apparently quickly cycling sub-national (canton) government body doesn't add anything to make this subject notable. Other than the Mont Pelerin Society which she led for a while, none of her other orgs are actually notable; see their AfD discussions. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:56, 5 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 particular claim to notability is in regards to finding a more specific criterion than GNG. Where are the multiple independent (unrelated to the subject) reliable sources providing significant coverage? JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is the one Telegraph article, but everything else that I find is non-independent. I find only a few academic articles and the citation counts are low (barely double and often single digits, one at 166 cites). Lamona (talk) 02:13, 16 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.
Let's start by ignoring the WP:ITSUNREFERENCED claim by the nom, since that's one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This is a difficult subject to research because this report indicates that there are two organizations with the same name and similar views, which makes finding sources more challenging than usual. Also, it's Swiss, so you really need to search under four different names (German, French, Italian, and English). This is time-consuming, so it's not surprising that people might do a cursory search, find nothing, and give up.
One of the five is plainly the subject's website in the French WP. I'll do my best to look into the others. I'm open to withdrawing my nomination if it's clear to me or to a consensus that the coverage is in-depth. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked at the sources in the French article [39] is an interview with a minimal description of the institute, this is about a prize given out/details on the winner [40]. The German ones I'm unable to translate as they block access while at work, might have to review at home later... Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked on the sources that appear on the francophone wiki and they appear to be passing mention; the Wilhelm Röpke award appears in a secondary source, but itself does not appear to be a major award. But quality wise, that source may come closest to in-depth coverage as far as fr wiki goes. JFHJr (㊟) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weka keep: Probably enough for a basic article about this institute, in addition to the sources I explained above, [41] describes their work, but it's a few lines only. This book talks about them [42]Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything approaching SIRS here -- a couple sentences parroting the org's self-description in one book is not enough to count towards NORG, let alone meet it. The main de.wp news source is a report on an event/speaker that the institute helped organize at a university, its only coverage is a one-sentence description and some info relayed by its director, so it handily fails SIRS. The other de.wp source is non-independent as it was written by a disgruntled former member. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very easy to find new sources on this one. Will get started, there's plenty of German and English-language secondary sources which are admissible as evidence of notability as per Wikipedia policy language is not a factor in whether a source can be used.Wickster12345 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are academic secondary sources where the Liberales Institut and its work have been profiled and NOT just mentioned in passing. I have included some and will continue adding. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The texts you added are a primary research paper, the findings of which are not DUE and whose only secondary coverage of LI is Outside the UK, the next oldest organization included in our analyses is Liberales Institut (LI), established in Zurich, Switzerland in 1979. A declared follower of the Austrian School of Economics,, which is far from SIGCOV; and findings from a conference co-organized by LI (not independent). Neither of these counts toward SIRS. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree on both points.
1.There is no evidence the findings from the conference co-organized by LI (which is not the publisher either) were themselves made by someone with LI affiliation him or herself. Whether there is evidence showing this author's affiliation with Liberales Institut is what matters here. There is no such evidence. One can go to and report on a conference without being a member of the organization or even supporting the organization in any concrete way. If you can provide evidence sufficiently tying LI to the author, then I take it back.
2. The secondary coverage of LI goes way beyond the line you just reproduced. The entire article can be argued to be secondary coverage because it is filled with analysis, graphs and comparisons of LI with other Euro think tanks, without explicitly invoking the name "Liberales Institut". The fact that LI is notable enough to be analyzed and scrutinized in-depth in an independent secondary source (which happens to be an academic source) means it is notable. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:JoelleJay, one more thing, in dismissing the one current German-language source with the "disgruntled ex-member" (I would dispute this characterization by the way) as not independent, in my my opinion we are committing a textbook version of the mistake of "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.'" from Wikipedia:Independent_sources. Liberales Institut is not a company and Kohler is not gaining in any way from publishing criticism, in and of itself, outside of, maybe a sense of being right. I recall reading the essay and it never seemed like Kohler wanted to hurt LI's financial interests or existence, it seems more like he became ideologically disenchanted and explained why, which is fair game and notable coverage if one of Switzerland's main magazines picks it up. ''Wickster12345 (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kohler is not independent of the institute, therefore what he says about it does not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter what type of relationship he had with it or how neutral his coverage of it is; the attention he gives to LI does not demonstrate that it is a subject of significant interest to people with zero affiliation with the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my reading of Wikipedia policy that I just quoted and explained for you: Yes the type of relationship the author of a source has with the subject matters very much because the question is about Kohler's "personal gain" by discussing the subject, which you have not, with sufficient evidence explained how has any personal skin in the game. He has no personal vested interest just by virtue of being an ex-members. If he were Head of a rival institute then, I think you may have a point. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, "personal gain" is not the only reason we require sources to be completely independent of the topics they cover in order to count towards notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.
there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.
Kohler is clearly affiliated, his article is therefore clearly not evidence of attention that is uninfluenced by anyone with a connection to LI. Independence is also not determined by whether some editor thinks a source would profit from covering a topic, it is established by the actual relationship an author has with the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m happy to go into why I feel the policy you reproduced in fact strengthens the argument for inclusion, but I feel it is moot with the addition of the NZZ article, please see my statement below by this is in fact an independent source. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's one, what are the others (again independent and unrelated) that provide in-depth coverage? It's not just one, it's multiple required. JFHJr (㊟) 04:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this. you mentioned: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." The fact is Kohler, as one of the unsigned posters I believe hinted at (although I may have misunderstood their overall point), was no longer affiliated with LI at the time of writing his article. There is no temporal definition of "affiliation" with a subject per WP so we should not assume to impose a supposed 'common-sense' temporal understanding (you're de facto saying Kohler is forever affiliated just because he once was a leading member of LI) of affiliation in this case. I believe in lieu of a WP definition of how much time needs to have been elapsed for Kohler not be considered affiliated with LI we should probably assume him unaffiliated making the source count because it was published otherwise independently. That's like saying Obama commenting on a little-known policy of Trump's in an independent policy journal cannot count towards that policy having received independent, significant coverage, because Obama had the same job as Trump and was in some of the same circles. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem to me looks like no unrelated source or sources in combination satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH for depth or WP:GNG for significance. To get there, editors appear to rely on publications by parties that are not unrelated. A glance at the current number of sources does not make the problem quite apparent. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just found another article in the major independent Swiss daily newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (a different newspaper than the source covering the ex-member Kohler's view) covering the Liberales Institut in-depth (from 2004). I used the NZZ archive tool (- Archiv (nzz.ch)). It's now cited in the article. I think at this point, at the very least, notability and independence have been established. I actually disagree with you that all the other already existing sources fail the two policies you mention, but I think that disagreement is moot now. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source is an interview with the LI's Robert Nef, it is listed here on his website's list of his publications and the full transcript is here. It is not an independent or secondary source and does not count toward NCORP/GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JoelleJay's characterization here. And I hope the closing admin takes into account the better reasoned conclusions over simply conclusory characterizations. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I almost expected you might go to his website (not a criticism just an observation) as opposed to accessing the NZZ archive. If you read the ORIGINAL NZZ article there is a section in the same page which gives an in-depth history of the LI. So I think you’re mistaken and selectively focusing on the part of the NZZ page that you can access through Nef’s website alone. I’m happy to send you the original if you want. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just figured out the email link system :) . One cannot send attachments via email link I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong. The article is on the NZZ archives which you can alternately subscribe to. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the closing admin defers to the Wikipedia policy and codified notion of consensus which, so far, as I write this, is NOT clearly in favor deletion, cheers Wickster12345 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, The criteria are met, 2 good secondary sources. Subject has press attention and independent media (never heard of these Swiss (?) newspapers but are kinda independent and authoritative) coverage. I've been studying lots of deletion discussions on here and I finally got the confidence to get involved in one :)...Based on other discussions I've seen on here interviews with people affiliated with a subject doesn't disqualify the source for showing notability if the interviews are published in independent sources and are not promotional. Re the Kohler source: I dont see anywhere on Wikipedia anybody defining how long ago an affiliation has to be for a source to gain independt status so by default im gonna say lack of formal affiliation at time of publication is enough. Peace folkss 2601:640:8A02:3C40:D996:AFF9:6B1F:E0FA (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually 3-4 qualifying sources, although I tendentially agree with your arguments. As a side note: I do not agree that studying deletion discussions as precedent is the best way to learn, by the way, as the dynamic of every deletion discussion is different. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This "institute" seems to go by a variety of different names, most notably the various German conjugations of "Liberales Institut" (liberalem, liberale, liberalen), as well as the more specific "Liberalen Institut in Zürich". I found this highly critical article [43], which is far beyond what's needed for SIGCOV. I'm certain this is the same institute: It was founded in Zurich in 1979 and has a strong "liberal" bent (btw, in Switzerland "liberal" is equivalent to "right-wing" or "conservative" in other countries).
Searching for NZZ articles in PressReader, I've found an article covering a "study" they produced that criticizes Swiss agricultural import policy and this article titled "Kein Wettbewerb beim Geld" that I can't find elsewhere online about an event they held in 2010. There are also reviews of several books they have published, e.g. [44][45][46][47], the last of which briefly comments on the institute itself. The NZZ is a liberal newspaper, but is highly reputable, so I don't think that bias should be considered disqualifying here. There are also brief mentions in SRF that two notable people are members [48][49], and PressReader shows three hits in Le Temps which I cannot view without a subscription. Toadspike[Talk]17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search at E-newspaperarchives.ch [50] returns 101 results, some of which are advertisements or false positives, but many are clearly articles about this subject. The paywalls are a pain, though. Toadspike[Talk]17:33, 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.
The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this sorted in the Romania-related discussions? Some of the production companies involved are Spanish/German/French but I see no participation of Romanian actors or producers. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)11:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I'm not sure whether it should be kept and converted to an article (e.g., adding paragraphs and sources), kept as a WP:SETINDEX, or converted to a WP:DAB page. But I don't think overall that we solve any problems by deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, last hope for some more participation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the series is a loose one, the miniseries that are part of the set are all RAI productions and seem to be part of the same project indeed. I favour a keep, as the page helps navigation as a disambiguation page does. I would rename it but not sure how, because most of the "films" were broadcast as miniseries... Imperium (miniseries series) would be a terrible name! Imperium (TV productions)? Sources would not hurt either. Would redirect and merge to/into Imperium (disambiguation) be a suitable WP:ATD?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)11:29, 12 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:NLIST. Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. Some character articles like Sarah Jane Smith are notable but does not support having a list about every character in the series, which do not have significant coverage as required by WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MergetoThe Sarah Jane Adventures. The problem here is less notability, but more size. The list can likely have the bulk of its content merged into the cast list already in the article given the bulk of characters here are at least decently recurring. This feels like it was dropped partway through, since the only characters beyond the significant recurring characters are minor characters from the first episode exclusively. If this does survive, it needs a major TNT/overhaul, but personally I don't see a reason for this to exist just based off of size reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename, or mergetoThe Sarah Jane Adventures. I am not convinced the split into cast and minor characters is beneficial. So I could imagine keeping and renaming this into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters, and include brief descriptions and links to the cast characters, most of whom have their own articles. Seems helpful to me for navigation. With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I question if it makes any sense to try to divorce conventional fiction works from the characters. What would they be without the characters? Of course there still needs to be enough material in secondary sources to write anything. Still, if one wanted to ask for secondary sources specifically discussing the charactersofThe Sarah Jane Adventures, Dancing with the Doctor discusses them at various places, as does the book mentioned above and others. So even if one wanted to ask for notability of characters as opposed to the series as such, that would still be fullfilled. All that said, I don't have an overview how much the secondary sources in total have to say on characters other than the main cast (and how incomplete the current list is with regards to what Pokelego999 mentioned), so I cannot say if a stand-alone article or a merge would be best in the long run, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. Daranios (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or Merge? No support so far for deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best belong to Fandom, don't anybody think? (Nothing wrong with it though, I frequent visit that site) Serves to nobody but to the most ardent fans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to point out that a list of this is useful for Fandom. Still, whats makes a list of minor characters worthy of a standalone list when most lists of characters are about characters with significant roles, hence my point. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reiterate my stance that this should be kept as the best place to cover characters that are individually non-notable. I have seen no compelling reason why this list of elements of an undisputedly notable show should be redirected or deleted. No objection to combining with other character articles (or abstracting from them) to form a more traditional List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters per WP:SS. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect No indication that people have discussed the characters of this show as a group, and we should not have a list of specifically minor characters for any show. Just because we can have a character list does not mean we should. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:05, 12 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:FILMMAKER. The majority of sources either aren't independent or
provide only a passing mention. I found two sources that may contribute to notability ([51][52]). I am not 100% sure about the reliability of the latter source. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Variety piece is more of an interview with the subject than an article about him. Rest is rather non-helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 29 May 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.
Delete: The article author responded to the 2012 PROD by adding 2 online reviews, which we can see now thanks to the Wayback Machine. Both the LAFCPUG (Feb 2005) and Luminous Landscape (Sept 2005) items are informed 3rd party reviews, which might contribute to notability under the WP:NSOFT essay's criterion 3. However I don't think either these or anything else now retrievable is sufficient to demonstrate that this was more than one among several such products. AllyD (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:20, 29 May 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 there have been recent updates, but unsourced updates about competitions such as Mister Tourism World (which are redlinks) do not engender confidence. Due to the potential of WP:BLP violations, this should be blown up per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Article has been PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:18, 29 May 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 he company has significant notability within the jewelry industry, evidenced by extensive coverage in reputable sources such as industry publications and mainstream media. Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about the company's history, product offerings, and impact on the market that meets gng --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A week later and no response ... comment such as "within the jewellry industry" seems to me to indicate that it is a niche company and "extensive coverage in reputable sources" and "the article contains verifiable information" indicated a lack of knowledge of the GNG/WP:NCORP notability criteria. HighKing++ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: if you are arguing to Keep this article, please share source that can be used to establish notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the many JCK articles mentioning the company were SIGCOV and independent (they are not), this would still only count as one niche industry source, not the multiple pieces of SIRS coverage in broader media. The lack of anything outside press releases and announcements from affiliated groups suggests NORG cannot be met. JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 15 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 most definitely does not pass GNG. This is exactly the sort of BLP our policies are intended to prevent. It’s essentially a promotional profile for a party official based on passing mentions and his relationships with people who are actually notable in our terms. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't seem like a promotional, with many relatives, it was reflected in the scholar's family, the person holding the posts of the largest legally functioning Islamic youth organization in India. and He is a member of the family circle of Prophet Muhammad in India(Sayyid ) Spworld2 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would help to get a review or analysis of existing sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - prominent IUML leader, which is clear from a quick google search. Take for example "Accompanied by prominent leaders such as KPCC president K Sudhakaran, Ramesh Chennithala, P K Kunhalikutty, and Panakkad Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal, Rahul Gandhi will formally submit his nomination papers to Wayanad District Collector Renu Raj at her office in Kalpetta." (India Today). Here is a news story on Wahhabi leaders condemning Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal. Here seen speaking at a conference (have a look at crowd size at 01:01). Clearly a notable public figure by any means. --Soman (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being a party leader does not guarantee notability according to WP:NPOL. There's not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Everything is mostly trivial mentions. CFA💬21:58, 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.
Keep. It is true that the present article is very poorly sourced (I am not sure about the datedness but willing to take the nominator's word for it). However, the content looks to me like it's all true and sourceable in principle. Indeed, it's clear that this is a notable topic: there were major changes to the structure of New York State's mathematics courses and exams in the last 25 years, and they received widespread coverage at the time. For example, here's one article about the 2007 change to Algebra-Geometry-Algebra 2 [68], here's an article about aligning math requirements to Common Core, and here's an article about one particular administration of an exam that spends several paragraphs discussing various changes to state policies over time, as in the article we're discussing. These various changes described in our article were mostly specific to New York State, making Mathematics education in the United States an unacceptable merge/redirect target, and I see no advantage to merging them into an article about Regents exams in general (better would be links out from that article to separate articles on the various subject areas it covers, when there is sufficient sourcing to permit that). --JBL (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this proposal/question; what content do you want to merge where, and rename what to what? --JBL (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The text needs citation and probably cleaning, but it's not beyond repair, and the topic is an encyclopedic one. Redirecting to the Regent Examinations would be a bad move, because math education is more general than just the Regent Exams in algebra and geometry (for example), and likewise, they have Regent Exams on topics other than mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely a notable and encyclopedic topic, even if the article is extremely out of date and in poor shape. I'd rather see somebody improve it than have it deleted as cleanup. Malinaccier (talk)01:44, 19 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.
Strong keep She is a recognized indigenous poet who is widely cited by her peers and in a range of media. The article is poor in content and needs significant work. NealeWellington (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable poet whose work has been covered in academic journals and books. Yes, the article needs work but that's not a reason to delete.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:08, 5 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.
I'll admit that I'm a bit unsure about this article. There are a lot of citations in the article, but all of them are routine and/or match reports. There seems to be little or no WP:SIGCOV here. Anwegmann (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Decent coverage in local media, even though it is from a not very popular football center, the article seems sufficiently based. Svartner (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. There seems to be a lot of match reports in the mix, though, and little of substance. That said, I'm still unsure about the article as a whole. Thanks for the vote. Anwegmann (talk) 22:07, 31 May 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.
Years ago this term was circulated once on social media by right wing trolls, but there is no significant coverage of this non-notable term in any reliable sources. Ratnahastin(talk)02:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Internet celebrity. Although, that seems to have a potential move afoot to rename it "Influencer". IMO, "Influencer" and "Adarsh Liberal" have a lot in common - they're both flash terminology of the moment, used to define any number of personalities. — Maile (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sustaining coverage, just another Twitter war only cared about by a small group of people who need to go outside. Nate•(chatter)20:37, 19 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.
If coverage is "mainly" local, then it is "at least one non-local", which is all that AUD requires. This appears to be a community foundation, and my inclination is to merge it into MetroWest (=the geographical area it serves). We probably could find sources to demonstrate separate notability, especially since one of the already-cited sources is about "National Recognition For Rigorous Philanthropic Standards", but I think that merging it up will help people understand its purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Boston Globe article was the best thing I could find. It's less about the organization and more based on the subject of the organization's report. I think if there was more of this type of coverage, you could make an argument for the article, but all the other news coverage is routine press releases about board members and local newspapers. I am not in favor of merging as it is not clear how much information there is to enhance the target article. Would it just be one sentence about the existence of one particular charitable organization? Malinaccier (talk)02:03, 19 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.
Withdrawn by the nominator - Edits since the initial nomination have improved sourcing, rendering the original reasoning outdated. WP:HEYMelmann 17:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. NLeeuw (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
