Delete Absolutely zero information found, name just miraculously appears on USGS topo maps in 1958: [1] without any apparent infrastructure. Nothing but a couple rural homes today. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Pygos: Please see WP:EXIST. As for other articles of similar quality being deleted, by all means, let's delete them. Have a look at my edit history and you'll see that clearing Wikipedia of stubs like this is a recent crusade of mine. If a place has no documentation then an article on it does nothing but clutter the internet. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. When I was patrolling this page, I couldn't find any pieces on him — nothing close to WP:SIGCOV — in a quality British national WP:RS, and zero outside of the UK. As a west-end actor, he is going to get mentions in the media from shows, but I can't see that the media find him particularly notable as a standalone subject? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find either anything in previews nor any mention of him in the play reviews. It a complete mystery to me how they can jump to a keep !vote almost immediately without presenting any evidence per WP:THREE. I did a search using reliable sources search which covers the major Canadian newspapers and not a thing came up, on him. There is reviews of the plays. You would think there would be some mention outwith passing mentions. scope_creepTalk14:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewikizoomer: What sources exactly. You seem to flit from Afd to Afd without providing any evidence for you keep !votes. WP:THREE is considered best practice for proving the person is notable. Do you have any reference that prove this person is notable? scope_creepTalk16:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: keep !votes would benefit from specifying which sources establish Notability here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891TalkWork17:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the CBC article about the one-man show, rest are simply confirmation of various performances... I don't consider the award terribly notable. Perhaps the Dora, rest are rather small/non-notable. I don't find additional coverage of this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my comments above, has zero WP:SIGCOV on him in any quality British RS (and nothing internationally). Is 46, so is well advanced in their career with no sign of their notability improving. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the comments above, his own website says he "is arguably most “famous” for helping remind you to switch modes on your phone in the Air Canada in-flight safety video." This is not a notable person. -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This institution is unaccredited, and SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2 cannot apply. Thus, it needs to pass the stringent WP:NORG, which it does not — there is no significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article by adding several references, including to a fairly in-depth profile in the Orlando Sentinel, and to a book by a sociologist who describes the emergence of the university and calls it a "milestone". Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found. One of the primary purposes of notability guidelines is to ensure that there is sufficient material to create an informative article, and there is clearly enough published material on this university (even though one might wish for more so that an even meatier article would be possible). For further expansion, there just needs to be effort put in to tap that material and integrate it into the article. --Presearch (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noted that this "fairly in-depth profile" has no author? So, no — an advertorial (churnalism) in a local newspaper does NOT add toward notability.
Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found This article is at AfD because I (and others) believe that notability is not established and I am happy to see you accept that. Regrettably, we cannot speculate about sourcing esp. that we are discussing an organization in USA and not, say, Sudan! Further, WP:NEXIST cautions, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
It's not my case that no sources exist — 1 and 2 from among the very few hits in Newspapers.com — but that they are trivial and/or they are routine run-of-the-mill coverage. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several more sources, all with named authors, and arguably all from reliable sources. All of these provide "more than a trivial mention," and in some cases the university was indeed "the main topic of the source material", so each of these arguably contributes "significant coverage" for meeting general notability (WP:GNG)
Regarding the Orlando Sentinel article, that may now be moot, but it's worth noting that the newspaper is reputable, and the userfied (non-Wikipedia) essay on "churnalism" acknowledges that "If a reliable source decides to fact check a press release and write a story about it, it then meets the definition of coming from a reliable source" - that raises the question of whether an absence of named author is enough grounds to treat this article as unreliable when it's from an otherwise reputable source (have you found any duplicate versions of the same material on numerous sites?). (By the way, friend, I suspect you know that a statement that something "is arguably established" is different than stating that it is "not established") --Presearch (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"News India Times" is not even a RS in all probabilities. And, a couple of articles in India Abroad — a now-defunct publication aimed exclusively at the Indian diaspora with a peak circulation of ~ thirty thousand — do not make the entity wiki-notable; if anything, such meager coverage in such a niche publication only goes to demonstrate the non-notability.
Further, NCORP has a higher standard for sources to contribute toward notability. This is due to the levels of (undisclosed; see WP:TOI) paid-coverage frequently engaged in by business entities. So, we look for sources that do not mechanically reproduce what the organization says and show some critical engagement. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article based on primary sources. A search of Google news just yields primary sources too. The first event hosted by this company had now occurred with no coverage. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New MMA organization with essentially some press releases. I see nothing that shows this organization is WP notable at this time. Perhaps a redirect to Mark Madsen (fighter) who founded the organization (and where the org is already mentioned)? Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit11:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it lacks sufficient independent, secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, the article relies heavily on promotional language and primary sources, which compromises its neutrality and fails to provide verifiable third-party coverage. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This nom seems like a stretch and over reach to me. There are plenty of in-depth resources from independent 3rd party sources just by clicking the news or books tab on google. They are published several times a week. The nominator has several warning and a controversial editing history. Just seems like there are better things to spend time on. SmileyShogun (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My company uses NinjaOne for our RMM services, and I needed to do research on it to become more familiar, and this Wikipedia article has a plethora of good reference articles and resources. There is no need to delete the article, and would be a loss of information for others like me. Jonkorf (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Jonkorf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep: Has been a long-time columnist for the Toronto Star, wrote a few encyclopedia articles [2]. Mostly due to the fact that he's cited/quoted in more than a few books [3], implying some notability in his field. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find any significant or independent coverage of this bridge player. The NYT source is a couple of sentences in a bridge tournament report. Note that there seems to be some unrelated people by the same name, for instance a reviewer for Variety [8]. Geschichte (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article doesn't cite anything that would establish notability. The article was previously deleted in 2008. toweli (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it lacks sufficient reliable secondary sources to establish the company's notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. Additionally, the article mostly relies on primary sources, making it difficult to verify its claims and meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While (some of) the webcomics that were part of Dayfree Press are notable, DP itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. There's this article in the The Comics Grid journal, which brings it up on p. 4 and 9 (and which could be considered sigcov, I guess). And there's also a Wired.com blog that says ~80 words about Dayfree Press. But I wasn't able to find more. toweli (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi toweli there are also mentions alongside other webcomic collectives in A History of Webcomics (2006) and Webcomics 2.0 (2008) also has a section on webcomics collectives. So combined with the Comics Grid Journal article you found...and possibly others (that don't mention Dayfree Press), my proposed solution as a WP:ATD (if you are interested) would be to create a new "List of webcomic collectives" article (if one doesn't already exist) and redirect Dayfree Press to that one. Happy editing! Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Assuming there are enough sources, that sounds like a good idea and would allow Wikipedia to cover webcomic collectives which have received some coverage, but not enough for a standalone article. toweli (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. An ATD was mentioned but no target article identified. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear GNG fail, listcruft of something that isn't even a real organisation, it's just a collection of people who stuck weblink advertising on their page. It's been 15 years with zero sourcing. Enough is enough. Time to go. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. come on, this is the stuff we come to Wikipedia for. Suppose it could be merged somewhere; would support that if appropriate placement is identified. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. While you may enjoy the article, personal preference doesn't factor into AfDs, only evidence that a full article can be created based on the idea of "rules lawyering". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it is now, although short, already has some content which would not fit into a dictionary. And a WP:BEFORE search shows that various sources dealing with table-top roleplaying games have more to say: On A Roll p. 45, The Civilized Guide to Tabletop Gaming p. 66 and The Postmodern Joy of Role-Playing Games all have about a page of content, including commentary. And the journal Analog Game Studies Vol. IV has a full essay on the topic. How can 6+ pages contain "only a definition"? So it seems to me the nomination is mostly talking about the current status of the article, which is not decisive when deciding about deletion. All that said, the first and primary paragraph could be merged in to Role-playing game terms, and later be spun out again as soon as someone uses the listed sources further. But aside from that fact that I see no advantage in that, it would already be akward to fit in the other contexts where same term may pop up, but more rarely so if the Google Books search is any indication. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analog Game Studies is a good source, the others seem like definitions or brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else. Usually one solid source is still not enough to merit a full page. Therefore I am still not "convinced", though I will admit there is a non zero amount of coverage about the concept of rules lawyering in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: The first two books (sorry, I had a wrong link there) each have a specific section dedicated to the topic, so brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else is not correct here. The third one does talk about the concept in a larger context, but has significant analysis way beyond a definition (what it means for the game, contrast to other concept,...). So is there material to expand the article beyond the length of a stub? Absolutely! Daranios (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is sufficient to meet WP:N and we have more than just a dictionary definition. I could see a broader article on this plus related things such as RAW and RAI (as mentioned above). Hobit (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between editors advocating Keep and those pushing a Merger. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus and would rather not close this as No consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article failes WP:GNG, I did WP:BEFORE but couldn't find anything of note. This article was recreated a month or two after the last AfD. Recently it was made into a redirect and an IP editor reverted claiming that the last AfD was not a delete but a no consensus. This is not true, the last AfD was a delete, the current article does not meet pass notability. Dr vulpes(Talk)05:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG the subject has received coverage particularly after he became the chairman of Reliance JIO India's largest telecom company and one of the most important corporate positions in India. It is the third largest mobile network operator in the world. Note the coverage listed below about the subject is due to the fact he is the Chairman of Reliance JIO not because of his being Mukesh Ambani's son and hence WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply here.Further How one becomes Chairman or President or director is not a concern as far notability is concerned Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][reply]
@Pharaoh of the Wizards: The Economic Times article you cited in the first position is a paid/sponsored WP:NEWSORGINDIA article, as it is published by ‘ET Spotlight Special.’ It also has a disclaimer at the end stating: ‘This content is authored by an external agency. The views expressed here are those of the respective authors/entities and do not represent the views of The Economic Times (ET). ET does not guarantee, vouch for, or endorse any of its contents, nor is it responsible for them in any manner whatsoever.’ GrabUp - Talk07:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a useful exercise to dismiss that entire lot of a dozen sources wholesale. Five of the 12 show up in green on the source highlighter tool. From a random check, this source looks like secondary SIGCOV, has a named author, and the publisher's reliability is backed by community consensus at WP:SCMP. Left guide (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it; citation #6 in the above list (Financial Times) also appears to have the same set of aforementioned traits as the SCMP piece: secondary SIGCOV, named author, and deemed generally reliable by community consensus at WP:RSP. Left guide (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one reference on the page and it's a dead link to a bio of her from the government organization she works for. A quick search shows a decent amount of articles about and by a South African woman named Rachel Adams regarding AI (here, here, and here) but this seems to be a completely different woman who just happens to share a name and nationality. benǝʇᴉɯ04:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of coverage for the AI person as mentioned, I don't see anything about a politician. Happy to revisit if we find new sources. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Prometheus Society has been active for over 40 years. It has had hundreds of members, and its journal, Gift of Fire, has had over 200 issues printed. Every article I know of that discusses high IQ societies more selective than Mensa mentions it. There's no other high IQ society more selective than Mensa which is better known, with the possible exception of Mega. Promking (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Prometheus Society holds a prominent place in the history of high IQ societies. It accepts people who have an IQ at the 4 sigma level, with a minimum IQ of 164. As stated, this is the best known IQ society above the Mensa level. I've been a member for many years. 2604:2D80:A682:5800:E0EE:FD15:96AA:925A (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been brought to AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: GNG fail. Coverage is routine and/or insignificant. Journals are not independent coverage. Being a group of alpha sigma level geniuses doesn't confer notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The following articles exist:[10][11][12]. The first two constitute significant coverage. The third is a passing mention but worth noting nonetheless. Additionally, I would argue some the government sources in the article may be secondary, as well as number 5. Garsh (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garsh2: I saw the California Aggie article in my search but did not mention it here as that publication is a campus newspaper run by students at UC Davis; see their Instagram profile. The Sacramento Bee article looks good, but I'm highly skeptical of the reliability of ToxicSites (citation 5), and I'm not sure if the government sources are independent enough to count towards notability as the site seems to be managed by the US Department of Energy. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garsh2: One more ping since we're on the second relist now. Are you inclined to reconsider your !vote based on my source analysis? Are there any other sources that might support a notability claim? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of a "semt" can be informal, but Hatay in İzmir as a city center is well-recognized even if it does not have official boundaries. The Konak municipality has a center there, public transit stations, events, etc... Within the "semt", there are lots of officially recognized "mahalle"s, each of which can have their own articles, according to WP:NTOWN. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Only two sources have been found so far, and as these are both the same publication, they count as one. A moot point as the second source is a passing mention. The first is a little better, suggesting the subject is a large district, but the discussion above suggests that the description is an informal one. Yet if we had multiple independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the locality, the legal status would be irrelevant. I would move to keep if more and better sourcing could be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nova Corps - Its only notability is being the home world of the Nova Corp, and all of the essential information on the planet is already covered at that article. Per WP:NOPAGE the two topics should very obviously be covered under the same topic rather than being split out into two redundant articles. Rorshacma (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An unsourced article that appears to have been created and largely edited by a WP:SPA. It seems to be simultaneously trying to cover the fictional character, the series of books they appear in, and the author, and all three of those things appear to fail the WP:GNG. Searches for the character and the books turned up no coverage or reviews that I could find in reliable sources, and searches for the author only turned up a few brief mentions as an "acknowledgement" in a couple other books. Rorshacma (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article about a major arterial road in western Adelaide. It is also part of a set of Adelaide roads. The article has existed for over six years with no concern. Scott DavisTalk
FYI — the articles are accessible via an Apple News subscription. 1 mentions Grange Rd quite a bit throughout the article and is even in the headline. There a four mentions of Grange Rd in 3. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything which could be described as significant coverage on the page and I'm not finding much else which could be considered. JMWt (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMost of the references are simply maps like https://location.sa.gov.au/....and this particular reference holds multiple overlays containing relevant information to verify this road's location and councils responsible for it, amongst many other features: these sources are both reliable and from the state's own government department. Certainly there is more room for improvement and for a better variety of sources, but I don't believe it's a reason for deletion. Enough attention might encourage more contributions to invoke WP:HEY if it's not already there Lordstorm (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a clear consensus here to Keep but I'm unsure if the existing sources can justify this closure. Can editors who want this article Kept do a little digging for some reliable secondary sources? If this road is that important, they should be out there. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]