| 1 | - 'Sadanandan Rangorath: Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 11:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , India , and Kerala . The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 11:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 11:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since subject fails WP:GNG . Invocations of WP:NCREATIVE are erroneous: An "important figure"? "Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? "Created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? His "work has become a significant monument? "No" to all. - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This could have been closed as no consensus but I figure another week is okay to see if we at least get a little more participation Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i Let's talk! 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The references seem to be adequate. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - Considering the references; seems to marginally pass the criteria! Ekdalian ( talk ) 13:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - agree with Mushy Yank on WP:NCREATIVE ; at least 1 of those questions listed by The Gnome could be answered with "Yes" since the work has its own article on Wikipedia, demonstrating notability for the purposes here. There also seems to be some negative press https://onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/aashiq-abu-sidharth-bharathan-warns-film-aspirants-stay-away-lucsam-sadanandan/ , https://onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/salt-n-pepper-producer-lucsam-sadanandan-rangorath-accused-of-cheating-rs-4-lakhs/ regarding the subject which could be added to the article. - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:19, 30 August 2023 (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.'
- 'Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights: I've searched for reviews on Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and School Library Journal, as well as general searches on Google and Google Scholar, and haven't found any sources to meet notability guidelines. I would suggest redirecting to the author's page ( A.J. Healy ), at least for now. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 02:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to author as suggested. The only thing I found in Wikipedia Library was a routine book announcement in Publishers' Weekly: "Tommy Storm debuts with Tommy Storm and Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights by A.J. Healy ($8.99 each, 9-12)." Definitely no NBOOK in sight. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 06:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Change to Keep per Cunard's excellent finds below, which give us the 2+ reviews we need for NBOOK1. Thanks, too, for adding material from these to the article! (Also, on reflection, a better alternative to deletion would have been a merge to Tommy Storm , but that's beside the point now.) ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 23:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: 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. Sources "A right royal a scandal" . Sunday Mercury . 2009-10-18. Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 . Retrieved 2024-01-27 . The review notes: "The second book in the series from Irish writer AJ Healy starts just after Tommy and his four knight friends have been captured by gangster Nack Jikilson - and when they escape he follows them across the galaxy. ... Tommy Storm is not a particularly likeable character, and although this book is riddled with intelligent crossreferences meant to amuse, it just comes across as though it's trying too hard to impress. Billed as a comedy adventure, it's not that funny and the adventure is confusing. However, being confusing means that it's unpredictable to the end, and it is heart-warming in parts." Thompson, Mary Shine (2009-11-14). "Gems of gloom and global warming". Irish Times . ProQuest 309197507 . The review notes: " Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights (Quercus, £6.99) is a sequel (but of course) to Tommy Storm, and its narrator helpfully advises readers that they can skip the generous footnotes and information boxes. The book is crammed with characters with names such as A-Sad-Bin-Liner and the kind of smart-alec ripostes, puns (there's a Straddlevarious violin) and exclamations that many youngsters find hilarious. You will get the drift if I tell you that Tommy and Co outwit a monster and mount an offensive against chocolate terrorists to save the universe." The author's website Internet Archive notes: "The Sunday Tribune included Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights in its Top-Ten list of "the best crossover reads" - being "books that parents can sneak a look at while the kids are doing their homework. Fables that work on one level for kids, and on a mythic level for adults. Books that engage on the kind of emotional plane that some adult novels can only aspire to. And so, in the wake of the Potter and Twilight sagas, here are 10 of the best books to get all ages squabbling this Christmas over who gets to read them first. " Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights is, they say, "an enjoyable romp, full of fizz and humour. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tommy Storm and the Galactic Knights to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 12:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard's sources. Toughpigs ( talk ) 00:34, 28 January 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.'
- 'Northwestern Europe: Already removed a lot of bogus sources that were nothing more than googling for a term and then citing whatever comes up, ignoring context, disregarding inconsistencies in an uncritical pursuit of confirming one's own beliefs . Most additions were done by now-blocked User:Madreterra (blocked for.... "persistent addition of unsourced content)". My prod was deprodded by Necrothesp , who thought it needs to go for a full AfD, so here it is. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Europe . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwestern Europe now also in AfD for similar reasons. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree, WP:OR WP:SYNTH are both applicable to this article. Conceptually I can see how a wiki page on Northwestern Europe could be defensible and a great page, but in its current form this isn't close to that. Vote delete WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 17:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there is no solid conceptual ground either, because the term is only used sparingly, in wildly different contexts, and everyone defines it ad hoc , for the purposes of whatever story they want to tell, or whatever research they want to do, or whatever graph they want to show. There is no long-term commitment to "Northwestern Europe" as an enduring concept and analytical category in the sources that I checked, and therefore no commitment to defining it consistently. In other words: everyone makes it up as they go along, and this article is an arbitrary sample of people making definitions up as they go along. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 17:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS: My edit summaries may help explain just how random and SYNTH it all is. As I noted, most references are a URL which is literally someone typing in the words "northwestern europe is defined as" into Google Books, clicking on whatever looks cool, copypasting the URL into this page and then thinking they've "proven" something, disregarding contradictions and context. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 17:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to Regions of Europe . Reviewing the sources, it seems some don't even use the term "Northwestern Europe", and in others they use a lowercase "northwestern Europe", using simple compass directions in a brief usage without defining a specific region. Perhaps Nordic race should have more relevant geographic discussion with those sources, but I agree that this article seems like synthesis because there's not much discussion of the region as a whole and how it may be consistently described. The ethnographic definitions seem like broad generalizations that are rarely consistent with geography. One can make directional references to any place with one's own definition, but without more established meaning than pointing out the obvious of what "northwest" and "europe" mean, or finding more in-depth and universal discussion, I don't see the need for this. Reywas92 Talk 18:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My thoughts exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 18:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium , Denmark , France , Germany , Iceland , Ireland , Luxembourg , Netherlands , Norway , Sweden , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but improve. Looking at other Wiki articles, it appears to be quite specifically defined by the EU as a development region, in addition to its rather looser cultural definitions. So although it may be poorly sourced and written, my sense is that it definitely worth a topic as a geographical area tightly defined by a major international body and also, more loosely, but nonetheless meaningfully by historians, geographers and other specialists. Bermicourt ( talk ) 21:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it appears to be quite specifically defined by the EU as a development region What do you base that on? The European Union is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Norway, the UK (unfortunately), and Switzerland are not even in the EU. How is the EU supposed to define a set of countries a "development region" if it has no jurisdiction over half of them? Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 21:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] RE: [The development region] is not mentioned anywhere in the article . It is now . Guliolopez ( talk ) 01:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So "North-West Europe" is an interreg comprising "Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, the Netherlands and parts of France and Germany." As I suspected this excludes Iceland, Faroe Islands, Norway, UK, but also Sweden and Denmark, and "parts of France and Germany", and also Switzerland. Completely different from the given definition and map. Starting to think this should be a DP if anything. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 06:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . And remove or cleanup the OR/SYNTH. Based on the sources returned in my own WP:BEFORE (some of which I've added to the article ), it seems that the topic (the term) has notability and a breadth of coverage in geographic, history, military and other works. While, per the nom, the article has become a COATRACK for OR, SYNTH and editorial on ethnographic and genetic content (neither section being, to my read and per the notes in the nom, supported by the linked sources), those issues can be addressed without deletion . Guliolopez ( talk ) 01:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate your improvements. As noted above, I'm starting to think this is going to become a list of definitions about different things rather than an article. But even if we were to make this a DP, I'm afraid all entries would fail WP:GNG . E.g. interreg#Strand B: transnational cooperation shows these are temporary programmes. Interreg North Sea Programme is the only one with a standalone article and I'm not sure it meets GNG either. If it does, and this NWE programme as well, then this whole article must be renamed and rescoped and purged to fit the interreg project, otherwise it is still a WP:COATRACK . Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 06:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've removed more SYNTHed and UNSOURCED stuff that were reductionist generalisations about religion and language families. Simplistic attempts to cast "Northwestern Europe" as "Germanic" and "Protestant" seem like ethnolinguistic pan-nationalist ideas, and are probably the reason why " Germanic-speaking Europe " and " White Anglo-Saxon Protestant " were included in the See also section. I had already removed the latter as being too tangentially connected, but we should probably be removing the former as well. Given that the purported region is home to millions of speakers of Romance, Uralic, Celtic, Turkic, Semitic and other non-Germanic language families, as well as being home to millions of Catholics, atheists/agnostics/humanists, Muslims, and other non-Protestants, such generalisations really don't pass the pub test . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 08:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm considering either declaring this an unnecessary content fork or a valid entity discussed in academic literature. Awaiting further comments. Draken Bowser ( talk ) 07:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's a real geography, supported by WP:SIGCOV quality sources, just lesser used. WP should absolutely also carry and discuss these. In other cases, nominator addresses the WILD GROWTH of articles around such geographies, organizations or ethnicities, nominations I support. Here he is questioning whether we should keep the core in such cases. According to WP:NEXIST , we should. No concern here of WP:OR , WP:SYNTH , or WP:COATRACK beyond minor stuff that can be removed in simple cleanup. And WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP ! The concept is out there, recognized, just not that frequently used in comparison to other subdivisions of Europe. gidonb ( talk ) 13:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources: Europe; Volume II: the North-West: Stanford's Compendium of Geography and Travel. Chisholm, Geo. G. Published by Edward Stanford, London, 1902. Monkhouse , Francis J. The Geography of Northwestern Europe. New York: Praeger, 1966. 528p. Boesch, H., Monkhouse, F. J. (1967) The Geography of Northwestern Europe. Economic Geography, 43 (4). 369pp. doi:10.2307/143256 North Western Europe: A Systematic Approach. Morris, Joseph Acton. UK: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1973. ISBN 9780174440307 gidonb ( talk ) 02:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - indeed real geography per WP:SIGCOV quality sources. BabbaQ ( talk ) 13:45, 20 August 2023 (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.'
|
| 3 | - 'Dead Hendrix : Started in 2020 and I see no charted music, albums release on major record labels, or significant coverage. There is a good article in The Source but one article is not enough to establish notability. CNMall41 ( talk ) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Music , and Canada . CNMall41 ( talk ) 08:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - This is a reluctant vote because the rapper surely has an overactive hype team swamping the internet with promotional junk like how he's "taking over" (e.g. [2] ). But he has gotten some real notice from reliable magazines, including The Source (already cited), which contrary to the nominator's statement, is not the only one out there and is instead just the only one currently in the article. Here are some more appearances in the reliable or semi-reliable music media: [3] , [4] ; while the collab with Levi Zadoff has gotten a fair amount of attention: [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] . It's quite early in his career and coverage is limited to just a couple of releases, but he may have enough for a stub article here under a lenient reading of WP:SIGCOV . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK
|
| 0 | - "Matt Hannaford: much of the article seems to be either original research, or things Matt has been only involved with tangentially (like stars his coworkers at the company represented). this could be improved if the article met WP:BIO , but even that seems doubtful. Free Realist 9 ( talk ) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sportspeople . Free Realist 9 ( talk ) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions . Let'srun ( talk ) 22:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:44, 25 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."
- "Vishwapriya Nagar: No sources in the article and no reliable sources could be found. Broc ( talk ) 11:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India . Broc ( talk ) 11:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . One (unreliable) source from youtube but that too shows that the content is unavailable. Absence of sources makes this article fail wp:n . RangersRus ( talk ) 13:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails to meet WP:NGEO - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 06:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my mind. This doesn't meet NGEO, but as an AtD, it can be Redirect ed to Bangalore . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 02:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ...where Vishwapriya Nagar is not mentioned. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 14:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I don't think it should be redirected, there is no mention of this neighborhood anywhere. I know redirects are cheap, but they should be meaningful too. -- Broc ( talk ) 19:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete Neighborhoods and the like should not be redirected to enclosing geography unless there is meaningful discussion of them, and in this case the target article doesn't mention neighborhoods at all. Mangoe ( talk ) 20:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no need to redirect - this is OR, and will live on in its Kannada incarnation. Llajwa ( talk ) 21:06, 26 January 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."
- "Golam Rabby: Also, it doesn't have WP:SIGCOV that could pass WP:GNG . — MdsShakil ( talk ) 12:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Journalism , and Bangladesh . — MdsShakil ( talk ) 12:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom. Doesn't pass GNG as it lacks significant coverage. PhilKnight ( talk ) 16:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There seems to be No Reliable Sources. Untamed1910 ( talk ) 14:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not notable. Llajwa ( talk ) 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Doesn't pass WP:GNG . -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 20:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom Devokewater
|
| 2 | - 'Timeline of Bharat Jodo Yatra: Bharat Jodo Yatra exists, and there's no reason for timeline to exist other than as "dumping content". Last merge discussion was opposed and ended in No consensus with the only reasoning being it was "written with effort" Soni ( talk ) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India . Soni ( talk ) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy link to previous merge discussion . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 05:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Merge to Bharat Jodo Yatra . I do not see why timeline needs to have a separate page when timeline segment is included in Bharat_Jodo_Yatra#Timeline . This page is WP:CFORK . RangersRus ( talk ) 14:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, I think even that timeline section probably breaks WP:NOTNEWS and needs to be removed, refactored or otherwise severely reduced. But that's another discussion for Talk:Bharat Jodo Yatra Soni ( talk ) 07:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge Not a political student but there's already a Schedule section in Bharat Jodo Yatra . I don't think it needs its own page for a timeline, as it could be effectively merged into the Bharat Jodo Yatra page. Based Kashmiri ( talk ) 06:50, 19 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.'
- 'Captain Miller (soundtrack): Five singles were released from the film and nothing else. The music section at Captain Miller (film) should certainly suffice. J04n ( talk page ) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India . J04n ( talk page ) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Captain Miller (film) . I think the nominator is correct about what went wrong in the first AfD last week. There are indeed plenty of sources but they are about individual songs that have emerged from the film. None indicate that this collection of songs will be released as a stand-alone soundtrack album. In other words, we can confirm that the songs exist, but the article under discussion here has been set up as an album article so that is what needs to be confirmed in the sources. Until that happens, the songs can be described at the film's article. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK
|
| 6 | - "Slávka Frniaková: I am also nominating fellow Slovakia women's basketball teammates at said tournament for the same reason, except Zuzana Žirková, as most of them seem to fall under BLP1E : Martina Godályová ( edit
|
| 7 | - "Otto von Helldorff: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL . Jalen Folf (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Germany . Jalen Folf (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Are you sure he doesn't meet WP:NPOL as a member of the Reichstag (German Empire) for what looks like 16 years? That looks like an NPOL position to me. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 19:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Beyond the clear NPOL pass, the article also contains sources providing WP:SIGCOV , most clearly this entry in Deutsche Biographie , with sources like [8] and [9] providing pretty good supplementary coverage as well. Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He also appears to have an entry in the book Biographisches Handbuch der Abgeordneten des Norddeutschen Reichstages, des Zollparlaments und der Deutschen Reichstage 1867-1918 (Biographical Handbook of the Members of the North German Reichstag, the Customs Parliament and the German Reichstag 1867-1918) by Heinrich Best [ de ] , but the book does not appear to be digitized and the weblink for his entry is a permanent dead link. Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The references already in the article constitute WP:SIGCOV . As TulsaPoliticsFan pointed out, as a member of the German Empire's parliament, he passes WP:NPOL . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the German Wikipedia lists several people at de:Heinrich_von_Helldorff who probably pass the English Wikipedia's notability standards. One is Otto's father, I think. Those German articles are probably worth translating, although I'm not volunteering to do the translations. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:10, 26 June 2023 (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."
- "Ihavandhoo Health Centre: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Medicine , and Maldives . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 13 November 2023 (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."
- "IFChina Original Studio : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Film , Theatre , Photography , History , Organizations , and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 13 November 2023 (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."
|
| 5 | - 'Ajit Singh Bhati: One source is the book of an academic named Javaid Rahi , who is not independent because he is a Gujjar academic who only writes praise in his publications. Second, it is unknown whether these kings existed or were imaginary. Some such articles were created in the last two to three days using the Gazetteer as a source, but there is no mention of these names in it. This nomination is also for: Dargahi Singh Bhati Shambhujit Singh Bhati . You can see a short discussion here on my talk. DreamRimmer ( talk ) 17:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello,@ DreamRimmer @ Hey man im josh I have made some improvement and I have putt many references from independent sources/ Reliable sources written by various different writers please check the article pages that you have taged for deletions including Dargahi Singh Bhati , Shambhujit Singh Bhati , and Ajit Singh Bhati . I think these articles do not meet the criteria for deletion, as many reliable sources have already been added. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد ( talk ) 18:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't see anything significant in these sources either. DreamRimmer ( talk ) 03:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DreamRimmer Okay, sir, no problem. I'll always try to do my best, and other editors can also do their best. But if you think your first claim has not been cleared, as you said such characters are imaginary first, and you also said these pages are entirely based on the work of Javaid Rahi, I have already cleared these claims by putting more than 4 to 5 references from independent and reliable sources, so there should be no more excuses because such sources have been written by different writers that have nothing to do with these characters, so such claims do not meet the criteria for deletions of the articles of Dargahi Singh Bhati , Shambujit Singh Bhati , and Ajit Singh Bhati . أسامة بن عبد الله وليد ( talk ) 19:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Spiderone @ أسامة بن عبد الله وليد @ Scottywong Oppose the deletions Request = Do not meet the criteria for deletion as this page has multiple primary sources and secondary sources exist on the article pages of Dargahi Singh Bhati and Ajit Singh Bhati and shambhujit Singh Bhati . 103.172.167.25 ( talk ) 17:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Struck sock ! vote. Abecedare ( talk ) 17:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility , Hinduism , Haryana , and Uttar Pradesh . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Info - Note to closer for soft deletion : This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum . There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. Logs : 2023-06 ✍️ create -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —\u2060Scotty Wong \u2060— 05:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all : Now that sources have been added verifying that they really existed, they are presumed to be notable per Wikipedia:POLITICIAN . -- StellarHalo ( talk ) 07:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – Dadri is wrongly mentioned as a princely state in the three articles, although it was an estate. And the subject of this AfD (Ajit Singh) was its muqarraridār , i.e. he occupied it by paying a fixed revenue rate to the British. As of now, Dirk H. A. Kolff 's source is the sole reliable source cited in these three articles. It has nontrivial coverage about Ajit Singh Bhati , but Shambhujit Singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati have a combined coverage of around 5 lines in it ( see p. 149 ). So it seems these two don't need standalone articles and should be covered in some other article. Maybe for now a paragraph about the Dadri estate can be added in Dadri#History where both of them can also be covered/redirected. The Kolff's source doesn't mention their surname as Bhati. So all three pages are needed to be renamed as well. Some details about Javed Rahi's unreliable book The Javaid Rahi's source is cited in all three articles. But it is edited by Javaid Rahi, a Gurjar activist who specialises in Kashmiri languages. So he is not even a historian. More importantly, the author (Rana Ali Hussan Chouhan) of the cited pages was not even a scholar. He was a civil engineer belonging to the Gurjar caste himself. So this is a non-scholarly and non-HISTRS source, which is not reliable for history-related details. BTW, the details of the author (Chauhan) are mainly available on Gurjar promo sites , although his nephew also mentions in this interview that Chauhan was a civil engineer in Pakistan Public Works Department . Note that the 400-plus pages of Rahi's book, i.e. pp. 243–728 , are authored by this Gurjar engineer. As expected from a nonscholar, the content is full of fringe theories, e.g. Kolff's source mentions (on page no. 151 ) that the subject of this AfD (Ajit Singh) died in 1812: " On 4 October 1812, Rao Ajit Singh died without issue. " But as per Chauhan (see page no. 590 ), Ajit Singh took part in the Indian Rebellion of 1857 : " Raja Ajit Singh had a vast territory but he was not granted a ‘Treaty Pact’ so Bhatis revolted vociferously in 1857. Consequently Raja Ajit Singh died fighting. " The rest of the sources are century-old unreliable gazetteers authored by British Raj officers or the nonscholarly government documents which plagiarise those gazetteers. None of them are reliable for history-related details – see WP:RAJ , WP:SCHOLARSHIP , WP:HISTRS . In short, Ajit Singh Bhati seems notable, but Shambhujit Singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati should be redirected. Note that this observation is mainly based on the cited sources of the three articles and I have yet to make an independent search about the subjects. - NitinMlk ( talk ) 22:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rebuttal to NitinMlk's analysis of sources from أسامة بن عبد الله وليد and tangents about other articles signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Oppose the false claim @ NitinMlk I do respect your concern, but first of all, These articles are largely dependent on independent sources written by different writers, not on Javed Rahi's or Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan's. The second thing is that where Dargahi Singh Bhati and Shambu Singh (Shambhujit Singh) are mentioned as bhati, they are also clearly mentioned in the Quotes given from the citations. And also go and check; there are many references that Dadri's rulers were Bhati Gujjar and Bhati Gujjar clan clearly mentioned in the Quotes given from the citations, and I am the creator of Ajit Singh Bhati (also known as Rao Jit Singh Bhati) and Shambujit Singh Bhati (Also known as Shambu Singh) Singh Bhati's pages. So it's a wrong claim that Dadri's rulers were not Bhati Gujjar's second statements regarding Javaid Rahi or Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan because their references are not mentioned as first sources in the body of the article. If you have some problems with the Citations given by Javaid Rahi's book, Can be removed, but Bhati Gujjar is clearly mentioned by many independent historians. but if you have some issues why These characters mentioned as Bhati Gujjar go and read the Quote given from Refrences and also try to read these Refrences some are free or some are paid where Rulers of Dadri estate or Dadri's rulers clearly mentioned as Bhati Gujjar. Thank you so much for leaving your concern and being kind. ✝️✝️🕊️ Have a nice day Brother @ NitinMlk . أسامة بن عبد الله وليد ( talk ) 04:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] أسامة بن عبد الله وليد , you misunderstood my comment. All three subjects were of course Gurjars belonging to the Bhati clan. I didn't even contest that fact. My comment was about WP:COMMONNAME , which simply means that if most of the reliable sources refer to the subject of this article as, let's say, Rao Ajit Singh, then that will be the Wikipedia article's title. BTW, Kolff's source refers to him as Rao Ajit Singh, which also seems like his WP:COMMONNAME. - NitinMlk ( talk ) 21:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Duplicate ! votes, more arguments about other articles signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Oppose @ Liz @ NitinMlk First of all, there is not a single reference. From the work of Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan, then why have you mentioned his work? The second thing is that, According to your claim, Dadri was not a princely state but an estate. Does it matter or meet the criteria for deliberation? Instead of providing any reliable source, you just try to make lame excuses by talking about Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan, even though there is not a single citation from his book and his books are not reachable digitally. You also talk about redirecting these pages to the Dadri town article, but why? Why not write a new article on Dadri estate or Dadri princely state in the future by citing reliable sources? You also claimed that Dirk H.A. Kolff just talked about Bhatti Gujjar in six lines. That's not the truth. I am leaving the Reference to Dirk H.A. Kolff. Book go and Read carefully. He talked about Dadri's rulers as Bhatti Gujjar, and he also talked about Dargahi Singh Bhati , Ajit Singh Bhati , and Shambujit Singh Bhati see this Reference on pages 138, 148, 461, 462, and 641. [a] 103.191.123.67 ( talk ) 08:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Struck sock ! vote. Abecedare ( talk ) 17:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Firstly, you mentioned that Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan is not cited in the articles in question. But that's not true, as he is cited in all three articles even now: see Ajit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 6 ; Shambhujit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 7 ; and Dargahi Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 . All of them cite page no. 589 and/or page no. 590 , which are authored by Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan. Secondly, I never " claimed that Dirk H.A. Kolff just talked about Bhatti Gujjar in six lines. " I mentioned that Kolff's source " has nontrivial coverage about Ajit Singh Bhati, but Shambhujit Singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati have a combined coverage of around 5 lines in it (see p. 149). " Thirdly, Dadri was never a princely state . So I pointed out that mistake, as estates and princely states are two different things. You can read princely state to know more about it. Fourthly, I mentioned, " Maybe for now a paragraph about the Dadri estate can be added in Dadri#History where both of them can also be covered/redirected. " But of course if a well-sourced article about Dadri estate is created in the future, then these two subjects can be covered there. Finally, please don't reply without reading my previous and this comment very carefully. Thanks. - NitinMlk ( talk ) 21:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ NitinMlk •1st Dear brother you're not trying to understand the base of our conversation. First of all you're absolutely wrong and not using Comman sense that any refrences from the work of Rana Ali Hassan chauhan not mentioned in any citations at all. Brother do your research and home work again clear your confusion first or provide solid proofs that any writer mentioned in their books that they're writing about these characters by considering first refrences from the work of Rana Ali Hassan chauhan simple. • 2nd thing is that all your false claims now have clear because Raj Era sources all I have removed. • 3rd claim That Dadri's rulers never mentioned as bhatti this claim Also proven wrong and this article not dependent on the work of Javaid Rahi and Rana Ali Hassan chauhan totally wrong claim without any mention of these writers in the books of Dirk H.A Kolff or other Writers as refrences. • 4th thing is that you totally try to manipulate the conversation by putting small excuses like oh! This was not a princely state but a Estate okay no problem but this small excuses can not meet the criteria for deletions. • 5th read your previous comment again you said Dirk H.A Kolff only talk in 6 lines I have mentioned 5 to 6 pages where Dirk Kolf clearly mentioned about Dargahi Singh Bhati and Bhati Gujjar clan and Rulers of Dadri as Bhati same things also have done by all other historians. • 6th Go and read citation research again Not any author of these books Used Rana Ali Hassan chauhan's work as first sources or they don't even talk or mentioned the name of Rana Ali Hassan chauhan. • 7th thing is that it is not necessary to put In Dadri's town article about Dadri estate of Bhati Gujjar and by saying that you also point out that these two pages Dargahi Singh or Shambu Singh should redirect to Dargahi's town article at what bases brother? . You said because these two characters don't have Coverage in dirk Kolf or other's work you're wrong I have mentioned 6 pages from Dirk H.A Kolff's Book he talked about Dargahi Singh Bhati also Shambu Singh bhati Even he talked about Rao Roshan Singh Bhati but the link that I have provided is a paid work of Dirk H.A Kolff we can not entirely get access to his work without paying. •8th Dadri's was an independent state established by Dargahi Singh Bhati, Ruled by Rao Roshan Singh Bhati, Umrao Singh Bhati, shambujit Singh Bhati, Amra Singh Bhati they all belonged to one monarchy and one family of Bhati Gujjar clan. Refrences given in the article will decided such characters have more or less coverage. Brother Your lame excuses like Dargahi Singh or Ajit Singh Bhati never signed a treaty with britishers etc and They paid tribute to Britishers such excuses are irrelevant here and Dadri was a princely state or just a estate also doesn't matter here. Totally irrelevant to the topic of Deletions discussion. • 9th thing you should have to accept the fact that your claims like Dadri's rulers never mentioned as bhatti have already cleared, Britishers never Singh a treaty, these pages dependent on Javaid Rahi or Rana Ali Hassan chauhan's work also proven wrong, shambu singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati don't have Coverage also proven wrong by the given refrences and RAJ Era sources triggered you so I have removed all. Brother I am leaving best wishes and love for you and also mentioning the articles of Umrao Singh Bhati , Dargahi Singh Bhati , Shambhujit Singh Bhati , and Ajit Singh Bhati these 4 Rulers belonged to one monarchy one Gujjar family of Bhati clan. Amra Singh Bhati , Roshan Singh Bhati and some other Rulers from this monarchy have not yet any articles. Have nice day 😊 brother before claims must bring solid proofs! . @ Liz @ StellarHalo @ Scottywong أسامة بن عبد الله وليد ( talk ) 01:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] see Ajit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 6; Shambhujit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 7; and Dargahi Singh Bhati's ref no. 4. All of them cite page no. 589 and/or page no. 590, which are authored by Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan. You're absolutely wrong here. If Javaid Rahi in his book or any other writer doesn't even talk about Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan's work/book or doesn't even mention at the bottom line of the page that these references they take from the work\Book of Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan, then on what basis are you wasting your time, Brother? Please don't reply, brother, if you don't have any solid proof that any writer mentioned that they're talking on behalf of Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan's work. Simply use Coman Sense. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد ( talk ) 01:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No need to ping me. This is just one of hundreds of AFDs that are open right now. What we really need is to hear from other editors. You've said your peace, let others weigh in. This is a process of consensus building, not which editor can be the most persistent. L iz Read! Talk! 07:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer : I have blocked أسامة بن عبد الله وليد for a week for abusive sockpuppetry and struck two oppose ! votes they cast while logged out ( WP:DUCK ). Abecedare ( talk ) 17:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per the current state of the article. Chamaemelum ( talk ) 03:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's have a relist not overwhelmed by walls of text from a sockpuppet Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all : As the additional sources that have been added since the article's creation, making sure that they truly fulfil the criteria for Notability and should be included there at main space. Good Faith أسامة بن عبد الله وليد ( talk ) 09:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here. But, speaking as an uninvolved bystander, perhaps a move to Draft space would alleviate some concerns about sourcing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:08, 15 July 2023 (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.'
- "Manikanta Belde (author): Fram ( talk ) 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , and India . Fram ( talk ) 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Procedural note This article was created by a large WP:UPE sockfarm that I'm in the process of untangling. I've speedy deleted it per WP:CSD#G11 .-- Ponyo bons mots 20:30, 21 September 2023 (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."
- "European Football Coach of the Season: There are no authoritative sources about such an award from UEPS and AEJ. Mitte27 ( talk ) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . Mitte27 ( talk ) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Lists of people , Awards , Football , and Europe . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete as hoax (G3). Giant Snowman 18:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:G3 Shouldn't have gone to AfD. Govvy ( talk ) 19:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: It is also necessary to pay attention to similar cases of hoaxes based on Volodymyr VB materials: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Year , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UPI World Soccer Player of the Year Award , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA 70th anniversary retrospective awards . -- Mitte27 ( talk ) 06:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a hoax. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete – WP:G3 . Svartner ( talk ) 07:43, 19 April 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."
|
| 4 | - 'Judgment (Angel): This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. Donald D23 talk to me 00:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 00:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This was premiere episode that had multiple reviews two of which I have added to article ( Owen, Rob . " 'Angel' returns with high style" . Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . ), which ran in multiple papers [24] , & ( Bianculli, David . "Still plenty of life in 'Buffy,' 'Angel' " . New York Daily News . ). One is joint review with Buffy premiere but both are by notable writers. Plot could use better citations. WikiVirus C (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Angel episodes#Season 2 (2000–2001) where it already has an entry. Unneeded CFORK which fails GNG, routine entertainment synops do not show notability. Nothing to merge, article is fancruft. // Timothy :: talk 06:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Angel episodes#Season 2 (2000–2001) per above, where the episode is listed. CycloneYoris talk! 23:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If redirect is route we go, Angel (season 2) would be a better target, as that is what is transcribed to the List of Episodes anyways. WikiVirus C (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Procedural Keep User:Donaldd23 nominated 5 articles for deletion in a 6-minute period. They have a history of not doing a proper BEFORE, and they continue to break Wikipedia policy with these nominations. Nfitz ( talk ) 20:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Procedural Keep User:Donaldd23 nominated 5 articles for deletion in a 6-minute period. They have a history of not doing a proper BEFORE, and they continue to break Wikipedia policy with these nominations. Nfitz ( talk ) 20:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are only allowed one ! vote. Please do a proper study of Wikipedia guidelines before voting twice. Donald D23 talk to me 21:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Really User:Donaldd23 - you want to pretend that was an attempt to vote twice, rather than an extremely obvious editing mistake; and then suggest I study the rules about voting twice? Do you often try and mislead people in AFD discussions? In Football they call this diving. Nfitz ( talk ) 06:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BEFOREs don't need to be done immediately before I nominate. I do a batch of BEFOREs and then go and nominate the articles, improve the article and remove the notability tags, or do nothing because I didn't find enough to either improve or delete. Where is the policy that I am breaking by listing these deletions all at once? Maybe you cannot do research on multiple items and then come back to Wikipedia and present your findings, but I can. Your rationale for Keep is incorrect. Maybe you should do a BEFORE and check my talk page where I have been THANKED for doing proper BEFOREs. Donald D23 talk to me 20:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My apologies, I realise now that I was thinking of someone else. Now I look like a dick ... I'll withdraw my comment. Nfitz ( talk ) 06:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WikiVirusC provides two excellent GNG references. The Rob Owen one is particularly excellent - and was internationally syndicated, as I can find numerous copies of it in various well known North American newspapers. Nfitz ( talk ) 07:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect The two sources added are better than most episode reviews, but they still most resemble plot summaries, and I still don’t see them as forcing need for independent pages. These are easily includable in the season article without losing value for the reader. The fact that so much of the lead is just basic info in prose form (repeated for each episode article) does not lead me to see a great need for the article to standalone. In watching and following a fair few of Donald’s episode AfDs, my attitude has grown towards redirect and merge as default with only the rarest of episodes deserving solo pages. — HTGS ( talk ) 22:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , a REDIRECT to the series or season page would be a viable WP:ATD Donald D23 talk to me 20:57, 6 May 2023 (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.'
- "Signet_Armorlite : This is my first AfD, so I would appreciate feedback. Thanks Itanalot ( talk ) 04:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article was tagged as an advert since 2011; although I could find some books, the majority are just mentions. Otherwise, only three sources doesn't justify the article. Fails NCORP. Delete Toadette ( let's chat together ) 07:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 04:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the firm isn’t mentioned in the article about the firm that acquired it, Essilor , supporting the view that it was not particularly significant. Perhaps mentioning it in the Essilor article and redirecting would be viable. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Essilor . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:05, 2 December 2023 (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."
- 'Magnus Ferrell: Maybe the son will become independently notable, but this hasn't happened yet. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 06:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , and United States of America . ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This is not a ! vote, but Will Ferrell is a (kinda obvious) redirect target should there be no consensus to keep. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Will Ferrell . The above suggestion seems like a good AtD. Fails BLP, GNG and BIO, article and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed promo, but not SIGCOV for a BLP. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 14:24, 20 April 2023 (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.'
|
