This is largely the same as [Investigations into the Eric Adams administration], so one of these pages should really be deleted, or they should be merged. The undeveloped content on this page is merely a "legalise" version of what already exists on the other page. Nmarshall25 (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above - seems redundant. That said, in the long term it's likely the best outcome will be to merge most of the "criminal investigations" article into the main Adams article (trimmed) and recreate this one, since it's easily going to be the most substantial. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: The indictment and resulting trial (assuming there will be one) is in itself historic and should merit an article under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criminal investigations page is a broader view on the topic, and concerns investigations into Adams' staff (for example, ex-NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban) and is not singularly focused unto Adams. The Trump fake electors plot and the prosecutions stemming from said plot underscore and illustrate why this should be a standalone article. If we were to follow what the above users are saying, we should also be discussing merging Donald Trump's Jan 6. case and documents case into the already existing "indictments against Donald Trump" page, or even merging it into "legal affairs of Donald Trump" or into the main Trump page. There are large parallels here. Trump is a former POTUS, while Adams is a sitting mayor of the most populous city of the U.S., elected there by millions of New Yorkers. This should warrant its own article. --WellThisIsTheReaperGrim17:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between merging these pages into the indictments against Donald Trump page, and merging these into Trump's main page, is substantial. It wouldn't be appropriate for Trump's page for several reasons including WP:NPOV and WP:SIZERULE (since Trump's page is already very long, and there is enough info about these legal cases for them to stand alone as their own articles, or even under a "indictments" article). It might be appropriate to merge the various indictments into the indictments against Donald Trump if these indictments are, themselves, better covered under these pages. These indictments all seem to have significant enough amounts of detail to warrant their own articles, rather than a single "indictments" article.By contrast, the article about Adams's federal indictment seems to be duplicating info found in the Investigations into the Eric Adams administration page. In fact, the Adams federal indictment page is empty except for the lead. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this unit does exist (see here), it does not seem to be particularly notable, with very few non-primary sources. On searching, almost all external sources relate to the Royal Parks Constabulary instead. The existence of a police unit should not automatically warrant an article. Elshad (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term concerns about notability, no chart success, very little in-depth coverage. An interview from 1997 was conducted by SoCal radio station KCRW[1] but interviews do not count toward notability. This UnCut album review from 2003 doesn't cover the artist's life or career; it just calls her an "independently-minded pianist-songwriter". The Sputnik page about Terran has no signed author. It appears to have been written by a family member. AllMusic's page about Terran does not have a signed prose review, indicating less notability. And none of Terran's albums have a signed prose review on AllMusic. The 2008 interview with Full Circle magazine cannot count toward notability; in any case it is a essentially a blog post published through Google's Blogger platform. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources found for this singer, nothing in Gnewspapers, Gnews or a book search. I don't think she's gotten the critical notice we require. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cell phone. I'd BLAR but it survived AfD 14 years ago, so I assume that would be controversial. On the topic of that AfD, it was claimed there was SIGCOV in these three sources: (all skunked now so you get the archived versions)
CNET: this is actually just a landing page for user reviews for the product, the "staff review" just refers you to their coverage for the show it debuted at. You can find that here, where it trivially mentions the phone. Not SIGCOV either.
Twice.com trivially mentions the phone at the end of this article, not SIGCOV
The link from accessmylibrary.com is dead. Apparently that's a Gale service, so I did my best to search Gale for the ostensible title of the article, but found no results. Also checked Gale for "Audiovox Snapper" in general and got zero hits. (Not even any trivial hits).
Folks, I think at the last AfD we maybe didn't check the links very well, because none of this adds up to significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator, nothing worth merging. Maybe leave a redirect but I doubt this particular model phone gets any significant search traffic in 2024. Andre🚐23:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted redirect as there is no significant coverage that shows notability outside of unreliable sources, mentions, and general announcements. Created by blocked user and IPs (likely LOUTSOCKs) have objected to the redirect so here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gaatchora: not sure why there's no Adaptations/Remakes section there. Not opposed to deletion given the existing coverage, which allows verification: notable music director and notable cast. So very opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Alimetry Limited passing WP:NCORP. Unfortunately, I think I have declined this twice at AFC, yet the page creator would do a little improvement and resubmit. Following this way, I think it's wayward and not good to keep declining (even from another reviewer), when the article doesn't meet the minimum consideration, hence more participation would be good at AFD.
Quite a long article, source one is purely unreliable and it references the company's non notable product. The second one thebit.nz is also unreliable, and even though NZRS was edited years ago, I don't see the source's editorial integrity of this likely WP:BLOG. Source 7 didn't tell us about the "Gastric Alimetry", instead, about the effects of gastric disorders, which didn't even mention the product.
New Zealand International Business Awards (sources to a blog from a reliable source), the Arobia Trailblazer Innovation Grant, and Medtronic APAC innovation Challenge aren't notable awards per WP:NAWARDS, and same is applicable to the NZ Hi-Tech Awards. There also appear to be an over-detailed contents in the sections, "Technology" and "Clinical Research". Regulatory approvals doesn't justify notability. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Safari Scribe, I fully appreciate that organisations on Wikipedia should be treated with appropriate scrutiny when publishing articles. However, I feel that the appropriate due diligence on the references provided for this article has not been done.
To the points about the reliability of the first two sources, the first source comes from the website for New Zealand’s annual Tech Week, an industry initiative to foster engagement with technology around New Zealand. The article however, was first featured on ‘see tomorrow first’ a government-funded initiative (https://www.seetomorrowfirst.nz/domestic) (https://nztech.org.nz/2022/02/22/launch-of-nzs-tech-story-and-brand-platform-we-see-tomorrow-first/). I have updated this reference to include the see tomorrow first feature also. Thebit is a technology-focussed online newspaper that partners with Stuff.co.nz (featured on the NZRS). I have added a reference where this same article was published there as well.
Source 7 is only about the product. The Wikipedia article outlines ‘The Gastric Alimetry device employs patented body surface gastric mapping technology, utilizing a sensor array and connector to detect electrophysiological data from the stomach.’, and source 7 is a peer-reviewed paper that outlines the different components of Alimetry’s Gastric Alimetry product and its validation. Alimetry is stated several times in the article, and the visual abstract mentions both ‘Alimetry’ and ‘Gastric Alimetry.’
I believe WP:NAWARDS is not the appropriate article for establishing the notability and reliability of these awards, as this article outlines the requirements for a stand-alone article for an award. In this article, I am only citing these awards as evidence. While the Ārohia grant does not have its own Wikipedia page, Callaghan Innovation who awarded it does, and there is plenty of evidence online to showcase that it is a New Zealand government entity (https://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/about-us/). The NZ Hi-tech awards have been a showcase of the best tech companies in NZ since 1994 and have received independent new coverage each year around the awards (https://www.hitech.org.nz/more/about/). Although Wikipedia:Awards and accolades is in draft form, Alimetry Limited’s award references do meet this criteria.
Detailed feedback like this is appreciated to create a better article. I have also completed a notability assessment of all the sources and I hope this has addressed some of your concerns which will allow this article to stay published.
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Keep this passes WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion: we have an entire NZ Herald article; an entire article in The Listener; a Stuff article (see below); plus the industry body awards mentioned above. Not that the criticism of "TheBit.NZ" website made above might be valid, but the article was republished by Stuff, which does maintain editorial oversight on that they publish. Therefore I think it inherits the credibility of that outlet (which is high). David Palmer//cloventt(talk)20:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A critical source assessment from a non-COI editor would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎21:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage. There are mentions and plenty of interviews and him giving advice, but nothing in-depth about him that is reliable. There are references such as this in Inc.com, but when you look closer you can see this is a contributor submitted piece with no editorial oversight, similar to others out there. I would recommend a redirect to ff Venture Capital but that was recently tagged for notability by another editor. CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This part of the article might add to their notability if it do not lack citation, 'Frankel is the founding partner at ff Venture Capital, a New York-based, seed stage investment firm' Tesleemah (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the nominator should have researched about the subject before nominating this. There are several high quality journals that are strictly written on this topic. Atleast they should have gone through reference section where they could've found following:
Mukherjee, Kalyan (1979). "Peasant Revolt in Bhojpur". Economic and Political Weekly. 14 (36): 1536–38. JSTOR4367921.
Rajendra Singh Yadav, Kalyan Mukherjee (1982). "For reasons of state: Oppression and resistance a study of Bhojpur peasantry, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 9:3". : Agrarian Movements in India: Studies on 20th Century Bihar: 119–147. doi:10.1080/03066158208438175. S2CID154841960.
This is a significant event of the History of Bihar like Bihar movement. The Naxalism in Bihar has been a highly notable subject to write as in the history of Bihar, we have read caste wars happening over the decades between various faction of society for land and political power. This significant subject throws light on the early events sparking the naxalite movement in plains of central Bihar after it first emerged in the neighbouring state of West Bengal. You talk about "passing mention", let me tell there are seperate books written on the movement like some of the journals I have mentioned there. Anyone with fair judgement would have gauged the notability of the article. Admantine123 (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – For those who still don't know, the article is about the Naxalite movement in Bhojpur, which started in the early 1970s. The topic is widely covered in scholarship and is clearly notable. I just needed to do a cursory search to find the following in-depth scholarly sources that are not even cited in the article, although most of the details covered in them are already summarised in it:
[Check from The Movement section onwards of p. 263, although previous pages are also relevant, as they give the movement's background]
Sinha, Arun (1978). "The Awakening in Bhojpur". In Sen, Samar; Panda, Debabrata; Lahiri, Ashish (eds.). Naxalbari and After: A Frontier Anthology, Vol. 1. Kathashilpa. pp. 264–290. OCLC1150867358. Archived from the original on 19 August 2019.
All of these sources give in-depth coverage of the Bhojpur movement. In fact, the article is already well-sourced and detailed. Having said that, the title of the article isn't good. It should be Naxalite movement in Bhojpur because that's how sources describe this movement, e.g. see here. Note that sources also describe it as Bhojpur movement (see here), although that title seems a bit ambiguous to me. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnahastin, I don't think you read the article, let alone the sources. The whole article from the first till the last sentence is about the Naxalite movement in Bhojpur. It already covers all relevant details of the 1970s as well as its background. So I don't need to create an article that already exists. The article requires page move, not deletion. Note that all these details were already there in the article before you nominated it. - NitinMlk (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two votes of delete are frivolous. These editors are somehow related to Rajput article. This nomination happened after I checked the recent disruptive activity on Rajput article which was not liked by some. Bishonen is aware of the problem associated with this caste article. In past, you (Ratnahastin) were also in edit dispute with me over Rajput caste related articles. Admantine123 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the content is not limited to 1970 event only. It captures spread to other areas as well and I agree with NitinMlk that choice of title was bad. Admantine123 (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The title of article is irrelevant in determining the notability of its subject. The question before us here is whether the topic, be it the Bhojpur uprising or the Naxalite movement, meets our notability guidelines. Once we've answered that question, a page move--if needed--is trivial. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎20:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment- Naxalite movement in Bhojpur is a definitely notable topic considering many high quality sources published for the same. It is similar to Naxalbari uprising, a similar movement in the Indian state of West Bengal and can be created as separate article. Many sources cover the same which are as follows. In such a situation, the page move to Naxalite movement in Bhojpur is a good idea as the body of the article contains evey stuff about sparking of rebellion in 1970 as well as spread to other areas and contains the spread in whole central Bihar region with regional manifestation. The sources are:
Mukherjee, Kalyan (1979). "Peasant Revolt in Bhojpur". Economic and Political Weekly. 14 (36): 1536–38. JSTOR4367921.
Rajendra Singh Yadav, Kalyan Mukherjee (1982). "For reasons of state: Oppression and resistance a study of Bhojpur peasantry, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 9:3". : Agrarian Movements in India: Studies on 20th Century Bihar: 119–147. doi:10.1080/03066158208438175. S2CID154841960.
Sinha, Arun (1978). "Class War in Bhojpur: II". Economic and Political Weekly. 13 (3): 90–92. JSTOR4366310..
Sinha, Arun (1978). "The Awakening in Bhojpur". In Sen, Samar; Panda, Debabrata; Lahiri, Ashish (eds.). Naxalbari and After: A Frontier Anthology, Vol. 1. Kathashilpa. pp. 264–290. OCLC1150867358. Archived from the original on 19 August 2019.
The subject fails to meet WP:GNG on their own merit and is only notable due to being the sister of a notable person, as evidenced by all available references primarily focusing on her relationship to her sister. And WP:INVALIDBIO explicitly state That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks like a failure to perform a BEFORE. I'm finding substantial references that are about Rina, not her older sister (Vogue, Deadline). Also, the sources present are not primarily focusing on Rina's relationship with her sister, but instead mention it as a considerable detail. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Vogue and Deadline have articles about Rina, but even the headlines in both pieces emphasize her relationship to Dua Lipa, which suggests that her notability is primarily tied to her sister. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason she received coverage is due to her relationship with Dua Lipa, as even Vogue pointed out by stating, She’s self-aware about the nepo-sibling thing. Also, the lead describes her as a model, actress, and dancer, this means the article should also meet WP:ARTIST and WP:NMODEL requirements, both of which she falls short of meeting. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s enough if she meets GNG, which she does. A subject meeting GNG does NOT have to meet particular requirements of SNGs. That would be absurd. The articles (some on the page and plenty more available online) mention her sister but focus on her and constitute significant coverage addressing Rina directly and in depth, in reliable media outlets, which is precisely what is required. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stumbled upon this article as I was deleting articles created by a sockpuppet of Asphonixm but I see the article is being improved and is the subject of this discussion. But if it wasn't being worked on, it would likely be eligible for a CSD G5. LizRead!Talk!00:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who added sources to the page (yesterday, I think) and I am sorry but it was a significant change. I did it to prove she meets GNG. Who is the "major contributor" is not what matters, what matters is whether there is/are (a) "significantly edit"(s) by other user(s). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)09:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see Liz suggest CSD 5 eligibility extended until recently in the face of demonstrative notability and involvement of other editors (myself included) well before the sock was caught. Mushy Yank has made such substantial edits in the last 48 hours that I wonder if Ckfasdf believes that a sock only needs to be a majority contributor for CSD 5, rather than the only major contributor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I don’t think Liz suggested eligibility extended; quite the opposite, I would say (Liz clearly indicates the page is being improved), and her note is just for information, to prevent any CSD nomination, or at least to make things clear. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)12:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I didn’t notice Mushi Yank’s edits in the last 48 hours. However, on 28th September, I did suggest CSD G5 because that sock puppet was the main contributor, and it's worth noting that this sock puppet is notorious for creating biography articles. Pbritti disagreed, which is why we now have this AfD. My stance remains unchanged: she is only known because of her sister, as evidenced by all the sources that prominently mention her sister in both the headlines and the content. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my comments were unclear. I had deleted some other articles created by this sock but decided this one was not eligible due to the contributions of other editors to the content creation which wasn't the case with their other articles. LizRead!Talk!06:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted before. The claim to notability, playing 215 minutes in the USA and in the German fifth tier, is very weak. The sources are not significant or independent and don't rectify the notability problems, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim to notability, playing in the third tier of Poland, Latvia's semi-pro league and 11 games in Japan's third league, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources on page consist of databases and a self-authored piece, so no notability there. The artist's Italian-language article doesn't seem to offer anything better. I was able to find this article which appears to be primarily about the artist, and thesetwo which I think are only passing mentions (hard to tell because I can't read Italian). If those are indeed just passing mentions, then it appears we've only got one valuable source, and notability isn't met. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more to be found, especially in Italy-specific archives that I don't have access to, but as is this does not meet our standards. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite renowned Italian indie band (I'm Italian), and as such there's some coverage. This is an interview to the band on one of the biggest Italian art magazines, while this is an interview on an Italian online music magazine. This is a short biography on another Italian online music magazine. --cyclopiaspeak!16:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cyclopia - the interviews are not considered independent sources, although both give some good info prior to the interview text. Admittedly, indie band sources are difficult to find, but could you search for more mainstream references? Google search from the US isn't good for Italian sources. Lamona (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding on the interviews. They can be a gray area (see WP:INTERVIEW), but in this case where they're presented as straight Q&As, with the writers barely contributing to the actual text and just transcribing what the band says, it should be treated as a primary source. That any coverage exists is a good sign generally, but these don't contribute to notability directly. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I draftified this BLP on a non-notable athlete because I believe it doesn't meet the WP:N. Then the creator of the BLP submitted the draft for review, which I declined, but it was still moved to the main NS. I don’t think it meets GNG or even WP:ATHLETE, thus AFD'd it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s interesting that you’re familiar with the policies, especially for someone with fewer than 50 edits. I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re a sock of a UPE. In any case, could you show how the subject meets the GNG? --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to find significant coverage of this poker player outside of the stories about his alleged cheating and the alleged investigation into it. The stories from PokerNews are all routine coverage of his winnings/participation in tournaments. Being a high-roller is insufficient to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The most successful and best known Czech poker player with appearance in mainstream TV shows (more here). I quickly found sources like 1, 2 and 3, and I'm sure there will be more (and not only on the Internet). FromCzech (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources provided by FromCzech are interviews and profiles which are far from WP:GNG. I thought the stories of the person's participation in tournaments comply with notability guidelines, as long as it exclusively focuses on the subject and is not an interview (see here for example). ⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆14:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say, looking at the domestic cups tab of the page you linked, he appeared in closer to 400 total minutes. I’d still favor deletion but wanted to point that out. Michaelwallace22 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should we then delete all articles whose subject became well known primarily because of their relation to others, for example Amy Carter? It's worth noting that deletion and merger with Vladimir Horowitz was previously discussed on the article's talk page and the strong consensus was keep.THD3 (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only one who expressed desire to keep in that discussion was you. And yes, persons who are only (note: only) known because of their relation to others do not meet the notability criteria and therefore do not warrant a Wikipedia article, such as the subject of this discussion. Marbe166 (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:AFDDISCUSS, "Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion". Facts and evidence from anonymous and new users are welcome, but their opinions may be ignored by the closing administrator. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At no point did I state that the two links above would be the sole potential sources for expansion. And lack of sources in an article is not a rationale in itself for deletion (apart from BLP). TEP was a notable party in its own right 1975-1980, and target for violence and repression. It was one of the first legal parties in Turkey to formally support Kurdish language rights, and was banned for it. --Soman (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rather obviously after the article has been improved. BTW, I wasn't able to see anything in the nomination giving a rationale for deletion and it would preferably be withdrawn. Thincat (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you are really setting foot in a mind field with this nomination. There are lots of these pages for many conferences. What does sustained coverage look like for a College Football championship game and would deleting this page effect about 200 others? Esolo5002 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at worst this would be merged but I think it's better kept as it's an intersection point between three lines and thus where would you merge it to? Garuda3 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like there's some coverage about citizen complaints about an unopened entrance:
The source also claims there was an infrastructure improvement that linked the two lines buildings in 2013, which I assume there would be coverage in some offline source? I see a path to GNG here but can't confirm with the online sourcing available to me right now. This is also one of the difficult cases as Garuda said is that as an interchange station the viable ATD's are redirection to either Rapid Rail or Rapid KL which I think is too broad a target. Even a listification of station articles wouldn't work either since it would likely be listified a line by line basis. This issue would probably be good to take to the boarder community to create some guidelines. JumpytooTalk00:03, 7 October 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.
Probable hoax, unreferenced and not a single mention of it online. Moved back to main space from draft same day by article creator, still unreferenced. Wikishovel (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that my edit countered yours at the same time, where you inserted a {{Db-a7}} template, which is bizzare considering your input (this ain't any comment for me) here. Let this AFD run to this conclusion before adding such templates as this. Again, sorry about that! Intrisit (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unreferenced, and while there may be an unpublished designation for this species, no designation information can currently be found on ZooBank, GBIF, or any other species database. Ecoevergreen (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another attempt at a hoax article. While Toby Kovacs did study the evolutionary history of Australian cockroaches for his honours project, his current PhD work at the University of Sydney is on marsupials. As such, I believe the original author's name quoted is just a coincidence. And as a hoax, there is no reason to let this live untouched in mainspace for a week. Loopy30 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 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.
This is a non-notable entity. The article contains not a single third party source establishing its notability. It a small group of individuals who set up a website. Wikipedia should not be promoting non-notable groups with little to none relevance. --Երևանցիtalk09:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. looks like I found 60 seemingly ok sources that seem to be OK. 59 if you strike out Artsakh Public TV (which is clearly talking about football), and 58 if you remove Newinfo. [possibly 57 or 56, i forgot if I had crossed out Facebook and ARMINFOCENTER already or not...]
My goodness! 117 MILLION?!? Keep, but because I'm not sure how many of these are actually about Western Armenia and how many are just about Armenia, it's not Strong. Kxeon (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an as yet unelected political candidate, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to notability. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't won -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) show credible evidence that their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies. But this is basically "he is a candidate, the end", and isn't even trying to show that he would meet either of those conditions for the notability of an unelected candidate at all. And the sole footnote here, added after I pointed out in this nomination statement that the article was completely unreferenced, is a primary source table of primary results from the state government elections office, which isn't support for notability. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the election, but simply being a candidate for a seat he hasn't already won is not grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're claiming that Reed Gusciora and Tim Eustace didn't exist, or did you just forget to add some more qualifiers? Regardless, simply claiming that somebody is the first openly LGBT person to do a thing that wouldn't otherwise be notable on its own is not an exemption from Wikipedia's notability criteria — if he'd been the first LGBT candidate for anything in the entire United States, that might be something if he was getting nationalized coverage on that basis, but simply being the first LGBT candidate for one specific office that's already had other LGBT candidates and incumbents before him, in one specific state that's already had other LGBT candidates and officeholders in other offices before him, is not an instant notability clinch all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TOOSOON Wining the primary is fine, but that's all the coverage there is [4]. Doesn't appear anywhere online before the nomination, I'm not seeing notability. Can perhaps get an article if he wins the election. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected candidates for political office need to demonstrate notability outside of routine election coverage. Simply because there are very few (openly) gay Republicans doesn't mean this candidate gets a free pass and a campaign biography for an election he is very likely to lose. AusLondonder (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Five articles about albums not shown to pass WP:NALBUM. Back in the day, Wikipedia's approach to album notability was to extend an automatic inclusion freebie to any album recorded by a notable artist, regardless of its sourcing or lack thereof, in the service of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and albums are now independently notable only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about the album. But four of these five articles are completely unreferenced, and one is referenced solely to a single unreliable source directory listing that isn't support for notability. It also warrants note that these were all briefly redirected to the band a year and a half ago for lack of independent sourcing, but that was reverted within 24 hours with no actual explanation provided of what the problem with redirecting them was, and they've continued to stand as unreferenced articles ever since, without ever having a whit of GNG-worthy sourcing added to any of them. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was the one who reverted some redirections, and I don't really recall why, but when I look into it now, I see that the editor who made the redirects was a problem editor who became indefinitely blocked. Geschichte (talk) 14:19, 28 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.
I'm not sure if this webcomic is notable. The single reference that's in the article brings up Triangle and Robert a few times ([5]), though Google Books only lets me see snippets, so I can't tell if it's significant coverage or not. It has also been mentioned ([6]) in The Comics Journal, where it even says "This [...] strip is virtually never talked about when Web comics are discussed". The article was previously kept at an AfD, but that was back in 2005 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 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.
I believe the sport of freestyle fixed gear meets notability. Aside from being featured in Hollywood motion pictures (cited), the very first cycling trick done on film was done on a fixed gear bicycle (this is cited in the article). A fixed gear bike was used in the X Games (in 2001 Trevor Meyer) the premier showcase of Extreme sport. Fixed-gear bicycle article doesn't contain the details or background on the community of people doing tricks on fixed gear bikes. Racing on a fixed gear isn't really related to freestyle (tricks) on a fixed gear; similar to how speed skating isn't related to figure skating. FixedGearFreeStyle (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Weak Keep. I don't see how the article is promotional and its a well sourced list. It serve as a informational list per WP:LISTPURP. The problem is it needed more expansion. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost everyone of these references are interviews of one sort or another and can't be used to prove notability. Gbooks is probably the best bet for establishing it. There is a couple of profiles there that are no good either. scope_creepTalk07:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that most of the references given above are interviews; they are articles that partially quote him, but that is rather common for articles about a person. I find the Wired, the Register, Infoworld and CRN to be independent, and together they demonstrate notability. None provides a true biography, so hopefully that will come along in the future giving us more personal, rather than just professional, information. Lamona (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know the source of some of the BBC's information: I doubt whether they had a reporter on the spot. Where they tell us what Mazaheri said they are giving us his secondary account surely? But, apart from the secondary aspect, the event may well not be too notable. I found the other claims in your nomination more persuasive. Thincat (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a POVFORK and we already have a decent article at Ingush people. There may be some elements of this article that can be merged there, but I don’t think this article as a whole should be retained. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any content worth merging? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit12:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Run-of-the-mill predatory/payday lender. "Reviews" are indiscriminate WP:SPIP with no meaningful content. Wikipedia is not the place to host brochures. No indication of any independent coverage, in-depth in reliable sources, in fact there's barely anything beyond the SPIP and the routine "I got predatory loaned to" that all of these have, which, while sad, are not great sources for encyclopedic content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not really meeting CORP. There's the Global News article about someone that wasn't happy with their loan, and this [15] where someone with the company talks about their work model... Not really sigcov in either case. Rest are all PR links. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's already coverage in multiple reliable sources about the 2028 elections and the changes that'll occur then, I think that meets enough coverage to keep the page
Keep these elections will take place on the specified date by law and there are reliable sources covering events that will take place (e.g. Clover Moore retirement, referendum results).
Delete. Sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Many of the sources just say the date the election will be held and the rules of the election, which are the same as any other local government election. The Clover Moore stuff can be adequately covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. The part that mentions some local governments are changing their electoral structures is already covered at 2024 New South Wales local elections. Steelkamp (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A term seemingly coined by a single blog post. The post does not appear to have received secondary coverage and Wikipedia now seems to be primary source of the term. Brandon (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's probably covered in a specialist book about the company, but this is likely too niche to get an article here. I don't find any coverage in Gbooks. I've got some locomotive encyclopedias I use, but this isn't in them either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 5 October 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.
Per WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. The event does not have in-depth nor sustainedcontinued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. Additionally, none of the sources found provided significant coverage of the event. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event is notable since the Routledge book The Dragon in the Cockpit: How Western Aviation Concepts Conflict with Chinese Value Systemsnoted, "From the CAA report, we can infer some cultural factors in the accident. Although these inferences are not part of the original report, they are consistent with the events of that night and with what we know about Chinese culture. In the accident report from the CAA, the conversation between crewmembers, the radio communication between crewmembers and traffic controllers, together with all kinds of sounds, were disclosed." If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage in a book published 21 years later.
The book notes on page 25: "At 7:16pm, Flight 510A departed from Magong Airport without any passengers on board, scheduled to land in Taipei at 8:20pm. Sixteen minutes later the crew called Taipei approach, said the plane was 16 n.m. from Miaoli Houlong, and would descend and maintain an altitude of 9,000 feet. The approach tower directed the crew to pass Houlong and descend to 4,000 feet, and prepare to land on runway 10 of Taipei Songshan Airport. When the plane passed through Houlong, the crew asked to fly directly to Linkou, and proceed with visual approach. The approach tower agreed and directed the plane to lower the altitude to 4,000 feet."
The book notes on page 26: "Two years later, the CAA published the accident report (Civil Aeronautics Administration 1997). In the report, there were no primary causes revealed. Only the conclusions of the investigation were listed. Among them, several main points were given as below."
The book notes on page 27:
Why and how did this happen? From the report of the CAA, it can be found that the CAA again attributed the cause to lack of training. Therefore, reinforcing crew training can prevent such tragedies from happening again. However, after every single plane crash, accident reports always suggest to reinforce training. "Reinforcing training" is almost a cliché in flight safety of Taiwan. Yet, plane crashes continue to happen. Why is that? Is it because the training is still not enough? Or, is it because that reinforcing training is very hard? Is it possible that training is not the real cause? Or were there some more profound explanations other than training? What is the truth?
From the CAA report, we can infer some cultural factors in the accident. Although these inferences are not part of the original report, they are consistent with the events of that night and with what we know about Chinese culture. In the accident report from the CAA, the conversation between crewmembers, the radio communication between crewmembers and traffic controllers, together with all kinds of sounds, were disclosed. From 13:23 after 7:00pm when the flight was approved by Magong for take-off, until 43:57, the total length is 30 minutes and 34 seconds. From the moment when the plane was still on the ground, there was the voice of a flight attendant (F/A) in the cockpit.
The book notes on page 30: "Why didn't the crewmembers stop the flight attendant when she interfered with their communication to the controller? In Chinese culture, who would treat a good friend like this given such a relaxed atmosphere? Again, relationship favor played a very important role in the behavior of the crew. As for the reason why the crewmember replied to the flight attendant first, in Chinese culture, the relationship favor is hierarchical. If there are two people, one is a good friend, the other is a stranger, the two stand at quite different psychological distances in our mind. Every Chinese person would be inclined by instinct to attend to a friend first, not the stranger."
The article notes: "A Taiwanese airliner was flying too low when it hit a mountain on a wet night this week, killing all four people aboard, aviation officials said on today. They said the Foshing Airlines twin turboprop ATR-72 was flying at about 1,000 feet through a rainy night when it crashed less than 15 minutes before it was due to land in Taipei on Monday. ... Foshing is also called TransAsia Airways."
Cai, Zhenyuan 蔡振源 (1995-02-08). "復興空難 黑盒子解讀 發現'有不正常訊號'" [TransAsia Crash: Black Box Analysis Reveals 'Abnormal Signals']. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 3.
The article notes: "民航局副局長張國政上午表示,從座艙通話紀錄器的解讀資料中發現,除夕夜失事的復興航空510A班機,在失事前「飛行可能有偏,而且有不正常訊號出現」,但細節張國政不願多說,只表示還要再對座艙通話紀錄資料詳加研讀後,在下午4時公布。"
From Google Translate: "Zhang Guozheng, deputy director of the Civil Aviation Administration, said in the morning that from the interpretation of the cockpit call recorder, it was found that TransAsia Flight 510A, which crashed on New Year's Eve, "may have been deviated in flight and had abnormal signals" before the crash, but Zhang Guozheng had no details. He did not want to say more, but said that he would make a detailed study of the cockpit call record data before announcing it at 4 p.m."
The article notes: "今天上午,失事調查小組人員,包括民航局、復興航空、法國民航局及ATR公司代表已就黑盒子資料作過初步意見交換,但張國政說「大家都沒辦法解釋清楚」。在開完記者會後,調查小組人員繼續開會判讀。"
From Google Translate: "This morning, members of the crash investigation team, including representatives from the Civil Aviation Administration of China, TransAsia Airways, the French Civil Aviation Authority and ATR, had a preliminary exchange of opinions on the black box information, but Zhang Guozheng said that "no one could explain it clearly." After the press conference, the investigation team members continued their meeting for interpretation."
"復興失事客機黑盒子通話內容公布 最後廿秒出現異常 隨後撞山" [TransAsia Crash: Black Box Communication Contents Released; Abnormalities Detected in the Last 20 Seconds Before the Crash]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). 1995-02-09. p. 18.
The article notes: "民航局昨天公布除夕夜復興航空失事客機上座艙通話器(俗稱黑盒子)錄音帶內容判讀結果,顯示失事飛機在飛行途中一切正常,只有最後廿秒出現異常,即失事撞山。"
From Google Translate: "The Civil Aviation Administration of China yesterday announced the results of the interpretation of the audio tape of the cockpit intercom (commonly known as the black box) on the TransAsia Airways plane that crashed on New Year's Eve. It showed that everything was normal during the flight. Only the last 20 seconds caused an abnormality, when the plane crashed and hit a mountain."
"復興班機墜毀龜山 四組員罹難 機上無乘客 兔坑村山區火光可見 松山機場還關閉跑道等候降落 另兩班機因此改降中正機場" [TransAsia Flight Crashes in Guishan; Four Crew Members Killed, No Passengers on Board. Flames Visible in the Mountain Area of Tuku Village. Songshan Airport Closed Runway Awaiting Landings; Two Other Flights Diverted to Taoyuan Airport]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1995-01-31. p. 1.
The article notes: "大年夜發生大不幸,復興航空公司昨由馬公空機飛回台北,編號B二二七一七的五一○A春節加班機在桃園縣龜山鄉兔坑村附近山區失事墜毀,機上四名組員罹難。罹難者屍體及飛機殘骸均已找到。罹難者是:機長王洪佳,副駕駛李光志,空服員劉慧卿、林子雅。 "
From Google Translate: "A big tragedy occurred on New Year's Eve. Yesterday, TransAsia Airways flew a Malaysia Airlines flight back to Taipei. The 510A Spring Festival overtime flight numbered B22717 crashed in the mountains near Tukeng Village, Guishan Township, Taoyuan County. Four people on board were on board. A team member died. The bodies of the victims and the wreckage of the plane have been found. The victims were: Captain Wang Hongjia, co-pilot Li Guangzhi, and flight attendants Liu Emily and Lin Ziya."
"上月購進 飛行時數僅兩百餘小時 失事客機 昨天飛行11趟" [Purchased Last Month, the Crashed Aircraft Had Only Flown Just Over 200 Hours and Made 11 Flights Yesterday]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1995-01-31. p. 4.
The article notes: "昨天失事墜毀的復興航空公司客機,上個月才購進,飛行時數僅兩百六十五小時,落地三百九十四次,但昨天一天已飛行十一趟,單日飛行密度很高。復興航空目前有十三架ATR七十二型飛機,昨天失事的這架是最新購進。 機長王洪佳已有一萬七千一百三十小時的飛行時數,其中飛行ATR為一九八七小時;副駕駛李光志的飛行時數為六千九百廿六小時。 "
From Google Translate: "The TransAsia Airlines passenger plane that crashed yesterday was purchased only last month. It had only flown for 265 hours and landed 394 times. However, it had flown 11 times yesterday, and the flight density in a single day was very high. . TransAsia Airways currently has 13 ATR 72 aircraft, and the one that crashed yesterday was its latest purchase. Captain Wang Hongjia has 17,130 flying hours, including 1,987 ATR flying hours; co-pilot Li Guangzhi has 6,926 flying hours."
I had just found the mentioned book above, The Dragon in the Cockpit, and was planning on withdrawing the nomination. Also, good job on finding the multiple sources above. I agree that these do indeed establish the event's notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:11, 5 October 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.
Lacking in sources and no indication of claimed entrepreneurship. Sits on Porsche and Volkswagen boards, most likely due to his family connections as the great-grandson of Ferdinand Porsche. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AppShield the product does not appear to independently establish notability beyond Sanctum, the company that created it. As a testament to that the version of the article prior to my edits describes three different products or research projects entitled AppShield, all erroneously presented as a single topic. Brandon (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keepMerge (changed per discussion below) - Although it seems very likely that WP:COI editors are meddling with this and related articles, I think this passes notability. Doing a little more digging I found a couple more decent-quality sources, including a ZDNet article attesting to adoption in 2002. IMO this is a good example of how COI editors can actually make it less likely that their subjects get articles, when left alone they don't raise as many eyebrows. StereoFolic (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving the article! At this point I agree the content belongs somewhere, However it does still feel like AppShield and AppScan could be presented as sections within the Sanctum (company) article. Especially considering the company and the products were acquired together by Watchfire a combined article would be able to present a intertwined narrative without having three stubs that are unlikely to ever be fleshed out on their own. Brandon (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Invalid nomination. 23 people killed is a notable event in my books. There are at least 3 sources cited which have no dependence on Aeroflot whatsoever. Of course a catastrophe in a Somewherestan aint no global reverberation, but it did make impact and consequences. Keeping in mind it was in 1975 in the Soviet Union, where such kind of information was thoroughly suppressed, it is importnt to keep it in Wikipedia. --Altenmann>talk20:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the death count, can you find evidence to support the event's notability? Going through the sources listed, Airdisaster.ru is considered unreliable per this discussion; ASN relies on Airdisaster.ru which makes its information most likely unreliable; per this discussion, Russianplanes.net is also considered unreliable which just leaves B3A, however, per WP:GNG, "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases [...] are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined [...]," which makes all sources listed mostly non-contributory to the event's notability.
BLP of a successful businessman and philanthropist lacking in depth independent coverage. Non-notable awards, Forbes and routine coverage of career moves. Does not seem notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a reasonable search for sources turns up nothing substantial. Yes, he got a 1-paragraph mention in a Forbes Asia list, but I can't see how WP:BLP is met, and no other applicable category Oblivy (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Created as promo. AfD a decade ago closed as no consensus and there's been no improvement since. A campaign which appears to have had little lasting impact after initial routine news coverage. Website is now dead. Huge sections of unverifiable text. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure this military commander is notable, though much decorated. The Azerbaijani site has no sources at all, and the sources in the Russian article are very scanty. If nobody can find anything else more solid I think deleting would be appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient sourcing. The English article just cites what seems to be a database entry transcribing a military record. So it's a directory entry repeating a primary source. This is not the sort of coverage we'd need for an encyclopedia article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any trace of meeting WP:GNG. The lyrical competition of the Olympics is probably not the venue that would make a writer notable. It can be confirmed that Antoine Schaller wrote lyrics based on Hippolyte Ackermans [fr], being one of 30 names - with surnames starting with S, that is - mentioned in a large list. I can find nothing but WP:PASSING mentions elsewhere; both Google and Google Books throw around a lot of namesakes from our time. Geschichte (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no more indication of notability this time than there was last time, as far as I can tell. The SCMP article doesn't even seem to mention the article subject. I can't see any indication of how it might meet BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe my reasoning was not obvious to people, but a hatnote would not be "clumsy" and would fall under WP:ONEOTHER for Lecture Room. The other link is so minor it does not even have a page of its own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article with only a single ref and heavily dubious notability. It's not great to resort to stall/bureaucracy tactics like "you have to delete that article before deleting this one!" when the link is clearly not merited on the page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with this nomination, particularly no evidence of a WP:BEFORE. The article does need some cleanup but that's no reason for deletion. There is enough coverage, including of awards and platinum sales, from independent sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDistortion09:43, 5 October 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.
Unnecessary DAB page - see WP:PTM for why. None of the disambiguated pages are solely called "Letter of the law" or even "Letter of the Law". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"May be"? Is there evidence that Takeru: Letter of the Law is referred to by only its subtitle without its actual title? It appears to only be referred to as "Takeru" or "Takeru: Letter of the Law" in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote would not be clumsy as it would likely only contain one entry. Takeru is dubious to include here at all. I'm not convinced people would search for it by "letter of the law" rather than "Takeru". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:23, 5 October 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.
Keep as National Patent Development Corporation meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The NPDC's role in the history of the development of soft contact lens, as well as its IP, is very well documented (though it is tricky to untangle the "real" story with all its legal twist and turns and international intrigue). A few examples include this 2022 article in Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History; the 1989 book Communist Entrepreneurs: Unknown Innovators in the Global Economy; and this 1997 Business Week article, "Ready to Rise from the Dead?" which explains the company's poor financial performance in the late 1980s and 1990s. It's to the point that I did wonder if this article should be renamed to its historical name, but given that there is more recent coverage about the company as Wright Investors Service Holdings, particularly with regard to the dams in Connecticut as the nominator pointed out, it's fine as is for now. Sources have been added, but the article still needs more citations and clean up, which can take place over the normal course of editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]