| 0 |
- 'Artisteer: The only two secondary sources I could find were this and this , neither of which are reliable sources. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC) The article was written by a user named "Artisteer", and their only contributions to Wikipedia were on this article. There may be a WP: COI , but given that their last edits were many years ago, I'm not sure what can be done about that now. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 5 March 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! 00:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) I can only find some software blogs saying it was abandoned about 10 yrs ago, then this [19] , neither of which is RS. I don't see any reliable sources we'd use. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:00, 12 March 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 Volume of Self : No chart placement, no record of notability. Fails WP:NALBUM: "All articles on albums or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." as ATD unlikely as band article is itself at AfD. Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:53, 12 September 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! 23:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article about the album's author was soft d , but had a vote saying that there was "no coverage for this musical group". I assume the same logic can be applied to this article. The first reference provides a list of songs in this album, and the second appears to be an article about this album on Blabbermouth , which is a heavy metal news site. As far as I can tell, that is the only source I could find for either of these articles, so this article doesn't meet the WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM . 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.'
- "Anubha Sourya Sarangi : Sources are mostly about individual movies without significant coverage of the actress herself. No real evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 16:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Odisha . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 10 April 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! 23:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per nominator. I cannot find sourcing to satisfy notability requirements. Open to re-evaluating if some are found. — Sirdog ( talk ) 05:47, 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 |
- "Korina Adamou: The subject has earned at least eight caps for the Cyprus women's national football team . I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG . The most I found was this and this . JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Cyprus . JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as above. Giant Snowman 08:20, 27 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."
- "Munkir (TV series): — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Drama_series - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:45, 26 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."
- "Milo Nqoro : JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC) GNG . is a suitable WP:ATD . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:22, 28 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."
|
| 6 |
- "Stockton Rush : — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the contrary, he does very much meet point 2. And with regards to point 3, I will contest that it weren’t his actions during the expedition that caused the mishap, so he’s not independently notable for it. Basically he was just one of the occupants, his role in the loss of Titan wasn’t substantial. Carbon case of what this policy was written for. T v x 1 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [5] , [6] , [7] Dr. Swag Lord ( talk ) 23:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Not true. If he had been a notable businessman prior to his death, he would have already have had an article. There’s nothing spectacular about his business activities. T v x 1 23:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is now the central character in a major international news story. People will remember this incident and the person responsible for years to come. I'd say his backstory, which had many elements that led up to the implosion of the Titan, is relevant for historical purposes. 96.241.148.20 ( talk ) 23:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 96.241.148.20 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] The central character in ONE EVENT ! People like him is exactly what Wikipedia:BLP1E was written for. Nothing in your comment justifies his article. T v x 1 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That argument doesn't work. BLP1E isn't satisfied because the third criterion states it has to be insignificant, whereas this was significant. 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D ( talk ) 23:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] No his role in the incident has to have been substantial, which is not the case. There is nothing that suggests that his piloting of the vessel caused the breakup. His role in the accident isn’t in any way more important than that of the other four occupants. T v x 1 23:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] His piloting of the vessel doesn't need to be the cause of the sub breaking up in order for his role to be substantial - that's a subjective interpretation of what is meant by 'substantial'. And clearly his role is more important than the other four occupants - this incident revolves entirely around a sub that he and those working for him designed and built. He himself dismissed concerns about the safety of the design, and then he himself was piloting it. The incident doesn't even happen without his involvement, so his involement is objectively substantial. 176.254.143.249 ( talk ) 23:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 176.254.143.249 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] It's a big personal conjecture on you part to state it would not have happened without him. The expedition was executed by a company, not a person. They could have done that with another CEO as well. Also there is confirmation that design errors by him caused this, your are making wild assumptions here. There's nothing here about that incident that wasn't already included elsewhere. This is largely a content fork . T v x 1 23:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First of all, he wasn’t the pilot. Second of all, he’s the CEO of the company and had final say in the design decisions of the sub, which ultimately led to a lack of proper engineering and safety standards that led to the implosion. 42.3.105.87 ( talk ) 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 42.3.105.87 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] We don't know that yet. There has not been any confirmation that the break-up was the result of design flaws. And even if so, there were multiple engineers working for the company who all could be responsible. T v x 1 23:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 'John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.' This article clearly meets those conditions and there is a precedent. 176.254.143.249 ( talk ) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 176.254.143.249 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] No it doesn't. These case are not comparable. That assassination attempt was completely orchestrated and executed by Hinckley. It wouldn't have happened without him. In this case, there's nothing to suggest that the accident was caused by Rush's piloting. His role in the cause wasn't substantial at all. He was just as much an occupant and victim as the other four. T v x 1 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] His piloting of the vessel doesn't need to be the cause of the sub breaking up in order for his role to be substantial. The Reagan assassination does not happen without Hinckley and the Titan incident does now happen without Rush. 176.254.143.249 ( talk ) 23:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 176.254.143.249 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] That analogy is just not true. He wasn't needed at all for that submersible to be operated. T v x 1 23:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . Definitely notable for more than one event, there are a lot of sources ranging from years ago to now easily found online. Icehax ( talk ) 23:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then why was no one interested in writing an article for him prior to his death? T v x 1 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That was then; this is now. Though deceased, he is an internationally recognized figure following this news story that made headlines around the world. 96.241.148.20 ( talk ) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 96.241.148.20 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] ONE news story. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E . Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s policies before taking part in a procedure like AFD. T v x 1 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . As per above. Death Editor 2 ( talk ) 23:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of which are valid arguments, so neither is yours. T v x 1 23:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nah, you are wrong in this case. Death Editor 2 ( talk ) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, you are. Please read the sites content policies. Anything worth mentioning about this person can be put in the articles on his company and on the accident that claimed his life. T v x 1 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Clearly notable, and a valid split from OceanGate . I have to disagree with Tvx1 's assertion that If he had been a notable businessman prior to his death, he would have already have had an article. Given that we continue to write new articles on Wikipedia, that can't be the case. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D ( talk ) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 96.241.148.20 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) SIGCOV and WP:GNG . – Davey 2010 Talk 23:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 10, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 25, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 49, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 08, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 08, 23 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."
- 'John Ross (blogger) : Sources in the article are mostly brief mentions in the context of his time as one of a largish group of advisors to Ken Livingstone, former mayor of London, and are therefore not WP:SIGCOV . The exceptions to this are op-ed pieces, interviews and commercial book-store websites (and therefore not reliable/independent). The Guardian "profile" is a single-sentence mention summing to 15 words. No instances of WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE . WP:BLP article so should be based on high-quality sources. FOARP ( talk ) 13:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . FOARP ( talk ) 13:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Politicians , Journalism , and China . TJMSmith ( talk ) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a sportsperson with the same name, nothing found for this person. no sources found. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC) AUTHOR case here. We need to look for further reviews for: China’s Great Road: Lessons for Marxist Theory and Socialist Practices (2021) [21] Thatcher and Friends: The Anatomy of the Tory Party (1983) The Great Chess Game (2016)[ [22] ] Don’t Misunderstand China’s Economy (date?) It's difficult because a number of relevant sources are likely to not be available online because they're from the early 80's or in Chinese. Jahaza ( talk ) 16:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's also difficult because there's another John Ross, author of You Don't Know China , who has a web presence as a China expert. Jahaza ( talk ) 16:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This [23] Evening Standard article, was actually published in October 2007 and is SIGCOV. Jahaza ( talk ) 17:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) The Ups and Downs of Ken Livingstone (you can see some of that content here [24] ). That plus the Evening Standard article, plus the book reviews already identified, plus this in the Sunday Telegraph [25] . (There are also other less useful sources that document smaller facts and opinions [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] ) Jahaza ( talk ) 17:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC) NAUTHOR pass but I'm OK to withdraw based on the Evening Standard and book coverage. There's already a ! vote on the board so I can't withdraw at this point though unless Oaktree b withdraws - what do you think Oaktree? FOARP ( talk ) 08:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm rescinding my vote above. I'm ok if it gets kept, with the new sources, as above. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Oaktree b . In our defence, the refs in the article are bad and the many other John Rosses out there complicated performing a WP:BEFORE . FOARP ( talk ) 07:54, 13 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.'
- "Jacob Dahl Jurgensen: The four External links are to websites that describe the artist's works, but no indepth content about the artist. After searching, unable to find sources to provide sufficient coverage. Created on 12 September 2007 JoeNMLC ( talk ) 05:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient references to establish notability. Thankyou for improving this one. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 12:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Denmark . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I updated the article. WP:BEFORE shows he is in the British Museum collection. That makes him notable. Slim article, but I think it is a . -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 23:32, 16 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."
|
| 1 |
- 'Guy Protheroe : I'm surprised to find so little, especially for an article this extensive, but I do not see evidence of notability here. The removal suggests sources in Google Scholar which may be of use here, but I could only find passing mentions in there as well so I'm doubtful. QuietHere ( talk
|
| 2 |
- "Manning Community School District: PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , United States of America , and Iowa . PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The navbox found in the article is full of redlinks. That suggests a topic area needing expansion, not scaling back. The nominator's rationale is misleading in that the article is orange-tagged for needing expansion, not for lacking sources. Anyway, to IKM–Manning Community School District . The article on the other pre-r component of that district is also light on third-party sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC) I will check Newspapers.com to see how many sources I can find about the pre-r district. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 11:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) I found several newspaper article sources about how the creation of the district was legally disputed in court by another school district (the Iowa Supreme Court ultimately upheld the creation of this district). Additionally there was a legal dispute in regards to two areas being moved into this districgt. This is certainly not routine coverage by any stretch of the definition, and so this should secure notability of this topic. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 12:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - to IKM–Manning Community School District . Historic predecessor districts should be covered in the current district's article unless WP:FORK becomes a concern. Even with additional content, size is not a concern here. The other predecessor district's articles should likewise be d, possibly dividing the history section at the target article into subsections to do so. By all means, this title should remain as a . 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 01:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC) WEIGHT becomes too much for a particular section (for example, the weight of the information about the former Manning district, which operated from 1959 to 2011), then that former district should have its own article. I'm still finding content about the 1959-2011 period, and I think that there may be enough for this district to have its own article. Also there is notability by being a populated, legally recognized place (as per Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Settlements_and_administrative_regions ). Various former municipalities in Japan, which have since d into larger ones, would count as being legally recognized places. Former school districts are also legally recognized places. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 22:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC) 14, 23 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."
- "Trikut cable car accident: LibStar ( talk ) 04:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation , and Jharkhand . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] or to a new section about the cablecar on the Trikut Hill article. There is plenty of more recent coverage available, e.g. [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] . The most recent of those is from less than a week ago, so the nominator has clearly not done a (sufficient) WP:BEFORE . I'm happy with either ing or merging, but there is definitely no cause for deletion Thryduulf ( talk ) 09:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now expanded it based on two of those sources but more improvement is certainly possible. Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] to Trikut Hill. Not worthy of its own article per WP:NOTNEWS . sixty nine • whaddya want? • 18:03, 31 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."
- "Sound BlasterAxx: ~ T P W 15:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . ~ T P W 15:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] per nominator. Performing a WP:BEFORE search returns no RS . FatalFit
|
| 3 |
- 'A-Plus (rapper): Just because we have several articles about music produced by him does not make him notable, I find that he is not notable as a musician or a producer. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music . Nagol0929 ( talk ) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC) I haven't looked closely yet as to whether his article deserves to stay, but it seems to me a to Souls of Mischief might be a better option than outright deletion... yes, I know he is part of Hieroglyphics (group) as well and therefore WP:XY may be considered here, but Hieroglyphics is all of Souls of Michief plus four other people, so he's still a part of Hieroglyphics as a member of Souls of Mischief. Richard3120 ( talk ) 16:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Colorado . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC) He clearly passes WP:NMUSIC#C6 if he's part of two notable production groups. That doesn't mean we have to have a standalone article on him, just noting a discrepancy in the nom statement. Mach61 20:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC) 42, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Other than the 2 sources provided by above editor, there are not enough reliable coverage and 2 of the sources are interviews. Bradelykooper ( talk ) 08:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 16:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] . None of the sources appear to be reliable, but a search of his name would go to the band's article, a compromise that we do sometimes. Bearian ( talk ) 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) AllMusic is a reliable source as per [ [108] ] and the bio and album review are not interviews as someone else claimed, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC) the only problem is that AllMusic isn’t being used as a reference and all 3 of the references are interviews. Of those only 1 is about A-Plus. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) 00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a ton of sourcing (yes, from reliable sources) available on this guy in Google News and Books searches, over a period of decades. It's true that most of them are brief mentions, but with all of the info available, surely the article could be built out and sourced better than it is now. I had to get a little creative in looking for sources since "A plus" is such a generic term, but combining his name with "Hieroglyphics" or "Souls of Mischief" yields many good results. Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Fred Zepelin may you link said results? Mach61 01:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 05:11, 26 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.'
- "Owen Buckley : All I found were transactional announcements ( 1 , 2 ) with a combined five-ish sentences of independent coverage. JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , and England . JTtheOG ( talk ) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Sufficient room for expansion, but not enough coverage in current state. Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I was able to find this source, which I think is detailed enough be considered non-trivial, but it's a local media article, so it's pretty borderline. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 11:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Transactional announcements such as signings and trades are not considered in-depth sourcing, especially when most of it is in quotes. JTtheOG ( talk ) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:10, 7 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! 23:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak I lean to as not quite meeting notability guidelines but will support the consensus of the group of editors. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 18:38, 18 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."
- 'Master Hilarion : But it's simply false that no reliable independent sources exist. Some are already listed on the page. The Masters Revealed: Madam Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge and Radiance from Halcyon: A Utopian Experiment in Religion and Science are both academic studies that appear to have significant coverage of Hilarion. There's an entry in Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology , published by Gale Group . And, if you weed out the non-RSs from Google Scholar, you find plenty of modern scholarship that covers him -- [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , and so on. Jfire ( talk ) 05:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per Jfire. Skyerise ( talk ) 10:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has not had any good academic or scholary references added to it in over a decade (in fact none since it was created). There are also now copyright issues. Neither of the books Jfire mentions have significant coverage of Master Hilarion they have a few scattered lines, the papers on brill.com do not mention Master Hilarion in any detail. One of the sources Jfire lists as "modern scholarship" covering Master Hilarion is this paper on the gay activism of Wallace de Ortega Maxey , it has a mere line about Master Hilarion [12] . Wallace de Ortega Maxey is a non-notable figure himself. I don't see how any this is relevant or will establish notability. We want in depth scholarly sources that mention this topic. There is no point in citing a paper just because it has one line about the subject. Anyone can look on Google Scholar, just because you get a few hits does not mean these sources contain significant coverage. If you look on JSTOR, the same thing happens. There is only passing mention of Master Hilarion [13] . This does not establish notability. In conclusion, only the Gale Group source was a useful one but a single source is not enough to build an article on. I see a serious lack of independent neutral sources on this topic. I vote . Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 18:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an inaccurate summary of the sources. In The Masters Revealed , Hilarion is the primary topic of pages 59–62. Here's the first paragraph from these pages: ONE OF THE MORE ELUSIVE MASTERS of HPB's Egyptian Brotherhood is the man she called Hilarion (or Illarion) Smerdis. The authorship of several fictional works published by HPB has been attributed to him, including the stories "Unsolved Mysteries," "The Ensouled Violin," and "The Silent Brother." Along with Morya and Koot Hoomi, Hilarion has continued to be an alleged source for "channelers" in the twentieth century, most notably Canadian medium Maurice Cooke. In May 1875, HPB's scrapbook noted that Hilarion and a companion "passed thro' New York & Boston, thence thro' California and Japan back." In 1878, the same scrapbook, referring to a letter or psychic transmission received from Hilarion, noted "panic in England. Russians at Constantinople. Gorchakov hoodwinks Disraeli." This seems to indicate shared interests that are more political than spiritual. In July 1881, The Theosophist published Hilarion's report of his explorations of Zoroastrian ruins in Armenia. After the society moved to Adyar, Smerdis sent a letter advising Olcott that Serapis wanted him to travel in South India and Ceylon. Hilarion was described by HPB as a Greek gentleman with a black beard and long flowing white garments, looking from a distance like Serapis, and passing through Bombay en route to Tibet for his "final initiation." After going to Tibet, he allegedly inspired Mabel Collins's Idyll of the White Lotus and Light on the Path, although this was later denied by Collins. I don't have access to the full text of Radiance from Halcyon , but if anything its coverage of Hilarion appears to be even more significant than The Masters Revealed -- hits in 47 snippets, many of which are clearly discussing specific aspects of Theosophist beliefs about Hilarion. Here is what the paper on Maxey says of Hilarion: Maxey wrote extensively on the esoteric wisdom of Theosophy, tracing it through the avatar of the Master Hilarion, located by Maxey in various incarnations from Orpheus in 7000 BC through Ramses II, St. Paul, Montezuma, Hiawatha, and George Washington... Maxey also found Hilarion's work at play in the American Revolution, particularly in "the beautiful and occult vision which took place at Philadelphia," which he felt best embodied the "Universal Brotherhood unhampered by creed, race, or color." Here is what another of the papers says: Adepts and brothers were often experienced in their astral bodies. A May 1875 article in the Spiritual Scientist mentioned that one or more ‘Oriental Spiritualists of high rank’ had just arrived in the United States, whom Blavatsky identified as At[rya] and Ill[arion] passing through New York and Boston en route to California and Japan.43 Illarion (also called Hilarion), a Greek Cypriot adept, features as an elusive figure in Blavatsky’s memoirs. She had first met him on Cyprus in 1860 and again in Egypt in 1870. As a visitor to New York, he is supposed to be a physical body, but there are also indications that his astral body or projection is involved. She described Illarion with his ‘dark pale face, black beard and flowing white garments and fettah’ as ‘the form of a man’ whom Olcott and others met about their New York apartment, and she also referred to him as ‘John King’ because her companions might find it easier to accept a spirit than the astral body of a living man. Hilarion also collaborated with her in the writing of her occult stories and signed himself ‘Hilarion Smerdis’. This constitutes significant coverage, demonstrating in depth commentary and analysis of Hilarion's role in Theosophy. Jfire ( talk ) 19:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This isn't in-depth commentary or significant coverage, only the first piece of green text you quote has some information so I agree that is a good source but it doesn't give us much else. These sources might be good if this article was a biography of Maxsey or Eugene O'Neill but this article is about Master Hilarion. I don't see how a good article can be built by cherry-picking like this. Wallace de Ortega Maxey was a gay rights activist who is non-notable himself, I am not sure why he is relevant to an article on Hilarion. Why are we citing him? This source you cited from 1960 is on the Irish playwright Eugene O'Neill [14] . It might be useful for his own biography or for a line of information, but it is not going to add significant coverage. This is not in-depth coverage from academics evaluating the Theosophical claims of Saint Hilarion, the last two are not strong sources and only have passing mention of Hilarion. This doesn't establish notability. If this topic was notable, historians would have written full papers on it. Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 19:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going to bow out after this and let others make their own assessment of these sources, but I just want to say that "historians have have written full papers on it" is not a Wikipedia notability criterion. We can and do cover many topics that don't have "full papers" written by historians. Jfire ( talk ) 20:16, 7 January 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! 08:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Whole article has been removed for a potential copyvio, likely not helping much at this point. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC) BACKWARDSCOPY . Jfire ( talk ) 16:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 18:52, 24 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.'
|
| 5 |
- '50.45.180.190 (Vandalism Bandit): I initially tagged as a WP:G3 but, upon reflection, it doesn't meet the definition. I can't see this meeting any of the speedy deletion criteria so I'm sending it to AfD. The creator seems adamant that because the article is 'funny', it doesn't need to meet our notability guidelines. I'm hoping that common sense can prevail and WP:SNOW can happen. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Oregon . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An admin really should just come along and it. There's no use in holding an AFD for an article that should be speedy d but can't because it hardly fits under any criteria (though maybe it fits under A11, since there's no such thing as a "vandalism bandit"). Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as clearly unfit for an encyclopedia. Completely non-notable. Schminnte [ talk to me ] 23:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC) A7 or something. Skynxnex ( talk ) 00:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy . Misplaced humorous page. The author of this article, @ MrHistoryH also looks NOTHERE. I did laugh with this article, though. SparklyNights 03:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC) per WP:A11 . Not a notable topic. User:Let'srun 01:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong . Per all above. Not a humor page. This straight up looks like an attack page against a school. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈ ) 06:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC) A7 and/or WP:A11 per the above comments. If not, we may have to wait for the snow to fall... Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:33, 19 October 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.'
- "Maarten Nagtegaal: Fram ( talk ) 13:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Netherlands . Fram ( talk ) 13:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Non-notable individual, there is zero coverage for him. He appears to be the son of a rich person, which isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Completely irrelevant non-notable figure. ULPS ( talk ) 14:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] , non-notable figure. Creator claims that the information comes from knowing him personally (see talk). Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 16:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This might be a different person with the same name. Also probably a different person: This . The corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia has been d. Twice. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 22:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] almost a speedy for an unreferenced BLP. LibStar ( talk ) 01:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy since cyber harassment of a lving person. Admin assistance appreciated! gidonb ( talk ) 19:16, 1 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."
- "XinFin : Sourcing consists of press release reprints or sources with only trivial mentions of XinFin. ~ A412 talk! 19:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency , Finance , Companies , Software , and Singapore . ~ A412 talk! 19:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Feel free to remove the article. S from the Rebel Moon ( talk ) 20:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I agree with your point of view. S from the Rebel Moon ( talk ) 20:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 48, 15 February 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."
|
| 7 |
- "Motherless (disambiguation): A disambiguation page is not required ( WP:ONEOTHER ); the primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. Where the primary topic Motherless should target ( Single parent or Orphan ) is a matter for WP:RFD and does not require a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 09:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator with thanks to other editors for finding other entries for the page. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 06:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 09:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed , certainly don't need this disambiguation page because at best it refers to only two topics. I don't think it needs to refer to Single parent anyway, as that article is looking at things from the perspective of the parent, not the state of the child, and if a link to Orphan is appropriate, that can be done by a hat-note. If more topics appear, then of course disambig can be reinstated. Elemimele ( talk ) 13:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Postpone this discussion until an RfD has decided where to point the Motherless Primary Topuc (I support Orphan as better than Single parent ). Then we can agree to this dab page, once we know where to put the hatnote which replaces it. Pam D 22:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Postpone I've added three potential articles, and I'm sure our descendents will find many more. No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 08:25, 23 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."
- 'Irmulco, California: This location is non-notable; coordinates given lccate to empty forest. This is one of dozens of mass-created stubs on nonexistent California locations created by the same editor during a short period in 2009, based only on GNIS coordinates. The fact that there was once a post office by this name does not establish notability; this was likely just a temporary logging camp. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I'm going to withdraw my recommendation that the article be d. Another user has added some reasonably good sourcing and I think the article now has enough to . The article's current state is exactly how articles about small vanished communities should be...i.e., not just "Xyz is a location at zzz coordinates, and it had a post office in 1858". WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment This an example of place which was definitely "there" in some sense but about which we can't really say anything definite. We can't even really characterize it well. I've found one reference to a public school there, and another passing reference to people living there, but as the nom here says, the name and location tends to suggest it was a logging camp of perhaps greater than usual permanence. There's some possibility that a history of the logging railroad might have more information, but without that it's hard to defend ing this. Mangoe ( talk ) 19:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] like many places in the American west, it was a settlement for as long as the mineral seam lasted, or the lumber mill was hiring, etc, and then when the industrial or commercial interest checked out, it faded away, but it was a substantial settlement for a time in a thinly populated part of the world. It's part of the answer to the question "where did the redwoods go?" and I think it's notable enough to stay. jengod ( talk ) 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that places like this shouldn't be erased from history, but we need reliable sources about them if we're going to host an article saying anything. All we have is a couple of statements that it was a point on a railroad map and there was a short-lived post office in the vicinity, neither of which cuts it for WP:N purposes. If anyone can find more, then of course we can the article and say more. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Thank you for expanding the article; this is exactly what we need! WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:20, 25 October 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.'
- "The Political Machine 2020: WP:BEFORE turned up no critic reviews, Metacritic also shows nothing except one review from a non-reliable source (New Game Network). This game fails WP:GNG . λ Negative MP1 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . λ Negative MP1 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) GNG . Waxworker ( talk ) 21:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per source found by Waxworker. It shows the article passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:44, 23 February 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."
|
