The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. As far as his writing goes, the only attempt at a notability claim here is that his work exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself -- writers have to show that they pass WP:GNG on significant third-party coverage and analysis about their writing, not just use ISBN and Libris links to verify that their work exists. And the other attempted notability claim here is that he led a search for a missing plane, which wouldn't be "inherently" notable without a GNG-worthy depth and volume of coverage about that either. But for sourcing, what we've got here is one deadlinked directory entry that isn't support for notability at all, and one deadlinked (but recoverable via Wayback) National Geographic article that briefly glances off Jallai's involvement in the plane search without being about him in any non-trivial sense, which thus isn't enough to magically vault him over WP:GNG all by itself. And while the Swedish interlang is longer and features more referencing than this, it's still based mainly on primary source directory entries that aren't support for notability, alongside a small smattering of more short blurbs about the plane search that also briefly mention Anders Jallai without being about him, so that article also doesn't have sources that could just be cut and pasted over to salvage this. As I don't have access to archives of Swedish media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who does have such access can actually find enough substantive coverage to salvage the article, but nothing in it is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awards don't clinch notability if your source for the award is the self-published website of the award. Since an award has to be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, the source for an award claim has to be media reportage that treats the award presentation as news, in order to demonstrate that the award is notable in the first place. And that's even more the case for general honors that can be presented to absolutely anybody for absolutely any reason, as opposed to being a defined awards program for achievement in a specific domain like literature or film. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed that in my nomination statement: those are also virtually all primary sources or short blurbs that briefly namecheck Anders Jallai without being about Anders Jallai in any non-trivial sense, and thus aren't GNG-building sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many ordinary people have lead extraordinary efforts. An old friend of mine, who is now an orderly at a hospital and never did graduate from college, lead the telephone banking for Kirsten Gillibrand's first campaign. Same thing here. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I would argue that the context resides in the main article of which this is a standard SPLIT. Keep or merge back if size is not considered an issue; don't delete.-Mushy Yank. 23:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, it's not clear to me what list or article it has been split from. From its revision history, I do note that Tooncast has had many instances of very similar content added and then reverted as unsourced (on occasions citing WP:NOTTVGUIDE too) over the past year to the extent that page protection was requested. I don't know if the creation of this article is related to that activity. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No originally programming. No reason to list what every television channel in the world has on it at any given time. Not what Wikipedia is for. DreamFocus12:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The programming, original or not, is of interest for the history both of the channel and of the broadcast of the said programs. In terms of navigation, the existence of categories (containing similar lists, that are very standard) is an excellent tool for the reader who wants to compare various channels' programs, for example. Or various channels from the same region/country, etc. How can one know what the channel is like if one does not know what they broadcast? -Mushy Yank. 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of old shows that have been on multiple channels over the years. Whatever company owns the rights to them now, just tosses them out on their channels as filler. Some of the shows listed are from the 1960's, and I seriously doubt many people watch them these days. DreamFocus22:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Only one source is independent and third party (Guardian) but does not mention article subject at all. Lists of members names feels like WP:PROMO, or WP:NOTDIR. Looked for sources but nothing with WP:SIGCOV - most mention orgs with the same name in other countries.
The National League of Young Liberals is a forerunner of the Young Liberals, the NLYL was dissovled in 1988 when the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) merged. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep youth wings of major political parties at the national level are routinely notable, subnational branches tend to be redirected to the subnational unit level. Simple searching shows multiyear news coverage of the Young Liberals: eg. BBC [4][5], The Guardian [6], Wales Online [7]. Sarah Pickard's "Politics, Protest and Young People: Political Participation and Dissent in 21st Century Britain" (Palgrave, 2019) has 15-20 references to the Young Liberals, including multi-page analysis (see in particular pp 196-201 which covers the history of youth structures in the current party and its forerunners). WP:NEXIST; no doubt the article could be cleaned up, but that doesn't mean it is not notable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources confirm that the organisation exists via trivial mentions, but do they demonstrate that it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education as per WP:ORGSIG? Orange sticker (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" ... any significant or demonstrable effects (my emphasis). That reliable sources on the subject exist (ie "demonstrable") is the evidence of notability, what they write about it is a content question, not a notability question. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
My mistake (shouldn't rely on my memory!), we generally redirect to the subnational level party unit! Yes, redirect to Welsh Liberal Democrats. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
My mistake (shouldn't rely on my memory!), we generally redirect to the subnational level party unit! Yes, redirect to Scottish Liberal Democrats. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This television series has no mention of release date yet. Only cast announcements and filming. There were independent sources in this article besides ABS-CBN, which is considered first-party source, but not enough. A case of WP:TOOSOON. JRGuevarra (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - This upcoming TV series was already covered by various media outlets as early as 2022, though they mostly relate to casting announcement or such. I'm not sure if those constitute notability per WP:GNG, but I can't find any other decent coverage that would provide an overview for this series. For now, I'm leaning towards draftify. If other editors find this article worth retaining with strong argument, then I might as well revise my recommendation in favor of them. But draftify for now. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The show already mentioned a 2025 release date, as part of ABS-CBN's upcoming programs for the new year. The first teaser was shown on the night of December 10, 2024 at the Araneta Coliseum in Quezon City. Gino March (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reading through the article, I saw a release date, but it only says next year. I think such strong pieces of evidence are needed for the article itself. There are many unsourced cast members that needed citations, and it's unknown what the upcoming series is about. For now, it's still likely too soon for television notability.
Userfy. I think it's in production hell. The producers have taken an idea from Korean TV to be adapted to the Philippines, but were unable to cast A-list actors (if you know, you know). So every five days they leak a few more details about casting and how emotional the show will be. However, the actual episode premiere date isn't yet announced. That's a red flag. I'm hoping it premieres in late February 2025 when I'm there. Bearian (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Article has some enough sources to pass WP:GNG, however upon looking, the majority of it only contain the same (one) news story (i.e. announcement and teaser) in different sources that isn't meet WP:NTV. For now, definitely WP:TOOSOON. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Results from invitationals and other events for a high school/junior high cross-country team and its young participants (minors listed by name in this article) is not a notable encyclopedic topic. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me21:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no indication of notability. Note I removed the material that's better suited for the state athletic association website. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
What is the distinction between the two? If this is just a supplemented, updated, and improved version of List of World Chess Championships, then it is a supplemented, updated, and improved fork. Is there a reason you didn't suggest the improvements to the original article? Remsense ‥ 论21:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because History and List of (tournaments) are the different topics! It's very strange to write about history in an article where there is only a list. Teterev53 (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wikitext is over 100,000 bytes. Surely you do not think the article is over 100,000 words in length, if you're looking at the page you're citing—World Chess Championship is presently 6,700 words, which is a bit on the lean side and has plenty of room for growth. Remsense ‥ 论21:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question, just to avoid any issues later- given the way the AfD is going, are you planning on If you want to delete the article, use AfD. If you succeed, then the original version will be rolled back, which is a pity for the author., as you said on your talk page before you blanked it? Seemed relevant to bring up, to preempt any later issues. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you could write this article to look anything like that one, it would be a different story. In reality, the glaring disparity between History of the FIFA World Cup and this article proves the point why one should exist and the other should not. Remsense ‥ 论21:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues with the article's text are not reasons for its deletion. Work on the article is ongoing and progressing as a long-term effort. Teterev53 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lists can, and usually do, have prose. Unless the history of something is very substantial and separable, they are usually found in the same article. (Just to avoid any confusions about lists among anyone) (just trying to help with the AfD, but not gonna reply directly, to avoid any repetition of the talk page or the ANI thread.) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is the history of something separably notable from the thing itself? Unless you think that you could write an article for what the WCC is now, and how it was different before- bcs it's literally been a lineal line from then till now, played with matches. (You mention books, but all sources you have added until now have been unreliable websites mostly.) Also, yoi are supposed to give concrete examples, not just say, of course, there are sources present; if there are, I'm sure it can be shown how the stuff in it somehow only relates to one of the three. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mindset is overly focused on the ability to make a distinction without any consideration as to whether it's actually useful for editors or readers, and not in effect a totally redundant liability to both. If the OP continues to dodge the central argument while swatting at points that have already been implied or addressed, it is hard to see them as arguing in good faith—vanity would be an apt description. Remsense ‥ 论22:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect, or Draftify. There is indeed a lot of history out there. At present we are covering it with a combination of World Chess Championship and List of World Chess Championships. The present situation, in which the new article is mostly poached from the older two, is plainly unsatisfactory. If a separate article is worth doing, one must first identify what topics it will cover, and then write about those topics. Until a lot of this has been done, either the article should be in draft space, or it should be offline. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the keep votes made so far have not satisfactorily engaged with the arguments for deletion already made by Remsense and others, and appear to be limited to the article creator. Stockhausenfan (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Company is one guy selling guitar picks through Etsy. Notability seems pretty questionable, with almost all the sources being, um, "popular" websites like The Awesomer, BoingBoing, and LaughingSquid. All of which links that I tried are dead. The only functioning link seems to be a Tennessean article of the "spotlight on a local business variety." It's something, but Google has nothing else, and if you take away all the promo and dead links, there isn't much of an article left. Mbinebri (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteThe Tennesseean article is WP:SIGCOV, and possibly the Guitar Player as well if it weren't a dead link. All other sources are either product reviews or gift guides. One more reliable non-promotional source and I would be inclined to keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To me, this is a promo of this specific brand name picks. Half of the article is devoted to reviews and press coverage. Compare that with any link in the navbox at the bottom. The navbox leads the reader to specific methods and some of the famous pickers who have developed their own particular style. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I'm not sure what you mean by the sources "are broken". One is a scholarly book from a university press that is available on JSTOR and Oxford Academic. The other is a peer-reviewed article from an academic journal. I've added a link to the latter. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclusion in Arab women writers: a critical reference guide, 1873-1999 with a respectable academic press convinces me that further (probably non-English) sources exist, even if they are not available online. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG, only a single review is mentioned on Lemon 64. Searching for sources came up with numerous magazine advertisements for the game, but no actual reviews of it besides the mentioned one, making it likely to not be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People do still play games on it... there are new games coming out for it, even.
It was slightly before my time, but I still know what it is because after all, Wikipedia is the world's greatest reference material :P ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the ones in Commodore User 16 and Commodore Computing International, but despite the fact that they seem like news, I believe they're actually advertisements. The font is clearly different from the rest of the magazine and they have nothing negative to say about anything written about there. The typical stuff is also in a different part of the magazine. I'm also dubious about the 2022 article; it doesn't have much to say about the game itself, and is only about its marketing campaign. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are clearly not advertisements - that's what 80s (and 90s!) UK computer magazines looked like, and magazines generally weren't critical about new releases in the way we'd expect of games reviewers today. The CCI issue with the news article also has a separate review of the game a few pages later which refers back to "the story page 29". Adam Sampson (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. If you are indeed sure it's the real deal, I have no qualms about withdrawing the AfD. No need to waste time on needless bureaucracy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep. Some further coverage on Dartfreakz beyond the one article already mentioned. 1, 2 (plus a lot of routine coverage of wins). Looks like there's also an article in Dagblad van het Noorden, but it's paywalled so I can't tell whether it's particularly significant coverage. Not astonishing indeed, but seems just about enough to pass. AddWittyNameHere00:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Did a before search, and it seems all coverage is WP:CORPTRIV: "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: [...] of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops". Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NCORP This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies.
This was previous nominated for deletion but had no consensus. I am nominating this again as there's no justification so far to give the subsidiary its own article when article of parent Votorantim Group already exists. ImcdcContact06:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
So this article was created by Phwaice who seems to be a WP:COI user judging by username and behavior. The article was previously nominated for deletion and the consensus was to redirect to a company article that is now deleted due to lack of notability. The article was then reverted by Carloschilo who also seems to have COI behavior.
The issue is this article from a quick glance seem to be nothing more than a PR puff piece for the subject which is basically WP:PROMO. There’s also issue of notability. The vast majority of sources are basically brief mentions of the subject. You have some which are interviews, so they are not independent. The subject is mentioned in a few lists, but these again seem more like mentions and not really in-depth.
This article probably needs to be rewritten from scratch to comply with Wikipedia standards. That’s assuming we get enough independent in-depth sources of notability.
Edit: There seems to be a lot of WP:SPA users on this article. Lenoviah, Iceemagic,SimonSemenya and NganonoMrico. Not sure if these are all WP:SOCK accounts by one person or if its basically a PR agency being paid to fluff this article.
As previously stated my focus is primarily on articles of subjects linked to Eswatini, which are not many unfortunately as the country on has a 1 million population. This country is extremely under-covered. Here are a few examples that show notability of the subject:
All the sources above so far seem to be mainly about another subject but has a brief mention on the current nominated subject with most of them just stating his role founding non-notable companies. Also AFD consensus shows lists like Forbes 30 Under 30 is not considered a reliable source in establishing notability since every year there are 1,230 people under 30 years old placed on the list so it gives the impression it is more of a promotional tool. Notability should not be driven by being on the list although some of the objective information may be used to provide further context on the subject. ImcdcContact02:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!08:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLiz it appears a number of referenced online articles have been rot considering they are pre-2020 articles but there are references to physical newspapers like this one [9] and books which cover the subject. There are also video interviews done by CNBC on the subject. Maybe converting it to a stub may be a more reasonable because the subject is notable.
CommentOaktree b it appears a number of referenced online articles have been rot considering they are pre-2020 articles but there are references to physical newspapers like this one [11] and books which cover the subject. There are also video interviews done by CNBC on the subject. Maybe converting it to a stub may be a more reasonable because the subject is notable. Carloschilo (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If, in 2024, you have to use SPAs and sock puppets to create an autobiographical page here, you are presumptively not notable. We have never, ever in 23 years published original research. Bearian (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet notability requirements. There is nothing in the article to establish notability of this student newspaper, and there is no coverage in non-local sources. Note that The Lance published its last newspaper issue in 2019. The official website (which was updated in a 2020 edit) is for a student news blog with the same name. Johnj1995 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Windsor. This is an old holdover from a different time in Wikipedia history, when media outlets were basically handed automatic presumptions of notability, regardless of sourcing, so long as their existence was verifiable — but that's long since been tightened up, so that a media outlet now has to be able to pass WP:GNG on coverage about it. But per WP:STUDENTMEDIA, university and college media outlets which are deemed non-notable should always be retained as redirects to the schools that they serve. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. although some of the Keep arguments are not based in policy or sourcing but on the editor's opinion of this nomination. I still see no support for Deletion or any other outcome. LizRead!Talk!08:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as there is a lack of independent third party coverage providing significant coverage of the grouping. PROD was removed but the issues with the article remain, so bringing it to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This 1914 book about the history of the college does go into the history of the fraternities at the school. College publications marketed to perspective college students feature the Greek life aspect of the school prominently: [12], [13], etc. Occasionally, the school gets mentions in academic studies on Greek Life like [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], Greek life is clearly an important part of this school's campus experience.4meter4 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article has secondary sources throughout. One is Baird's Manual, the primary source about Greek letter organizations for more than 100 years. Another is the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities, created and maintained by academics and published by the University of Illinois. Regarding, WP:NLIST, that is covered via the Almanac, which provides information by institution. I don't have access to the cited edition of Baird's, but it probably includes information by institution as well. In addition, when the data set is itself notable, combining that group meets standards for stand-alone list articles. Consider, for example, a list of notable alumni from a college; there is rarely a secondary source that covers that list of people, but the included alumni are individually notable.
Since several of these institutional GLO lists have recently been nominated for deletion, it is worth noting that these articles exist as a part of an agreement between WP:UNI and WP:FRAT. The former felt that complete lists of GLO were too much detail for university articles and the latter liked the ability to expand the level of detail, as in the way this article provides details about each GLO. This level of detail appears to be moving this list article toward the direction of University of Virginia fraternities and sororities, which is GA status. With that in mind, this article should be seen as a work in progress that can be moved from list article status, either as is or at a later date. Rublamb (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been no adequate reason for this being relisted when the responses (even when not bolded) have been for keep giving guideline-based reasons and the nomination itself being vacuous. We should not treat low quality nominations as having credibility. Thincat (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Thincat that the nomination is vacuous. This is a solid article, with solid secondary sources and more available as Wikipedia is a work in progress. Deletion for the sake of Deletion is harmful to Wikipedia's mission. In this case, the rationale for deletion is so thin that it is absurd. Jax MN (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Delete Weird naming aside, there is no seaport by the name of "Port of Port Klang", and neither is there a settlement by the name of "Port Klang". The only local government that exists there is the Klang Royal City Council that administers the city of Klang. Content within the "Port of Port Klang" should have been migrated to the Port Klang article. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I can't close this as a rename as that is an editing decision. But I encourage interested editors to make suggestions on the article talk page. LizRead!Talk!06:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The books series in which this fictional character exists could be notable, but there is no good indication that he himself is. The only source I found that seems to talk about him is this book review [24]. Badbluebus (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you don't dispute that the book series is notable, then it should be rescoped to be on the book series, as we have no article on the series. That is what is usually done with old articles like this, scoped around the main character instead of the series, which we have some of - and as far as I can tell, the name of the series is just this character's name. Most of the plot material can be kept, it just needs to be shuffled around. And have reception to the series added. There are reviews of the books on ProQuest, so it is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Running my usual source check. I agree with Para that we should consider treating the work as a general article about the book series itself (since that already seems to be what the article is about, this shouldn't be too hard). The article's current sources do not establish notability. Anyway, here's Google Scholar [25]: Cast Your Vote for 10 Best Works of Materials Science FictionTime Travel Fiction Searches for Leo Frankowski show up findings for his other works. What I'm seeing is that the series was in the running for one award, though its prestige and whether or not it won are not clear. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've done a few tweaks to make this a series page. I have removed some unsourced, OR bits that compared this relatively extensively to Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. This still needs more sourcing to back up claims and all of that, but it's a series page now. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。)13:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The article has been rewritten from "Conrad Stargard is the protagonist and title character in a..." to "Conrad Stargard is a series of time travel novels written by...". The series seems to be notable per new reception section added. We could rename this to the Conrad Stargard series or such, but deletion is no longer a valid outcome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. I'll just note that notability is not really about whether the subject deserves to be separately notable, so those arguments can be discounted here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This article should be kept because she was a notable heroric teacher.She has since been hailed as a hero. She is a posthumous recipient of the Presidential Citizens Medal.Plans and petitions to honor her by name via scholarships, roads, and schools were announced in late 2012 and 2013.In 2013, Acero Victoria Soto High School opened in Chicago, Illinois. The Nutmeg Big Brothers Big Sisters organization created the "Victoria Soto Volunteer Award" in honor of Soto, who was a former Nutmeg mentor.In June 2013, a playground in Long Brook Park in Stratford was named the "Victoria Soto Memorial Playground" in her honor. Only a notable heroric person like would have been honored as such. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- it's a one-event article, which would normally be a delete, but sometimes the one event generated enough external notable citations AND a really well cited and written article that this side overrides (it's not at the same level, but Lee Harvey Oswald is certainly a one-event person as well). The article shows external notability after the event with a school named after her, a playground, and an award. The one-event was so big as to require multiple subsidiary articles to contain all the independent coverage, and this is one of those (well-dritten) articles. Keep -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)08:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. She gave her life for her students like Jesus Christ gave His life for the whole world. This article should be kept because no one who didn't know her personally won't get to know what she did. This page is like a memorial to her for those who won't get to see her gravesite. Kellygirlaj (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note -Victoria Leigh Soto sacrificed her life by covering her students with her body, therefore she safed the lives of many of them.
Had this been a act in the military, she would have been awarded the "Medal of Honor". However it was a heroic civiian act and as such her heroism as been recognized by the president and her community therefore making her notable. If every "Medal of Honor" recipient has an article, then she should also have hers. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is the second-highest civilian award in the United States, so not equivalent to the Medal of Honor. Also it was a joint award with 5 others. What makes Soto any more notable than any of the other 5 awardees? Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The medal recognizes an individual "who has performed exemplary deeds or services for his or her country or fellow citizens." However among the additional recognitions which she has been awarded are the following: In 2012, Eastern Connecticut State University created the Victoria Leigh Soto Endowed Memorial Scholarship Fund, awarded to students aiming to become teachers.In 2012, the Town of Stratford renamed North Parade, adjacent to town hall, "Victoria Soto Way".In December 2012, the Stratford High School Class of 2003 established the "Victoria L. Soto Memorial Fund" in her honor. The fund helped pay for funeral services, the creation of a memorial at Stratford High School, and a scholarship fund in the name of Soto, who had belonged to the class of 2003. Yes, she is notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main article is very long as is, and this is on a notable subtopic. BIO1E isn't end-all be all and there is enough material for an individual article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping to see some policy-based arguments. Having a playground named after a subject doesn't establish notability as defined on Wikipedia. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Ignore all rules for this genuine selfless hero who knowingly traded her own life to save the children. She wasn't just a person who happened to be in the wrong place and got shot. She deliberately put herself in harm's way trying to save those children. — Maile (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think that the coverage is persistent enough to overcome the standard of WP:BIO1E; she is often mentioned in pieces about the shooting, although these mentions tend to be brief, I (weakly) think it is enough. The current article does tend towards the kind of thing discussed in WP:NOTMEMORIAL and could perhaps be trimmed, but as usual, deletion is not cleanup. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every year, for the past decade, on my birthday, the story of her heroism is rehashed in the news and on social media. Sometimes she's mentioned by name, sometimes just by title, but I'm reminded every year. That's a legacy, and that's enough to keep. Bearian (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment I'd withdraw to save the community's time since it's clear this will only close one way (although I don't agree it's based in policy as she was not the only teacher killed in a school shooting nor even this one). However there's an extant delete !vote so I cannot. If someone patrolling who hasn't voted wants to close this early, feel free. StarMississippi13:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject has only written a single text, apart from which, there is no other biographical information available. Hence, low notability. Not many WP:RS mention the subject. Moreover, the same information as on this page is also available on the page Satkhandagama. Tagging other active users of this project and those who responded to a similar AfD previously: User:RJShashwat, User:Goyama, User:Expectopatronum30, User:TheAstorPastor. To fellow editors: please feel free to not respond if you didn't wish to be tagged here. I apologize for the same. ParvatPrakash (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom: Even though some sources were added after nomination, they all still say the same thing that the subject is said to have authored a text. I feel, in that case, an article on Satkhandagama as it already exists would be enough instead of a separate article about the author about whom nothing is known apart from the information that he authored the said text. The text seems to be more notable than the author himself. ParvatPrakash (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.