Fails
WP: N. There are some AfDs in the past that mostly made arguments that weren't based on Wikipedia policy (plus some off-site canvassing). There is a short article in iX about the language, but this alone isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. If voting Keep, please provide sources that are reliable and substantially more than a few sentences about the language -- there needs to be enough to write an actual article.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I should also add that Albert Graef is the creator of the language -- sources created by them or their close affiliates shouldn't be considered for establish notability.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. A lot of the previous AfD arguments were based on non-arguments such as "under active development", "unique language", and "not an orphan".
IntGrah (
talk)
18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, hi. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm just getting my feet wet. I've gone through the tutorials, but I have some questions. Please be patient as I work to better understand, because I'm a bit confused about notability and primary vs. secondary sources.
Delete: as nom said, there's nearly no
WP:SIGCOV about this individual. Also,
WP:ANYBIO requires a well-known and significant award, which the "Oracle CX innovation award" is not, and as for the bare bones festival award, I'm doubtful as to its notability (and anyways I can't find any trace of it anywhere). —
Alien333 (
what I did &
why I did it wrong)
17:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: There is a great deal of information about him out there. Far too much to be a flash in the pan, and he is obviously a go getter who is in the papers.
After finding so many articles about him, it seems almost like we are splitting hairs and being a bit too strict about deleting them in an arbitrary way.
"Well known and significant award". He has been given many awards within specific industries and fields, and multiple times. Just because the award is not familiar to us doesn't make it not notable.
Delete. The article is a
WP:REFBOMB that brings together apparently every speaking engagement, blog post, paid placement,
WP:TRIVIALMENTION, corporate bio and self-authored content ever published about the subject, and yet none of them constitute
WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary and reliable sources. The awards he has received are non-notable. There is no evidence the subject clears
WP:GNG or
WP:ANYBIO.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
02:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The article clearly meets
WP:ANYBIO. It’s important not to undermine the value of merits and awards. For example, The Atoka County Times recognized him as a major figure in
Hollywood and
New York and provided a film review that aligns with
WP:FILMMAKER standards. The apparent lack of sources for SINGCOV is due to the original sources not being properly archived, which has created a perception of inadequate reliability. This is a common issue with many articles from the early 2000s. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.241.150.94 (
talk •
contribs)
18:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)—
87.241.150.94 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The Atoka County Times is a rural weekly newspaper, and it was not reviewing the film but promoting the production of it, which took place locally. It's the kind of booster-ish content one would expect in such a publication. Also, the link provided by @
Illunadin (you?) above doesn't say "major figure," it describes him as an "emerging force." I am not sure how much weight we should give to an unbylined article in a rural Oklahoma weekly newspaper to determine who is an emerging force in Hollywood, but by no means does this single article help the subject clear
WP:GNG or
WP:FILMMAKER.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
21:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi hi, sorry, no, not me. I appreciate that you think I understand the WP: ****** syntax. I'm not there.
I'm just trying to learn and this conversation seemed divisive enough to be a great fertile place to learn the hair splitting way I need to think. I appreciate the compliment though!
Illunadin (
talk)
15:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I’ve explained why many sources are currently unavailable, but this doesn’t mean the article should be dismissed or that all other available sources should be labeled as advertising or unreliable. My suggestion keeping the article with a tag indicating the need for additional sources. There’s a clear match with
WP:ANYBIO, and more sources should be located and digitized, similar to what was done with The Atoka County Times. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.241.151.225 (
talk)
15:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This law firm's page was created a decade ago, with no significant changes. The links used to cite it are now dead (aside from their own website), and none of them seem reliable to begin with. The only information on the article seems to be the company's formation and expansion. I tried searching for some more sources and came up empty.
Niashervin (
talk)
17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: This AfD nominated the talk page, not the article. This has a number of consequences, links not working and so on. Given the amount of scripts and automation around AfDs, is it easier to just close this and open a new one? Ping
Gvssy. /
Julle (
talk)
16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: I have corrected this nomination to reflect that the article was intended nominated, not the talk page. Normally I would not do this, preferring to procedurally close this and equally-procedurally formally nominate the article, but before I or anyone else could do that Politicdude legitimately presented their opinion regarding an
alternative to deletion so there is no reason to fracture this discussion (and the article does have an AfD tag waiting, anyway). Apologies if any of this is out-of-process in any way. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch☎✎18:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Reads more like a stand alone list than an article, and I don't think it meets notability for stand-alone lists. Many of the individual tours might be notable, but I don't think there's discussion of goodwill tours as a group, or at least I can't find any. If anyone can, though, then that would be great.
SomeoneDreaming (
talk)
17:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment the article is a disaster. This seems like a well-defined term, but apart from the dictionary definition I'm not sure there is anything to say; I don't see a redirect target. Wiktionary doesn't have a dictionary definition so a cross-wiki redirect can't be done yet either.
Walsh90210 (
talk)
02:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. From a cursory look at Google Scholar, sources exist. The article is almost unchanged since its creation but a lack of editorial interest should not be a reason to delete. As always, deletion is not cleanup. It is not the easy button for when nobody wants to the hard work.
Srnec (
talk)
20:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect Merge. Per
WP:NOTDICTIONARY this page should not stand alone. I dug into the Google Scholar results mentioned above. The "cursory look" reveals lots of sources, but they are almost exclusively
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of a particular "goodwill tour" in the context of other coverage. The only thing that gets close to significant coverage is
Black 2013, but even that is more about the broader concept of
cultural diplomacy, to which I recommend a redirect.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
02:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge into
cultural diplomacy, with a redirect, which is much better than deletion. There are sources , and just because it’s neglected by editors doesn’t mean it’s neither notable nor worthy of at least a mention.
Bearian (
talk)
21:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I like the idea to Merge into cultural diplomacy, I think it would make sense as as subsection under tools and examples. I would be willing to perform the merge if there's consensus.
SomeoneDreaming (
talk)
18:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Appears like one of the many organizations recognized by UN. However I find the article to be having notability issues. Inviting your comments.
Thewikizoomer (
talk)
18:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Looks like there is significant coverage and proof of notability in the sources used in the article itself, such as the Economic Times, News18, The Hindu, plus the other sources that appear on Google search that are not used on the article.
Prof.PMarini (
talk)
11:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article was deleted via AfD in 2009 but then recreated. Survived an AfD in 2019 which was quickly closed as a revenge nomination, without discussion. Sources do not provide sufficient coverage and/or are not reliable. Just another non-notable programming language (dialect).
IntGrah (
talk)
20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I found some sources that describe unrelated programming projects/proposals that contain the word "Genie", but nothing beyond that. This subject is not notable.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
20:51, 18 July 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!23:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Subject fails
WP:GNG. Most sources are links to social media sites (specifically YouTube and X) which aren't reliable. Also, COI issues are evident and possible self-promotion.
CycloneYoristalk!21:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Obvious issues with notability, and the vast majority of the sources are directly from the subject's social media, and by no means are reliable. This article also suffers from clear political bias and
MOS:PUFFERY (e.g. "He is renowned..."). The author also appears to be clearly invested in this topic and possess a conflict of interest.
SociusMono1976 (
talk)
23:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While this is somewhat separate from the content of this article (and therefore this should not be seen as a !vote), it's worth noting that this article was created by a user who repeatedly is seeking to recreate the page of a non-notable political party
deleted at AfD, and has now instead pivoted to one about its founder (while again recreating the deleted one in two
different new
pages...).--
Yaksar(let's chat)23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Page appears to have been created as an alternative workaround after other attempts to circumvent a page deleted at AfD were removed. That being said, I agree with the !votes above regarding the current sourcing (but am open to revising that pending different sources and after further research).--
Yaksar(let's chat)00:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Best I can find are a mention here
[3] and here
[4]. Daily Kos isn't a RS, the ADL was up for discussion for reliability recently... Regardless, two mentions don't work for RS and what's used in the article is primary/social media. Nothing we can use to prove notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
03:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Notability is not a matter of what the person says about themselves, nor even what their friends say about them. Notability is a matter of what independent sources have to say.
Gronk Oz (
talk)
06:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Resisting taxes for years isn't a single event. And he's also well known for his anti-Vietnam War actions, such as refusing the draft which received a large amount of news response at the time, and his anti-nuclear actions, all of which received significant coverage.
Clear keep. There are thousands of individuals with articles who are far less notable, including dozens included in the
List of peace activists. Given its stated rationale, the proposed AFD does not even seem to have been made in good faith. As already noted there are numerous reliable sources following his activities and career; he is the subject of a doc that has
its own Wikipedia article; he was the leader for years of a national
non-profit advocacy organization that had widespread popular and celebrity support; and his public discussion of his own draft resistance is what specifically moved
Daniel Ellsberg (according to Ellsberg's autobiography) to release the Pentagon Papers.
User:PDGPAUser talk:PDGPA
Keep: BLP1E concerns one event. Not a lifetime of numerous well-documented events. That's like claiming that Barry Bonds wouldn't clear BLP1E because his notoriety was solely connected to baseball.
Ravenswing 03:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. There seems to be sufficient coverage about the subject, although in local/regional publications, even before. Now, coverage is also present regarding his recent death.
Prof.PMarini (
talk)
06:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Show still notable, tons of reliable sources covering it. If someone started a podcast that thousands and thousands of people listen to, and Millions of people heard of, and it's a dangerous podcast because of the anti-semitism, it should be covered to inform the audience. Yeah there's an article about the person Nick Fuentes, but I don't see a problem in covering the web-show. So many people created political shows and they have an article about them and their show.
HumansRightsIsCool (
talk)
21:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You might want to add some of the 'tons' of reliable sources (
WP:RS)? Millions of people? Finding a source for that would help. It might assist you if you take a read through
WP:N to see what notability means? Hope this helps,
Knitsey (
talk)
00:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have carried out
WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced biography of an actor. I've found and added four references, but three are from the BBC Press Office so are not independent, and the fourth is a passing mention in a local newspaper. I don't think he meets
WP:GNG or
WP:ANYBIO. His two roles for which we have evidence are supporting characters as far as I can see, so I don't think he meets
WP:NACTOR. The article has been tagged as possibly not meeting notability criteria since December 2023.
Tacyarg (
talk)
18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:LASTING and
WP:PERSISTENCE (a search for sources turned up little to no coverage beyond the initial reporting when the boy sadly died); and so fails
WP:NEVENT. The previous AfD ended in no-consensus; but I think there's little to doubt about the lack of persistence of coverage anymore now, over two years later. JavaHurricane17:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; also adding this quote from
WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and
viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."
Astaire (
talk)
20:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Academic with a decent publication record (h-factors 43) but no significant awards to verify peer recognition, and no significant coverage beyond a mention back in 2008. Tagged for notability in NPP; no action taken beyond an unexplained and unwarranted removal of notability tag. Does not pass any section of
WP:NPROF, and there is no evidence that any other notabilities apply.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Xxanthippe, an 43 h-factor, 7726 total cites and 459 total in 2023 is definitely not high, particularly for a highly cited field, not close to passing
WP:NPROF#C1. He has one highly cited paper from his PhD thesis, but not much else. In terms of his GS area of Condensed Matter Physics he comes in something like number 300 or lower. If he had been elected as an APS Fellow it would be different, but there is no such evidence of peer recognition.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
04:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I'm a little baffled by this afd, given the expert credentials of the nom. In Web-of-science, Savvidis shows >100 papers, ~2600 citations, and H=35 (goes to PROF 1). While it's true that semiconductors (one area of research) is a high citation field, what I find here is the usual gigantic variance in research metrics of WP BLPs working in this field. There are folks both much high and much lower, for example
Herbert Kroemer (~700 papers, ~23,000 cites, H 90) and
Janice Hudgings (31 papers, ~500 cites, H 11), as well as lots of BLPs having similar stats, like
Cyril Hilsum (96 papers, ~1700 cites, H 20). On balance, I have the distinct impression that Savvidis has a research impact appreciably higher than the average professor in this field, suggesting PROF 1 is satisfied.
128.252.210.3 (
talk)
17:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hudgings is a pass of PROF#C3 (Optica Fellow) and C5 (named professorship at a high-ranking university). Her case for C1 is more borderline. For Savvidis, though, it seems C1 is the only suitable criterion. So their cases are not really comparable. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with @
David Eppstein. Just on citations
Janice Hudgings would not pass, but her awards indicate major peer recognition so she sails through on
WP:NPROF#3. Similarly
Cyril Hilsum is NAE plus a stack of other major peer recognition awards,
WP:NPROF#3 and perhaps also
WP:NPROF#1b and
WP:NPROF#2. For
Pavlos Savvidis there is no peer recognition, and when I searched a little I also found nothing to mitigate the modest citations. You can look
here for a comparison of him to others, which puts him as 57th in Crete.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Admittedly the usage of the word nation can be contradictory, especially as the UK is said to be composed of four nations, with Scotland being one of those. (Although in official use the term is country rather than nation). Nevertheless, as AusLondoner indicates, subnational here is being used within the context of nation being synonymous with sovereign state (as with the other examples from Canada, Australia and the US). Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk)
00:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My search shows passing mentions, although I see no clear easy pass of
WP:NONPROFIT or the
WP:GNG. Even if those could be well satisfied,
WP:NOPAGE has relevancy - community consensus when this type of party wing is discussed appears to show a preference for subnational youth wings being folded into the appropriate subnational party wings (or national party). Three editors have indicated that they do not feel there is sufficient material to justify a standalone page, I'm happy to change my !vote, but more than a
WP:SOURCESEXIST response is required. Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk)
00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find some reviews, but they're from non-RS.
toweli (
talk)
16:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Looking through the Google Scholar results Loki has linked to, I could not find any detailed discussion of the Burr dilemma. Many of the articles do not use the phrase "Burr dilemma" and seem to be included in the search solely because they include Jack Nagal's paper in their list of references.
Mgp28 (
talk)
14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please identify an existing target article when proposing a Merge or Redirect or your argument will be pretty much dismissed as it can't be realized. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I checked through the first dozen articles listed as citing the relevant study
[8], and about half of those contain a statement of the type "Nagel (2007) refers to this as the Burr dilemma" or "Nagel offers a critique of this type of voting by [minimal summary]". That is not exactly grand notability but I think it suffices to show a certain amount of uptake and acknowledgement in the field. A merge would certainly work as well though. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Again, if you are seeking a Merge, you have to identify an existing target article. It's not the job of a closer to make a judgment of which article is most suitable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete there are additional citations, yes, but they're very limited (the link above only has 25 results, of which 2 are the main academic articles, and include other irrelevant topics), and don't provide any additional secondary discussion of the original articles. It's basically a non-notable neologism.
SportingFlyerT·C10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have any problem if this is mentioned in another article, either. It doesn't necessarily need to be a merge. But it shouldn't be a stand-alone.
SportingFlyerT·C10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as basically something thought up by one author. The development of that into an article with wholly uncited 'History' and 'Solutions', tied together into a story with pure
WP:SYNTH, is simply
WP:OR. The 'Solutions' in particular would remain as OR even if its components are cited, because their assemblage as solutions to this particular problem will remain completely in the mind of the synthesising editor.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
11:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable thought experiment proposed by a single author and not really covered by anyone else. A merge or redirect doesn't really seem possible given that there are multiple pages with a connection to this topic and all have a tenuous connection at best.
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk)
18:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Bullet voting: very selectively. There's not enough for a standalone article, but a brief mention in the target will cover the encyclopedic content and be useful for those searching for the term.
Owen×☎19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more relist for clearer consensus Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk15:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Bullet voting seems to make most sense here. We basically have just Nagel as the authority (both in the cited sources and what is on the Web) so it's enough for a short section in the target article.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
18:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: The previous AfD gives some sources that could be used, but they're mostly brief descriptions in papers/presentations. There's one source that writes about two paragraphs about the language, but the paper is so awfully written (obvious formatting errors and the actual content about Join Java is copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article itself) that I wouldn't be very comfortable writing an entire article around it.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
15:31, 18 July 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!15:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references to date appear to either be PR or announcements or rely entirely on information provided by the company, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, failing ORGIND.
HighKing++ 14:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references to date appear to either be PR or announcements or rely entirely on information provided by the company (interviews), there is no in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, failing ORGIND.
HighKing++ 14:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep: I do not really see any notability issues here. The subject person has officially credited lead roles in TV series like Paatal Lok[9], Choona[10], and an upcoming series Call Me Bae[11], as well as supporting roles in projects like Music Teacher[12] and Sutliyan[13], which clearly fulfills the
NACTOR#1. Besides, The Hindustan Times interview, as well as sources from Times of India, Indian Express, and Yahoo! News that are currently cited in the article have also clearly demonstrated that the subject person has fulfilled
GNG. It does not even require a
BEFORE, as the information presented in the article is already sufficient to show that the subject person has fulfilled two notability guidelines. —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong delete, interviews do not help establish notability. Also, Times of India is not suitable for a biography. —
48JCL16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
NACTOR has clearly been fulfilled but not addressed. And yes, a single interview source itself does not establish notability. But if there are multiple interviews covering a breadth of different topics, this can count towards notability per
WP:IV. I am not sure about Times of India, but even if it is excluded, there are still multiple interviews from The Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, or Mid-Day[14], which have fulfilled this requirement imo. Still an obvious keep to me. —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment— I agree wholeheartedly with
Prince of Erebor. These are absolutely reliable sources. She is a main cast member in the television show mentioned in the article.
Comment -- She is 'way down the cast list (not in the top 6 actors listed) in either Paatal Lok or Choona, or in the streaming/web projects, so not an obviously notable career on the face of it. I am not sure whether any of the articles cited are really
WP:RSs. --
Ssilvers (
talk)
17:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment — The subject is clearly a member of the main cast. If you want to argue that a recurring or guest appearance isn’t notable, that’s understandable. However, this actress is a main cast member. The article needs strengthening not deletion.
DeleteWeak Keep - (switch to weak keep: after having reevaluated
48JCL‘s arguments) // (switch to delete: I stand by my views on policy & notability, but this specific article is progressively unearthing problems. Extremely irked by the sock puppet attempt, and that paired with
Ssilvers’s comments have me feeling uncomfortable with leaving a keep on this AfD. So I am switching to Delete) — I (still) strongly disagree with
48JCL. If someone is interviewed by the New York Times, that would make a person mighty notable. You cannot say “interviews don’t prove notability” when that is plainly untrue.
Comment, @
9t5, they were not interviewed by the New York Times. [1] -- From
WP:TOI: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." Seeing how promotional the article is, I think it is fair to say that this does not help establish notability. [2] -- From
WP:IV#Independence: "Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source." This is basically what the
Hindustan Times article discusses. It is fine for a
WP:BLP (I think) but It does not establish notability. [3] -- Another interview. [4] -- IMDb, not reliable. Per
WP:IMDb [5] -- Another interview. [6] -- Another interview. [7] -- Passing mention. [8] -- Passing mention. —
48JCL23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment— so you’re saying if it were the NYT then interviews can count? You wrote, and I quote, “interviews do not help establish notability.” It seems that you made a wildly incorrect assertion as justification for your delete vote. Have you done the proper research into the Indian outlet to determine that it is not reliable?
I still do not see any address on NACTOR. The subject person has at least three officially credited main roles. GNG does not override SNG. They are companion guidelines, and fulfilling either one is already sufficient in the first place.
I am also unclear on the purpose of your source analysis. I have already analysed them when I cast my !vote and explained why I believe the interviews can serve as evidence of notability per WP:IV. Besides, you have misidentified sources 7 and 8. They are clearly proving the subject person's involvement in certain projects, and are being used to flesh out the article, not to demonstrate SIGCOV on the subject person, just like the five sources I provided in this discussion. I believe I have made a strong case for why this is an obvious keep, and I have not seen any rebuttals directed to my arguments at all, despite the various comments. (Probably because it is inarguable that the subject person has significant roles, given their numerous credited main parts.) —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And I think 9t5 was raising a hypothetical question, asking what if someone has been interviewed by a reputable source, instead of claiming that the subject person has been interviewed by the NYT. I do not fully agree with this, given that interviews are generally regarded as PS and do not necessarily count towards notability on their own. However, if a person has been interviewed by multiple reputable media outlets like NYT+WSJ+WaPo, this could serve as evidence of notability, and I think this makes sense. You may go ahead and argue that WP:IV is an essay or whatnot, but I doubt that would be a strong and well-reasoned position. —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Prince of Erebor I simply interpret policies a lot more leniently than
48JCL, and am allowed to do so as per
WP:5P5. I have been involved in debate with
48JCL before. We are a pretty equal match. Just two different points of view. I respect their dedication to the project.
9t5 (
talk)
06:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
9t5 and
Prince of Erebor, I completely agree that
WP:IV makes sense. However, from WP:IV: but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. Also, Prince of Erebor, those sources you provided are passing mentions and do not count towards notability. —
48JCL11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
48JCL: I have already mentioned three times in this discussion - the sources I provided are to prove that the subject person has officially credited main/supporting roles in the respective projects, instead of providing SIGCOV about the person. The five roles I have listed already showed that the subject person has fulfilled
NACTOR#1, and a Keep is the only reasonable conclusion. The interviews are only additional evidence of notability, since I have noticed many Wikipedians often bring up "coverage" in cases where the subject person has already fulfilled SNG, and this part is to satisfy their concerns. I still do not see any rebuttals on why the subject person fails NACTOR in your multiple replies, and the fact that you now agree the interviews can count towards notability even makes this case not borderline, but a strong Keep. Are you sure you do not want to change your stance, given that your arguments seem to be quite affirmative to a keep rather than a delete? —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)12:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm going to say "Delete" for now, per
WP:NOTYET and because of the mischaracterization of the roles this person has played as "3 main roles". They are supporting roles, but not within the first half dozen roles listed in the cast lists. It is very suspicious that this person has not received substantial press other than interviews. --
Ssilvers (
talk)
03:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Her role in Sutliyan was also referred as "principal cast" by
Scroll.in,
[26] and mentioned in multiple reviews,
[27][28] which I do not think this is what a minor and non-notable role would be like. With at least 3 officially credited main roles and 1 significant supporting role, I still do not see how the subject person fails NACTOR. —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You are not being persuasive, because you are just throwing in a lot of refs that merely list the cast, and because you are being emotional. Instead, if you cite a review or other independent article (not an interview of someone connected to the production) for each role that *states* why it is one of the most important roles in the work, or that *describes* the role's its importance to the plot arc, I will review them and see if they persuade me. Above you mention Sutliyan, but this is not even mentioned in the article. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, add all the relevant information and cites to the article that you want to discuss, instead of
WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. Then you can make a more persuasive point. --
Ssilvers (
talk)
22:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ssilvers, why would I be emotional? I always make lengthy comments on AFD, and I normally do not expand an article with the sources and information I present before the article is kept, or else that would just be a waste of my time. If you are complaining about TLDR, here is a shortened version:
The subject person's main roles are officially credited in the billings and supported by numerous sources. Three sources per
WP:THREE, and the fourth sources are related to the billings, like the official website of
Netflix or credits listed at Screen Rant, so I believe this is the perfect amount of evidence I should provide. But for the sake of discussion, I would simply quote all the first sources:
For Choona, Created by Pushpendra Nath, the main cast includes: Jimmy Shergill as Avinash Shukla, Minister of Urban Development [...] Gyanendra Tripathi as Baankey and Niharika Lyra Dutt as Jhumpa, among others.
For Pataal Lok, Amazon Prime Video recently dropped the Anushka Sharma-bankrolled series, Paatal Lok, which stars Jaideep Ahlawat, Niharika Lyra Dutt, Neeraj Kabi and Gul Panag in the leading roles.
For Call Me Bae, The eight-part series, also featuring Vir Das, Gurfateh Pirzada, Varun Sood, Vihaan Samat, Muskkaan Jaferi, Niharika Lyra Dutt, Lisa Mishra, and Mini Mathur, will premiere on September 6.
For Sutliyan, The principal cast, which includes Niharika Lyra Dutt as the object of Raman’s affection, is uniformly compelling.
Note to closer: Perhaps I made too many comments and my argument has been messy to follow. So for the benefit of reviewing, I will make a summary: I think the subject person passes both NACTOR and GNG. For NACTOR, she has at least 3 officially credited main roles and 1 significant supporting role, supported by billings and sources, which is a clear fulfillment of NACTOR#1. For GNG, she has a certain extent of secondary source coverage, such as from Times of India[29] or
Tellychakkar[30][31], albeit not the best sources. However, this can be compensated with numerous interviews from reputable media outlets per WP:IV, including The Hindustan Times[32], Indian Express[33], Mid-Day[34], Yahoo! News[35], Sakshi[36], etc. Therefore, by combining both primary and secondary sources covering the subject person, it clearly demonstrates enough notability to pass GNG. Fulfilling two notability guidelines is a strong keep to me, and I have reservations about the opposing !votes in this discussion, as they do not seem to be based on P&G. —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)04:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Sources i find are interviews
[37]and
[38]. Source 2 is also an interview in prose form. Rest of the sourcing in the article is about other projects, not about this person. We don't have articles about her that aren't primary.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. This is an award given by a television network. There is no coverage much less GNG coverage of the topic of the article which is the award. North8000 (
talk)
13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I initially wanted to wait until either the webcomic concluded, or the most recent source is 10+ years old, but returning talkpage concerns made me decide to start this early. My argument for deletion is
WP:SUSTAINED combined with a shift in subject matter of the work covered. The most recent source, a
2016 list entry by Paste, states that it had "recently become a more specific and pointed criticism of the most toxic parts of American exceptionalism," and this is the most up-to-date information we can cite on this webcomic. Sean Kleefield in his 2020 book Webcomics did mention Sinfest as an example, but
in his blog he made clear he did not do any research for this. As editors, we have recently tried to expand on Ishida's/Sinfest's recent political and controversial aspects through primary sources, but this got (probably rightfully?)
undone. Reliable sources are staying away from Sinfest and we don't know how to cover it anymore: the article is largely about a Sinfest that no longer exists, or only exists buried in its own archives. Typically when sources on a long-running webcomic dry up, it just means it's no longer in the zeitgeist, but I don't think that really applies here: I would perhaps make the vain suggestion that reliable sources don't "want" to consider this work notable. I would like to hear what other editors think of this argument and issue. Note that "this webcomic is bad/harmful" is not a deletion rationale tho. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. SUSTAINED applies to brief bursts of newspaper coverage: the coverage already in this article passes sustained, with consistent coverage over a period of multiple years. Per
WP:NTEMP once something is notable, it is notable for good, and even though the coverage has ceased the past coverage is well, well over sustained. The past Sinfest is the notable sinfest, we do not need to discuss the current one.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. In my opinion, the discrepancy between what Sinfest was in the 2000s and what it is now is so jarring that it has become an entirely different entity, functionally separate from what it was once was. I think we can all agree that reliable sources have not given meaningful coverage to the very disturbing turn the comic has taken over the past few years.
Ordinarily, it's completely fine for an article on a comic to lay stagnant if reliably sourced coverage dries up. However, in this case, we're left with an article that discusses the generally favorable coverage Sinfest received in the past, says nothing about its current iteration, and maintains a link to the website. Together, these facts mean that this page functions as a puff piece on a work of antisemitic propaganda, which it then directly links to.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this was the intent of any editor here; I know that Wikipedia has policies for a reason, and I have not gotten any impression of fellow editors here other than that they are committed to following Wikipedia's procedures and improving the site's coverage of this comic. I do think that, in this case, we might have to be a bit flexible in the application of policy. "Notability is not temporary" is certainly a good guideline in general, but in this case, we have been left with no way to talk honestly about something that it would be harmful to talk about dishonestly. For that reason, I think deletion is the best option.
I'll be honest here, I'm only an occasional editor of Wikipedia, and I'm not thoroughly familiar with the site's policies or precedents on issues like this. I feel about this similarly to the way I do when I hear about US Supreme Court rulings, which is that I have a strong moral conviction about what is right, but I don't know much about actual legal procedure. (I've made a couple comments on the Sinfest talk page about policy in the past, and later realized that I was mistaken about how the relevant policy actually worked, which is why I haven't posted there since.) For that reason, I chose to comment rather than explicitly support deletion. My position is based not on specific Wikipedia policy but on my moral conviction that Wikipedia should not be covering antisemitic propaganda without explicitly labeling it as such.
Wehpudicabok (
talk)
21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails
WP:GNG as sources either do not provide significant coverage or are not independent of the subject. Nominator Maplestrip/Mable and comment by Wehpudicabok are correct that this also fails
WP:SUSTAINED as the only potentially reliable sources I see here, like Publishers Weekly, only provide coverage during a relatively brief time period, and the lack of sources means this fails
WP:NPOV and
WP:BLP with several poorly sourced claims about a living person's "perspectives" on "American politics, organized religion, and radical feminism."
Source assessment: Here is a a source assessment table showing the first 10 out of 11 sources in the article. The 11th source
[39] is another example of insignificant coverage, with just two sentences on this topic in a listicle of 29 other items.
Elspea756 (
talk)
15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Mentioned in a single short sentence in an article on another topic
✘No
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}}.
As nominator I cannot stand by this source assessment. I would consider many of these sources perfectly usable, notably the Publisher's Weekly articles, the paragraphs in Wired and Paste, and the WCCA, had Sinfest simply left the zeitgeist. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Could you really start an article about a webcomic with that little? The 2013 source is nothing, just sinfest's name used once as an example alongside another comic.
Are we looking at the same source??? The 2013 work contains several pages of actual analyses of Sinfest's panel usage and formatting.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
05:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What else would they write about? Plot recaps? In your eyes, what would count here?
Fictional works are typically notable based on outside reception of them. Analyses of a comic like this is a very strong sign it is notable.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Any webcomic being mentioned in a "fairly technical" book is an accomplishment in my reading, especially with several pages of coverage. The other book shows Sinfest being taken of note - it is not cited to Reddit threads other than to say that the comic's change in tone was controversial on the internet. Where else would he have gotten information on it being controversial on the internet?
Also, it's not sourced entirely from Reddit posts, it is citing Reddit posts to say there was a lot of online controversy over this. What else would you cite????
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Iunno man, I only get involved in Wikipedia a few times a year. Try finding a source for the changes to Sinfest over time on your own time. Maybe discuss that with the people who watch for changes to the Sinfest page. Lot of productive things you could do if you want to save this page. Maybe find a newspaper to publish an article about Sinfest. In the mean time, my vote remains delete due to no WP:Sustained.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
06:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Typically, the decision between whether NTEMP overrules SUSTAINED or vice-versa depends on how short-term the sources were; say a week versus a few years. I recognize that my argument is a very atypical application of SUSTAINED that almost goes into
WP:IAR territory. Regardless, I want to note that I agree with PARAKANYAA that the 2020 is a fine source, but willalso say that because Sinfest is merely an example of something that can happen with a webcomic, without much depth, it is not particularly useful for an encyclopedic article about Sinfest itself. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My rebuttal to sustained is that sustained does not mean "sources must exist that cover every appreciable moment of something", it means "it making the news for two days and then never again". Coverage over years is sustained by definition.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
07:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a huge difference between the Stonetoss and Sinfest pages, though, which kind of illustrates my point. The Stonetoss page immediately identifies it as a neo-Nazi webcomic right from the first sentence, and the claim has several citations to reliable sources. If similar reliable sources existed to identify Sinfest that way, we would simply add them, and then I would vote to keep. We cannot do that, because as far as I can tell, reliable sources do not cover Sinfest and haven't for many years.
Wehpudicabok (
talk)
18:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, Sinfest very much lacks WP:Sustained if you can't even source such a large and obvious part of the comic. Has anyone here read the recent articles? It's openly anti-semitic and not trying to hide it. It would practically make Jack Chick say 'that's a bit much' 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)~~
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just because one aspect isn't covered doesn't mean it fails sustained.
Also, sustained doesn't even apply to the comic as a whole, it applies to events. If the owner had made one very controversial comic that would be an Event and need sustained coverage, but the reasons Sinfest is notable aren't related to that.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If Sinfest had sustained notoriety it would be possible to keep the article up to date. It is not possible to keep the article up to date. Therefore Sinfest does not have sustained notoriety.
If it has coverage over several years, it is still notable, even if the coverage ends. That is what WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP mean.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The article currently contains many statements about sinfest's early political leanings who's sources would not be accepted in the modern Wikipedia... I have a low opinion on the sourcing of this article. At least an article about the layout and formatting would be sourced correctly.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep there are two competing arguments happening in this thread and I think it's confusing the issue a lot. Argument 1 - The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to . Argument 2. The comic has never had significant older coverage. That would be a reason to delete, but I am personally a (weakish) Keep on this front. There are a variety of sources, even if the coverage isn't particularly "deep", and it appears to have held at least a minor cachet in the early 2010s webcomic scene. That said, the self-promotion citations (site news and patreon link) should probably be taken out. (aside, I am leery of the "source assessment" table, as it strikes me as a means to paint "objectivity" on the various sources by applying fancy formatting. is this a new thing to wikipedia? I've never seen it before.)
Hornpipe2 (
talk)
22:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
With regard to the comment that "The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to .", editors have done so. Other editors have then removed those edits, because they were not reliably sourced. This is what we've been discussing. There's no way to talk honestly about what the comic is now, because no reliable sources have covered the change. And this is a particularly disturbing change to omit, because the comic has veered into explicitly antisemitic propaganda. If you have coverage of the change from reliable sources, by all means, add them.
Wehpudicabok (
talk)
22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't plan to edit the page, no, but it sounds like AfD is not the venue for this discussion then? I'm pretty firmly opposed to "we should delete it because an edit war is preventing the article from being corrected".
Hornpipe2 (
talk)
22:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not what I'm saying and it's not what happened. Some editors made good-faith edits to cover the change, then others pointed out that the changes have to be reliably sourced, and the sources that had been used didn't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. As far as I can tell, there simply aren't any reliable sources that have covered the change. It's not an edit war; there's just no way to make it better unless reliable sources start covering this topic, which they are unlikely to do. And finally (this is my own opinion, not Wikipedia policy), it is unethical to cover antisemitic propaganda without calling it that.
Wehpudicabok (
talk)
22:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay. I am sorry to have mischaracterized your statements, I do not mean any ill will here. I agree that it is unfortunate that the article does not (and cannot?) cover the comic's turn into antisemitism and transphobia - things I too find reprehensible - but speaking purely from the perspective of article deletion, my understanding of the policy is simply that articles are not to be deleted for reasons like this.
Hornpipe2 (
talk)
23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you. To be honest, I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policy as I'd like to be, which is why I keep emphasizing that some of what I'm saying is not based on that policy. If this were an ordinary webcomic, I'd be fine just leaving it as it was years ago; and if this were a culturally prominent piece of far-right propaganda, I'd be editing the article to reflect that. It's only because it's in the specific overlap of "gray area of notability" and "far-right propaganda" that we have this problem.
Wehpudicabok (
talk)
23:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
All the 2013 book seems to prove is that Sinfest exists. I could write an article about it if you'd like using that source. Ahem "Sinfest is a webcomic".
In the old days you could get GNG with more original research than Wikipedia is willing to tolerate in the modern era. I helped clean up a lot of original research FROM the GNG article, including a list of characters.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The 2013 source has plenty of analytical coverage of Sinfest. What are you even talking about? It's multiple pages discussing and analyzing a comic from it.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And? It's really, honestly, not enough. Wikipedia has far too many pages about non-notable webcomics that popped up during a brief span of time in the 90's-00's when webcomics were 'hot'. It was a fad, and Wikipedia would be better if many of these irrelevant articles were removed.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
06:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete since the article no longer reflects what Sinfest has become, and editorial policies restricting its update to reflect this seismic shift.
Ssteedman (
talk)
05:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That is a reason for events. If Ishida had made one extremely controversial comic 10 years ago and it wasn't mentioned before or since, that would be a sustained issue. This is a comic strip. The coverage is already over multiple years - just because something isn't covered anymore does not make it non notable. Read
WP:NTEMP
Plenty of notable TV shows or series have less coverage as they go along. We do not delete a notable work because its later versions have less coverage.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's 'way less coverage' and there is 'completely a non entity among major publications'. And I'm not joking about that, have you read any of the recent strips? If we can't find a source for that extreme of an event, it was probably never an important thing in the first place.
It's like, you've got two football players. A major league one and a elementary school league one. Both get a wikipedia article because they're mentioned in a newspaper. Years go by without their pages being updated. Both of them suddenly say something racist. The major league football player is covered in a national newspaper and his page is updated to include the controversy. The elementary school one isn't, and his page isn't. Do we really need a page for the elementary kid who grew into an adult that no one official cares about?
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
06:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Notability is not based on how popular something is, it's based on if it is covered in reliable secondary sources.
Your example is false because local coverage is typically given less weight in notability. Sinfest has coverage in Publishers Weekly, a respected national publication, and several books.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sure. Let's say they get an article in the same national newspaper and are even listed alongside each other. One goes on to have sustained notability. The other does not.
Sinfest does not have sustained notability. You've got a single book from 2013, and a few low quality secondary sources. The book from 2020 is unresearched per the author of that book's blog, and is largely just a citation of some uncitable Reddit threads. You do not have notibility.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If there are two football players, one of who goes on to be a household name, and one of whom is successful but less famous, and they both have continued coverage in newspapers, yes, they should both have articles. We do not only have articles on famous things.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
07:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
But that's the thing. One doesn't have continued coverage and one does.
You said it in your own words.
and they both have continued coverage in newspapers,
The difference is that Cerebere's changes can be sourced. And I think that pretty clearly shows the difference between an actually notable, sustained notability, for a comic and... well... this. Which is not sustained.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
06:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, that depends on what happens in the comic. Has to be enough coverage to keep any major tonal shifts in the comic over the course of it's life updated. If you can't manage that, it's not actually notable.
NTEMP and SUSTAINED are not contradictory. Sustained means that it must have more than a single-event burst of news coverage to be notable, while NTEMP means that once it has cleared that bar it is forever notable. None of the coverage is the "single-event" burst of notable that SUSTAINED applies to.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You have One. Book.
That sounds like a single burst to me. The great webcomics fad of the 00's.
The other book is fine. The source analysis is incorrect, the Publishers Weekly source is not a "press release" and is fine, the Wired and Paste sources are enough to be SIGCOV.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I feel like this deletion discussion has seen enough arguments between 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 and PARAKANYAA; I'm afraid that you two may continue talking in circles around eachother until one decides to stop responding. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
07:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment A possible solution: what is wrong with
Sean Kleefeld's 2024 "On Tatsuya Ishida" post as a source for citations in the article (as previously mentioned above)? The author has written an (already cited!) book on comics, is seemingly something of an authority or expert in the subject matter, etc. I guess that blog publishing is self-publishing, but, this isn't self-promoting - more of an "addendum" or errata to the book, in my mind. If this was permitted it seems it'd let the article be further edited towards "correctness" and this discussion could be put to rest.
Hornpipe2 (
talk)
14:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am reading further about
Wikipedia's allowable use of self-published sources and I now believe this self-published article by this expert author meets the criteria for usage except it runs afoul of
Biography of Living Person: Avoid self-published sources - you cannot use a self-published third-party source to support a claim about a living individual. I'm not sure if it would be possible to carefully select parts of this that cover specifically the comic itself and not the artist, but the title doesn't give much hope :P
That said, I encourage people to read the guidelines on self-published sources and especially cases where
the subject is writing about themself: it seems likely to me that a handful of posts from the author on their site would suffice to meet both the goals of documenting the current artist's viewpoints while remaining on the right side of the allowable sources discussion. The reverted version (see first post in this thread) cites some Patreon posts and other items from the author themselves: perhaps there's some usable gems in there.
Hornpipe2 (
talk)
14:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete while I'm not usually in favor of reading
WP:SUSTAINED in such a strict manner (especially for stuff like media or events, which often only have a few bursts of coverage), it's necessary here to avoid having a page that totally misrepresents its subject. If this strip were truly notable, there'd be at least one or two sources commenting on its current nature. The fact that there isn't indicates the page should be deleted.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
People are no longer posting regular updates about
Badgers (animation), do you suggest that to be removed as well? I am really having a hard time understanding this retroactive hyper-scrutiny applied to a webcomic which was literally written about in book(s) as the best solution to an out-of-date overview. It's flatly the wrong tool to resolve the issue.
Hornpipe2 (
talk)
20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Hornpipe2:Badgers (animation) is not still being published. Again, this is a rather weird case as this almost never happens with media. But having this article as-is is not really in line with our fundamental policies. Ideally, some reliable source would cover this comic strip's transformation and we could keep the article, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does I'll switch to keep.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
20:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Notability isn't temporary and the book sources combined with the smaller mentions in other sources add up to GNG. Most of these deletion votes are motivated by a dislike of the comic/comic author.
WP:SUSTAINED does not mean continuous coverage all the time, just that coverage is not for one event/a few weeks. Sinfest has attracted coverage over multiple years. The canvassing needs to be noted too.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
22:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, this was a major webcomic 10 years ago that is now obscure, but did have
somenontrivial coverage outside of the innermost webcomics bubble. Sure, it is not
Dilbert, but it was, as RationalWiki says, "one of the most popular webcomics on the Internet". Notability is not temporary, and there is nontrivial coverage of Sinfest back when it was a popular webcomic on Google Scholar. —
Kusma (
talk)
11:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
With only primary sources listed, the article of this men's footballer clearly fails
WP:GNG. He played
nine minutes at the highest domestic league before being sent on loan to second tier then disappeared. Using the keyword "Oliver Burian", search engines mostly find other men of the same name than this footballer, failing
WP:V too. My searches showed nothing better than match reports and passing mentions in online newspapers.
⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆12:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, seems that he hasn't disappeared completely, but moved to the third, and now, fourth tier of Slovak football (non-league). At that level there is no chance of new significant coverage, and agree that anything existing is far below the required standard. C67915:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Too early to establish notability. Typical practice is to start the article the week of the race, which tends to be when reliable sources begin to exist about the race. This event takes place in 3 month and there is no evidence of this meeting
WP:NEVENT. Should be redirected to
2024 Formula One World Championship as it was before.
Cerebral726(talk)12:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No, page shouldn't have been created until notability criteria is met. This is usually 1 week before. But there is no reason it couldn't be six months before. In this case it isn't. But arguing any outcome because this article does/doesn't meet an arbitary time frame is nonsense. There is no rule (official or by implied consensus) that this has to be the case.
SSSB (
talk)
08:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that was covered in my "standard practice is already in place here for a reason" statement. This discussion or variations of it have been had many times because it's fairly well-established that these events almost never meet the
WP:GNG until the week of the event. It shouldn't be necessary to restate the same thing every time one of these articles gets made months in advance unless there's some compelling evidence presented to the contrary.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (
talk)
02:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"it's fairly well-established that these events almost never meet the WP:GNG until the week of the event." but sometimes they reach GNG more than 1 week before the event in which case creating an article is justified. The reasoning here should be "GNG is not yet met, but may be met in the future", or "WP:TOOSOON". This idea that a Grand Prix article cannot be created more than a week before the event is nonsense and a
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Subject age argument. "It is more than one week until the event, so GNG cannot possible be met." Please provide an actually policy based arguemnt in future.
SSSB (
talk)
06:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nobody's saying there aren't exceptions? HumanBodyPiloter5 is completely correct in their statements and, in case it's not glaringly obvious, you actually agree with each other. We all edit in the same space, have done for years, and are on the same page when it comes to this discussion and the correct practice when creating race reports, there's no need to patronise each other here. 5225C (
talk •
contributions)
07:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect – No reason to delete. This was and should be a redirect. It could've been dealt with proactively—with a revert—instead of opening a whole AfD.
MSport1005 (
talk)
19:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It was reverted to a redirect but then the user reinstated the article. Thought it best to get consensus in the easiest way possible instead of edit warring.
Cerebral726(talk)19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep by the GNG and also procedural keep, as no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. The intro says It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources?, however this is an article about a TECHNOLOGY not about a company. So NORG does not apply. "Any reliable sources?" is a slap in the face of the BEFORE requirements. That's to the procedural keep. To the keep, this is an easy keep because of the large number of reviews of the technology in prime publications. Such reviews are almost by definition in depth and original as the journalist RESEARCHES the tool.
gidonb (
talk)
15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteKeep: despite what @
Gidonb: says, this was "co-founded" and is explicitly designated in the article as "the company", so you can hardly say
WP:NORG doesn't apply here. As to the "procedural keep", Any reliable sources? can also be a way of formulating the often-made query of "I haven't found any reliable sources. If anyone finds some, please ping me". Refs 1, 2 and 8 (techcrunch) are promotional ("beautifully designed", etc.) or very short, 3 (linkedin) is not independent, 4 (the next web)'s reliability is disputed, 5 (interview of co-founder) is not independent, 7 is a name-drop. This leaves 6 (the verge) as the only independent, reliable, and significant source, but notability guidelines do say sources, plural, so a single source isn't enough for notability. Also to Gidonb: you say you've found large number of reviews. I would appreciate if you could give some links to these, per
WP:SOURCESEXIST. —
Alien333 (
what I did &
why I did it wrong) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Changing my !vote to keep per last sources brought up by Skynxnex. I'm not sure the whole Max World, Mac Life, and Micro World bunch is reliable, but with that Forbes article it adds up to enough for
WP:GNG for me. —
Alien333 (
what I did &
why I did it wrong)
08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A source is promotional because it is a positive review? I think the TechCrunch sources, at least the review by Perez, should count, as it's done by their reporting side and doesn't seem to be based on any press release.
Aaron Liu (
talk)
14:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Although I might have been a bit quick with the "promotional" and it's only about the two by Sarah Perez, I can't help but have doubts whens someone writes about a beautifully designed, deceptively simple, gorgeous new app with an attractive design that stand[s] out of the crowd and is working towards building out a smarter, more intelligent system. They do look a bit like PR pieces. —
Alien333 (
what I did &
why I did it wrong)
08:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Some more reviews (many of these links are wikipedia library links, I'll try to provide enough context to show how relevant they are):
A Task Master to Beat All; Any.do is perfect for sailors who like to keep their boats organized by Donald A. McLenna in Sail, November 1, 2014. A five paragraph positive review from the perspective of a sailor. (I didn't find these articles easily but it mentions that "It won Apple’s 2012 'Intuitive Touch' Award, Android’s 'Best App' for 2012 and a nod in my 'Top 5 Apps for 2013' in the December 2013 issue of SAIL", as a sign of more continuing coverage.)
Any.Do 3 Review: Don't like apple's reminders? You might like Any.Do, By: Loyola, Roman, Macworld - Digital Edition, Jun 2015. About six functional paragraphs ending with "The different list views make the free version of Any.do better at organizing your task list than Apple's Reminders. And the ability to create subtasks and add notes and attachments is handy. The premium version of Any.do has features that'll make you seriously consider using it instead of Reminders, but you have to be willing to pay for it on a regular basis."
Any.do by Joseph, Cliff. Mac Life, Oct 2019. Four-ish paragraph review starting with "The marketing blurb for Any.do is a bit intimidating, as it seems to be aimed at budding business tycoons and “results– driven teams”. But it turns out that the basic, free version is simply a rather nice app for making to–do lists.".
I'm surprised this article made it through the draft review process, given that the subject has zero press coverage outside a few paid Nigerian blogs and the accolade "Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria" doesn't seem like a particularly notable award. On the contrary it sounds quite sexist.
Blanes tree (
talk)
12:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment:
Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria is clearly a notable award, (sexist maybe, but surely no more or less than any other national beauty pagent). But
WP:NMODEL is not met with just one notable award, so
WP:SIGCOV must be met instead, which I'm not sure it is.
Vanguard can be considered marginally reliable when, as in
this case, the article is not explicity paid content. Curiously, I couldn't find a previous discussion on VON or RadioNigeria but maybe those two being state outlets counts for something? Even then the articles are pretty short, bordering on routine. So I am on the fence here. --
D'n'B-t --
18:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What, why would you think that? I could hop off the fence with more evidence given either way but have no plans to do so as of yet. (besides: whichever field I land in, it would not be a flip - there isn't an opposite position to neutral). --
D'n'B-t --
19:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Without even looking at any source, MBGN titleholders is an easy keep. Biggest paegent in the country to determine Miss World representative. Pretty sure all Miss USA winners will also have wiki articles. As soon as I verified she was truly an MBGN winner, I didn't even bother reading the other rationale in the nom statement.
HandsomeBoy (
talk)
21:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
keep. your statement that the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria award sounds sexist is quite laughable and somewhat insulting to the people of Nigeria. This award is the highest beauty pageant award in Nigeria and the winner deserves a Wikipedia article.
Does not meet
WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Searching only uncovers further database sources and a very limited number of primary sources. C67912:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS. Shooting isn't notable enough for a standalone article, nor does it have any international coverage that I could find. I previously nominated this same page yesterday, but decided to withdraw my nomination since it was moved to draftspace by
Drmies immediately after.
CycloneYoristalk!09:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I honestly don't know what
User:AlbanianEditor1990 was thinking, first when they created it in article space, and second, when they moved it back to article space. The history reflects that I tried to indicate some of the things that were wrong with the article, but to no avail. Here's the thing: the article is in such poor condition that it looks obviously not-notable (and I added the only source in it), but who knows, it might be on a notable topic--better sourcing could make that an easier decision. If I had the choice I'd move this back to draft space, and warn the editor to stop doing this, because it is headed toward deletion.
Drmies (
talk)
17:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The lead sentence of this article describes the subject as a "fringe theoretical political philosophy", which is already quite the shaky start, but I think even this description gives it more credit than it's due, as the term is not popular enough to even show up in
Google Ngrams results.
Of the cited sources in this article, and the ones I can see on
Google Scholar, there appear to be three broad uses for the term: one is a throwaway term used by
Peter Lamborn Wilson (see
Grindon 2004;
Fiscella 2009;
Fiscella 2020); another a descriptor for Tolkien's political ideology, largely based on a single letter he wrote to his son (see
Hart 2010;
Siewers 2013;
Hayes 2017;
Davis 2021); and finally as a generic throw-away descriptor for neo-feudalism (see
Turan 2023). One other source describes Rodolphe Crevelle, the founder of Lys Noir, as an "anarcho-royaliste", but again in a throwaway line that almost reads as mocking.
Something that quickly becomes apparent in all of the sources, is that none of them give significant coverage to the subject. Almost all of the references are throw-away mentions, sometimes relegated to footnotes. The only source that goes in any depth is a student paper, which is quite clearly not a reliable source. I doubt this article will grow any larger than the stub it currently exists as.
As I stated, calling this a "fringe theoretical political philosophy" is generous, as it doesn't appear to be a real thing at all. Its references are all throwaway lines, usually either attributed to Peter Lamborn Wilson or describing a single letter by Tolkien. There'd barely even be enough to merge into Wilson or Tolkien's own articles, the sourcing is that thin. As there appears to be no
significant coverage of "anarcho-monarchism" in
reliable sources, I'm recommending this article for deletion.
Grnrchst (
talk)
08:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with Grnrchst's careful analysis and I don't agree with the edit summary used for recreation - "Created page, many new sources since the last deletion discussion"
Mujinga (
talk)
09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete there's quite a few Google hits for the French translations of this term, from reliable sources, however there's no French Wikipedia article for it, just a
Wikitionnaire entry. I don't think it meets
WP:GNG and agree with Grnrchst that the mentions in the sources are passing.
Orange sticker (
talk)
09:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I had a similar read when first reviewing this article. It's a term used as an epithet in passing but does not cohere between reliable sources into a clear system of ideas nevertheless one that is in active consideration (sigcov) by sources. czar13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, you make some great points. While the article is better than it's original form, it's lacking in many areas. Could it be transferred to my userspace for archival purposes?
Microplastic Consumer (
talk)
16:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not meet
WP:GNG. One of the reference is the company website and the other one seems more like a listing in Poets and Writers which is behind a paywall. Searches also don’t show any significant coverage.
Wikilover3509 (
talk)
08:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I had a look at the company's web page and thought it looked like a typical piece of quackery of the sort one sees all the time in TV advertisements for slimming methods. "Hear from the experts": three "experts", two of them "best-selling authors", none of them with any clear qualifications in physiology or biochemistry.
Athel cb (
talk)
16:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: I can find lots of routine product reviews, but there are a couple of in-depth sources on the product:
[52],
[53], as well as one small research study:
[54]. Any product claiming to "hack your metabolism" pushes my bullshit needle into the red, but there does seem to be some coverage.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk)
23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not notable sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources refer to sports results except for one, which is an interview with the person concerned. Searching the internet for "Karel Průša" shows other people with the same name. Same case as the recently nominated
Bedřich Slaný.
FromCzech (
talk)
06:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The sport's pinnacle are the Olympic Games and athletes do not meet the condition of notability just by participating in them. If you say 'keep' you have to objectively demonstrate notability according to
WP:GNG and
WP:NMOTORSPORT.
FromCzech (
talk)
09:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: The Olympic Games are not the sports pinnacle, there is no speedway at the Olympic Games as is the case for numerous other sports. For information the pinnacle of speedway is the World Individual championships (now called the Grand Prix) and the World Cup. I have since added additional references from books and Newspaper Archive.
Pyeongchang (
talk)
09:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for that he was one of the title clinching finalist of a world championship event.
WP:ATD will be to draftify for expansion. I agree with Pyeongchang's statement that it is the pinnacle of speedway.
SpacedFarmer (
talk)
16:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify. Competing or even winning at the pinnacle of a sport, whether Grand Prix or Olympics, is not a valid inclusion criterion. SPORTCRIT requires GNG be met and for a GNG-contributing source to be cited in the article. If the "Speedway A-Z" source is not SPS then that would probably satisfy SPORTCRIT, but multiple sources are needed for GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk)
03:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not notable sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources only refer to sports results. Searching the internet for "Jaroslav Volf" shows other people with the same name. Same case as the recently nominated
Bedřich Slaný.
FromCzech (
talk)
05:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Clearly notable because he competed in the final of the Speedway World Cup, the sport's pinnacle AND reached the final of the Speedway individual world championship.
Pyeongchang (
talk)
08:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin:
Pyeongchang (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
AfD. reply
The sport's pinnacle are the Olympic Games and athletes do not meet the condition of notability just by participating in them. If you say 'keep' you have to objectively demonstrate notability according to
WP:GNG and
WP:NMOTORSPORT.
FromCzech (
talk)
09:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: The Olympic Games are not the sports pinnacle, there is no speedway at the Olympic Games as is the case for numerous other sports. For information the pinnacle of speedway is the World Individual championships (now called the Grand Prix) and the World Cup. I have since added additional references from books and Newspaper Archive.
Pyeongchang (
talk)
09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – Unimpressed by the sources available. Routine recaps of events in local papers are not significant coverage of the individual. There is no attempt to claim significance in the article. Wikipedia is not a database (
WP:NOTDATABASE). 5225C (
talk •
contributions)
07:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep for that he was one of the title clinching finalist of a world championship event.
WP:ATD will be to draftify for expansion. I agree with Pyeongchang's statement that it is the pinnacle of speedway.
SpacedFarmer (
talk)
16:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails GNG and in particular SPORTCRIT. Accomplishments carry zero weight so !votes to keep based on appearing in a championship should be discounted.
JoelleJay (
talk)
02:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not notable sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources only refer to passing mentions and sports results. Searching the internet for "Bedřich Slaný" shows other people with the same name.
FromCzech (
talk)
05:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: The Czech version
cs:Bedřich Slaný of the article says (without a reference) that he died on 11 October 1980. Perhaps a news article about him or an obituary in a reliable source was published shortly after his death. Someone with access to Czechoslovak news media from 1980 might want to search for references from October 1980. The Wikipedia Library would also be worth searching. If you find one or more useful references, please add them to the Czech version
cs:Bedřich Slaný as well., Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)06:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The sport's pinnacle are the Olympic Games and athletes do not meet the condition of notability just by participating in them. If you say 'keep' you have to objectively demonstrate notability according to
WP:GNG and
WP:NMOTORSPORT.
FromCzech (
talk)
09:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: The Olympic Games are not the sports pinnacle, there is no speedway at the Olympic Games as is the case for numerous other sports. For information the pinnacle of speedway is the World Individual championships (now called the Grand Prix) and the World Cup. I have since added additional references from books and Newspaper Archive.
Pyeongchang (
talk)
09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course, I meant in general that if for Olympic sports the participation of an athlete in the Olympics is not a criterion of notability, the participation of a speedway racer in the Speedway World Cup is also not a criterion of notability. The sources you have added here and elsewhere do not demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia criteria.Redirect to
1962 Speedway World Team Cup may be an alternative to deletion.
FromCzech (
talk)
09:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep for that he was one of the title clinching finalist of a world championship event.
WP:ATD will be to draftify for expansion. I agree with Pyeongchang's statement that it is the pinnacle of speedway.
SpacedFarmer (
talk)
16:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article, while purportedly about a court case, seems to in fact be a bio of one of the participants in the court case. Either way, neither she nor the case itself are notable.
For the case, it received some news coverage in 2023 when it was first filed and when it was dismissed, but only
one story has been written about it this year, despite the fact that it went to the 10th Circuit. It was later
dismissed by the 10th Circuit under procedural grounds, which was not covered at all. As the case was dismissed in both venues it appeared in, it is very unlikely it will have any relevance going forward, whether to the parties themselves or to the status of case law on transgender people as a whole.
For Artemis Langford,
BLP1E applies as she is not notable for anything outside of this case. She's not even a party to the lawsuit as it currently stands. As neither the case nor Langford seem to be notable, I propose deletion. Pinguinn🐧03:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not going to !vote as I created the article and still believe the subject to be a notable one. I do see continued sourcing including
last month as the future state of the lawsuit remains unsettled. Would prefer redirection suggested by S Marshall to outright deletion should consensus land that it isn't a notable lawsuit.
StarMississippi13:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Kappa Kappa Gamma. Current article seems to largely fit under the umbrella of the section in
Kappa Kappa Gamma . I'm not sure what articles would be similar to this, the closest that I see from
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Watchlist is probably
DePauw University Delta Zeta discrimination controversy which I'm not sure this has reached the level of. As a note, this article wasn't on the WP Watchlist so I'll mention it at the Wikiproject to make sure others there see. I don't think this counts as canvassing, I fully expect one or more people there to want to keep it and/or add to the article. :) (Couldn't find any other articles on Lawsuits on membership, the closest that I found is the info in
Iron Arrow about their anti-title IX lawsuit, most lawsuit mentions that I can find are part of the aftermath of a hazing incident)
Naraht (
talk)
13:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect: This article has adequate sources to meet notability because of its national coverage. However, because the court case didn't lead to anything significant, this content is best suited for the Controversies section of the
Kappa Kappa Gamma article. There is already a subsection on this case in the Kappa Kappa Gamma article; it would be a good idea to see if any of the content from this article should be merged prior to its deletion.
Rublamb (
talk)
19:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Another one that fails
WP:NLIST. I removed everything that does not have a reference or a Wikipedia page and there are only three current original programs. Everything else falls under
WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I did a
WP:BEFORE in an attempt to find sourcing that talks about their programming as a whole and was unable to find anything reliable. I recommend a redirect of the name and maybe include the three current programs on the main
Geo Entertainment page as an
WP:ATD.
CNMall41 (
talk)
22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Standard split from the network. Redirect and merge is possible but those who wish it should imv verify what's redirecting to the list to avoid undue deletions if double redirects are created. Having spent too much time commenting and voting on similar Afds I will not make any further comments here. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
... Television Dramas and the Global Village Storytelling Through Race and Gender; Women and TV Culture in Pakistan, Gender, Islam and National Identity;Media Imperialism in India and Pakistan
contain passages that address the programming and content of the network as a set. Or
this list. or this
kind of pages. Or this
kind of articles. Keep as a standard split as I'v repeated many times. See the category for those lists. I will not reply anymore as I've said multiple times on other Afd pages what I thought, and insisted a broader consensus should be established before nominating this type of pages (see Afd concerning Hum TV programming, where I had presented sources too, btw, but this too was ignored, so why bother?). So, again, I'll leave it at that even if there are questions, pings, comments, etc. And again size-wise, especially since users regularly perform drastic cuts before nominating pages, the merge is possible. I just don't think it is necessary. If it happens, I am inviting you again to check all redirects (I had done it last time, which you concurred was a concern but guess who checked the double redirects after all?) Good luck. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
After all, this rude reply deserves a final comment: so you ask me to provide sources although I said I had no time but don't even open all links and ignore the academic study and the books? Just like last time!!! No comment on whether NEWSORGINDIA applies on the one source you opened, but hey. I hope the closer is an admin who will comment on your attitude. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
.....Thank you so much for your advice but that is clearly not the point, I'm afraid. Follow the sequence of events, please.
But since we're here, would you happen to have a link mentioning that The News International is considered
generally unreliable? I'll be careful and check again myself so as not to waste your time. Let me check ...Surprise! It's quite the opposite, it's considered generally reliable,
is that not correct?(on a page you yourself created!!!)? Again, that is not the point, but since I'm replying again, despite having said I wouldn't, I thought better to check again.....as I had indeed (not only by checking the page you created(in your userspace) but also the noticeboard for reliable sources and the board for perennial sources, before posting it in the first place, mind you.....
But never mind. Even the NEWSORGINDIA thing is not the point; the issue is not reading the sources one has asked for! whatever they are; and I don't think you can discard them but again, that is not the point. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wow. Don't jump to conclusions and before making claims a page you yourself created!, check the history of the page. The page was actually created by UPE sock farms to
game the system, and I moved it to my user NS. How do you even know about
this page? Are you in cahoots with them? —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
19:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry I had missed this. My bad, you didn't create it, it's in your user space and I thought it was your work. I apologise for thinking you had worked on that page! Will amend my comment. No comment on the rest of your reply but feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. But to the point: The News International is generally reliable, is it not?:D -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The News itself is RS, but as @
CNMall41 pointed out, this specific coverage is not reliable for the reasons they explained. Therefore, it shouldn't count towards establishing GNG. Regarding feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. Sure, I'll take it to the proper venue when and if I deem it necessary and when I've enough evidence to support my report. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
19:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Last-minute adjustment drifting from the precise topic of the original conversation :D but even then, I will reply. Maybe Dramaspice is not independent and should not be used and maybe, it is not a good source but that is not what
WP:GUNREL stands for (not listed there, which is the precise point of GUNREL, not a description but a list established by a consensus). Or just don't user "GUNREL" but other wording then. And even pretending it was, that would leave us with 5 non-GUNREL sources that you ignore, :D, including a fully available academic article focusing on the programs as a set in a comparative study. But maybe you did not have the time to open it, and that's probably my fault.
I certainly do not see how that is rude. I am only responsible for what I say, not how you interpret it. What I was pointing out is you have a history of ignoring NEWSORGINDIA in AfD discussions. The News International is considered reliable yes, but not THIS PARTICULAR REFERENCE as it is clearly churnalism. Just like Forbes is considered generally reliable but sources written by non-staff writers in Forbes are not. Not sure how to make that any clearer. It is ad nauseam at this point to go further when the first source is just a repeat of the same argument. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
18:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have a history of ignoring WP:NEWSORGINDIA is an
inappropriate comment here: but, please, do feel free to report me at the appropriate forum if you think I am of bad faith and that my input here and elsewhere (as you clearly assert) is disruptive. In the present case, I disagree with what I understand of your interpretation of that information page, an interpretation which is not the consensus, as far as I can see, and I simply do not understand your explanation (or lack thereof): "use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter " is one sign that a source might not be independent, not THE proof that you cannot use it at all. But again, that was not my point, as you can see if you make the effort of reading me with attention; and I cannot see why you are focusing on that particular section of an information page when replying to the 6 sources mentioned.
And what I find rude, in case you really did not understand, in the present discussion, is the fact that even if I was not expecting thanks for providing sources at your request in an Afd you iniated, you blatantly and explicitly ignored all of them but one you discarded contemptuously (rightly so or not (not the point, again)) and continue to do so, as you don't even mention them... I'll leave it at that, now. I don't understand the end of your reply but I guess it does not really matter, as I finally give up, this time too. Again, I do hope the closing administrator will comment on this issue. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There was no intent to be rude but I understand if you are concerned about the comment. I do not have an apology unfortunately but would recommend going to ANI should you feel my conduct is out of line.--
CNMall41 (
talk)
06:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Saqib/Mushy Yank please take the dispute elsewhere. You've weighed in sufficiently here. Please allow others to be heard. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
StarMississippi02:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as the previous AFD was closed as Delete and it seems like many sources concern her personal life, not her career. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
One of those seemingly cursed articles, created by a subsequently blocked sock, that becomes an eternal battleground between editors claiming it's historical and those claiming it's legendary. Either way, my review of the English-language sources finds no
WP:SIGCOV of this campaign, just brief mentions. I propose to redirect to
Chandragupta II#Punjab region where this campaign is already covered at only slightly shorter length.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
01:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable local organization fails
WP:NORG. There's no
WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Sources in the article are either affiliated, industry blogs (i.e.
WP:TRADES) or tangentially mention the organization. Sources outside the article are principally limited to fan blogs. There's certainly no sigcov in "media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)" as required per
WP:AUD.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
01:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable local official. His city council position doesn't satisfy NPOL and he doesn't seem to meet GNG otherwise. Of the 6 sources cited on the page: one is his page on a database of registered lawyers, one is the Ohio Birth Index, one is his resume, one is his campaign website, and one is his bio on the city of Glendale's official website; the only actual news article cited is a
WP:ROTM article about an election he ran in. I can't really find anything better on Google.
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk)
00:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and keep improving. Easily meets
WP:BASIC and likely
WP:GNG. (And a little worried that there has been insufficient
WP:BEFORE, possibly because there is also a Los Angeles Times sports writer with the same name, so it generates a ton of irrelevant coverage if you don't use additional search parameters.) Najarian has been vocal about advocating Armenian-American issues – Glendale has one of the largest Armenian communities outside Armenia (and this
Los Angeles Times article where he is quoted is just the tip of the iceberg) – and an initial 15-minute search yielded coverage of his
meetings with the prime minister of Armenia, and he is also frequently covered in the Armenian-American community press extending beyond Glendale. It will take a long time to sort through all the coverage to identify the "best 3", but this is more a case of having to spend time to search, sort, assess and improve, rather than agonizing that this four-time mayor and councilmember of Glendale has been completely ignored by the media outside of Glendale.)
Cielquiparle (
talk)
06:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not every local official is automatically notable. IT's absolutely worth pointing out that he's received no coverage outside of Glendale. His meeting with the president of Armenia helps, but it doesn't automatically entitle him to a Wikipedia page (even if this meeting was extremely notable, which doesn't seem to be the case, it still wouldn't make Najarian himself notable, per
WP:1E). Him being "mentioned" in an LA Times article is also not especially convincing.
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk)
02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's hardly
WP:1E if his official visits to Armenia were covered in both 2010 and 2018. Anyway in future I would recommend trying search engines other than Google. A quick Google search will tell you it doesn't function very well anymore as a search engine.
Cielquiparle (
talk)
03:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't say that it was in-depth, I said that it was more in-depth than mentions. I'm not sure whether he's notable or not, because I haven't really looked much. That's why I didn't write "keep".
toweli (
talk)
05:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Tagged as having problem in complying
WP:NORG since 2017, virtually not supported by reliable, secondary sources since the article creation in 2012. A check on its version history shows it was originally meant to be an advertisement for the hospital (and
was tagged with such problem once). Years passed, no significant improvements other than removing most promotional tone and
adding an infobox. No improvements with regards to addition of sources that are reliable and not connected to the hospital organization (in accordance with
WP:RS,
WP:PRIMARY, and
WP:INDEPENDENT). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)00:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Subject lacks the needed reliable coverage from independent sources to meet the
WP:GNG as a BLP. The sources currently in the article are either school websites or student newspapers, neither of which are independent. A check for coverage elsewhere didn't reveal anything more.
Let'srun (
talk)
00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
After extensive searching for
WP:SIGCOV in multiple newspaper archives, I believe the subject lacks the coverage needed to meet the
WP:GNG. This obit [
[57]] is rather short and doesn't make mention of his NFL career. Besides the obit, there are some passing/routine mentions like [
[58]], [
[59]], [
[60]] and [
[61]] but from what I see it is all trivial. While the subject played 16 NFL games, they took place in the early years of the league when the popularity of the league was nowhere near what it is today. I don't see a clear
WP:ATD here but am open to the possibility.
Let'srun (
talk)
00:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP: N. There are some AfDs in the past that mostly made arguments that weren't based on Wikipedia policy (plus some off-site canvassing). There is a short article in iX about the language, but this alone isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. If voting Keep, please provide sources that are reliable and substantially more than a few sentences about the language -- there needs to be enough to write an actual article.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I should also add that Albert Graef is the creator of the language -- sources created by them or their close affiliates shouldn't be considered for establish notability.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. A lot of the previous AfD arguments were based on non-arguments such as "under active development", "unique language", and "not an orphan".
IntGrah (
talk)
18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, hi. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm just getting my feet wet. I've gone through the tutorials, but I have some questions. Please be patient as I work to better understand, because I'm a bit confused about notability and primary vs. secondary sources.
Delete: as nom said, there's nearly no
WP:SIGCOV about this individual. Also,
WP:ANYBIO requires a well-known and significant award, which the "Oracle CX innovation award" is not, and as for the bare bones festival award, I'm doubtful as to its notability (and anyways I can't find any trace of it anywhere). —
Alien333 (
what I did &
why I did it wrong)
17:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: There is a great deal of information about him out there. Far too much to be a flash in the pan, and he is obviously a go getter who is in the papers.
After finding so many articles about him, it seems almost like we are splitting hairs and being a bit too strict about deleting them in an arbitrary way.
"Well known and significant award". He has been given many awards within specific industries and fields, and multiple times. Just because the award is not familiar to us doesn't make it not notable.
Delete. The article is a
WP:REFBOMB that brings together apparently every speaking engagement, blog post, paid placement,
WP:TRIVIALMENTION, corporate bio and self-authored content ever published about the subject, and yet none of them constitute
WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary and reliable sources. The awards he has received are non-notable. There is no evidence the subject clears
WP:GNG or
WP:ANYBIO.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
02:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The article clearly meets
WP:ANYBIO. It’s important not to undermine the value of merits and awards. For example, The Atoka County Times recognized him as a major figure in
Hollywood and
New York and provided a film review that aligns with
WP:FILMMAKER standards. The apparent lack of sources for SINGCOV is due to the original sources not being properly archived, which has created a perception of inadequate reliability. This is a common issue with many articles from the early 2000s. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.241.150.94 (
talk •
contribs)
18:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)—
87.241.150.94 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The Atoka County Times is a rural weekly newspaper, and it was not reviewing the film but promoting the production of it, which took place locally. It's the kind of booster-ish content one would expect in such a publication. Also, the link provided by @
Illunadin (you?) above doesn't say "major figure," it describes him as an "emerging force." I am not sure how much weight we should give to an unbylined article in a rural Oklahoma weekly newspaper to determine who is an emerging force in Hollywood, but by no means does this single article help the subject clear
WP:GNG or
WP:FILMMAKER.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
21:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi hi, sorry, no, not me. I appreciate that you think I understand the WP: ****** syntax. I'm not there.
I'm just trying to learn and this conversation seemed divisive enough to be a great fertile place to learn the hair splitting way I need to think. I appreciate the compliment though!
Illunadin (
talk)
15:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I’ve explained why many sources are currently unavailable, but this doesn’t mean the article should be dismissed or that all other available sources should be labeled as advertising or unreliable. My suggestion keeping the article with a tag indicating the need for additional sources. There’s a clear match with
WP:ANYBIO, and more sources should be located and digitized, similar to what was done with The Atoka County Times. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.241.151.225 (
talk)
15:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This law firm's page was created a decade ago, with no significant changes. The links used to cite it are now dead (aside from their own website), and none of them seem reliable to begin with. The only information on the article seems to be the company's formation and expansion. I tried searching for some more sources and came up empty.
Niashervin (
talk)
17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: This AfD nominated the talk page, not the article. This has a number of consequences, links not working and so on. Given the amount of scripts and automation around AfDs, is it easier to just close this and open a new one? Ping
Gvssy. /
Julle (
talk)
16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: I have corrected this nomination to reflect that the article was intended nominated, not the talk page. Normally I would not do this, preferring to procedurally close this and equally-procedurally formally nominate the article, but before I or anyone else could do that Politicdude legitimately presented their opinion regarding an
alternative to deletion so there is no reason to fracture this discussion (and the article does have an AfD tag waiting, anyway). Apologies if any of this is out-of-process in any way. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch☎✎18:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Reads more like a stand alone list than an article, and I don't think it meets notability for stand-alone lists. Many of the individual tours might be notable, but I don't think there's discussion of goodwill tours as a group, or at least I can't find any. If anyone can, though, then that would be great.
SomeoneDreaming (
talk)
17:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment the article is a disaster. This seems like a well-defined term, but apart from the dictionary definition I'm not sure there is anything to say; I don't see a redirect target. Wiktionary doesn't have a dictionary definition so a cross-wiki redirect can't be done yet either.
Walsh90210 (
talk)
02:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. From a cursory look at Google Scholar, sources exist. The article is almost unchanged since its creation but a lack of editorial interest should not be a reason to delete. As always, deletion is not cleanup. It is not the easy button for when nobody wants to the hard work.
Srnec (
talk)
20:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect Merge. Per
WP:NOTDICTIONARY this page should not stand alone. I dug into the Google Scholar results mentioned above. The "cursory look" reveals lots of sources, but they are almost exclusively
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of a particular "goodwill tour" in the context of other coverage. The only thing that gets close to significant coverage is
Black 2013, but even that is more about the broader concept of
cultural diplomacy, to which I recommend a redirect.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
02:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge into
cultural diplomacy, with a redirect, which is much better than deletion. There are sources , and just because it’s neglected by editors doesn’t mean it’s neither notable nor worthy of at least a mention.
Bearian (
talk)
21:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I like the idea to Merge into cultural diplomacy, I think it would make sense as as subsection under tools and examples. I would be willing to perform the merge if there's consensus.
SomeoneDreaming (
talk)
18:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Appears like one of the many organizations recognized by UN. However I find the article to be having notability issues. Inviting your comments.
Thewikizoomer (
talk)
18:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Looks like there is significant coverage and proof of notability in the sources used in the article itself, such as the Economic Times, News18, The Hindu, plus the other sources that appear on Google search that are not used on the article.
Prof.PMarini (
talk)
11:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article was deleted via AfD in 2009 but then recreated. Survived an AfD in 2019 which was quickly closed as a revenge nomination, without discussion. Sources do not provide sufficient coverage and/or are not reliable. Just another non-notable programming language (dialect).
IntGrah (
talk)
20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I found some sources that describe unrelated programming projects/proposals that contain the word "Genie", but nothing beyond that. This subject is not notable.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
20:51, 18 July 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!23:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Subject fails
WP:GNG. Most sources are links to social media sites (specifically YouTube and X) which aren't reliable. Also, COI issues are evident and possible self-promotion.
CycloneYoristalk!21:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Obvious issues with notability, and the vast majority of the sources are directly from the subject's social media, and by no means are reliable. This article also suffers from clear political bias and
MOS:PUFFERY (e.g. "He is renowned..."). The author also appears to be clearly invested in this topic and possess a conflict of interest.
SociusMono1976 (
talk)
23:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While this is somewhat separate from the content of this article (and therefore this should not be seen as a !vote), it's worth noting that this article was created by a user who repeatedly is seeking to recreate the page of a non-notable political party
deleted at AfD, and has now instead pivoted to one about its founder (while again recreating the deleted one in two
different new
pages...).--
Yaksar(let's chat)23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Page appears to have been created as an alternative workaround after other attempts to circumvent a page deleted at AfD were removed. That being said, I agree with the !votes above regarding the current sourcing (but am open to revising that pending different sources and after further research).--
Yaksar(let's chat)00:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Best I can find are a mention here
[3] and here
[4]. Daily Kos isn't a RS, the ADL was up for discussion for reliability recently... Regardless, two mentions don't work for RS and what's used in the article is primary/social media. Nothing we can use to prove notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
03:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Notability is not a matter of what the person says about themselves, nor even what their friends say about them. Notability is a matter of what independent sources have to say.
Gronk Oz (
talk)
06:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Resisting taxes for years isn't a single event. And he's also well known for his anti-Vietnam War actions, such as refusing the draft which received a large amount of news response at the time, and his anti-nuclear actions, all of which received significant coverage.
Clear keep. There are thousands of individuals with articles who are far less notable, including dozens included in the
List of peace activists. Given its stated rationale, the proposed AFD does not even seem to have been made in good faith. As already noted there are numerous reliable sources following his activities and career; he is the subject of a doc that has
its own Wikipedia article; he was the leader for years of a national
non-profit advocacy organization that had widespread popular and celebrity support; and his public discussion of his own draft resistance is what specifically moved
Daniel Ellsberg (according to Ellsberg's autobiography) to release the Pentagon Papers.
User:PDGPAUser talk:PDGPA
Keep: BLP1E concerns one event. Not a lifetime of numerous well-documented events. That's like claiming that Barry Bonds wouldn't clear BLP1E because his notoriety was solely connected to baseball.
Ravenswing 03:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. There seems to be sufficient coverage about the subject, although in local/regional publications, even before. Now, coverage is also present regarding his recent death.
Prof.PMarini (
talk)
06:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Show still notable, tons of reliable sources covering it. If someone started a podcast that thousands and thousands of people listen to, and Millions of people heard of, and it's a dangerous podcast because of the anti-semitism, it should be covered to inform the audience. Yeah there's an article about the person Nick Fuentes, but I don't see a problem in covering the web-show. So many people created political shows and they have an article about them and their show.
HumansRightsIsCool (
talk)
21:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You might want to add some of the 'tons' of reliable sources (
WP:RS)? Millions of people? Finding a source for that would help. It might assist you if you take a read through
WP:N to see what notability means? Hope this helps,
Knitsey (
talk)
00:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have carried out
WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced biography of an actor. I've found and added four references, but three are from the BBC Press Office so are not independent, and the fourth is a passing mention in a local newspaper. I don't think he meets
WP:GNG or
WP:ANYBIO. His two roles for which we have evidence are supporting characters as far as I can see, so I don't think he meets
WP:NACTOR. The article has been tagged as possibly not meeting notability criteria since December 2023.
Tacyarg (
talk)
18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:LASTING and
WP:PERSISTENCE (a search for sources turned up little to no coverage beyond the initial reporting when the boy sadly died); and so fails
WP:NEVENT. The previous AfD ended in no-consensus; but I think there's little to doubt about the lack of persistence of coverage anymore now, over two years later. JavaHurricane17:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; also adding this quote from
WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and
viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."
Astaire (
talk)
20:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Academic with a decent publication record (h-factors 43) but no significant awards to verify peer recognition, and no significant coverage beyond a mention back in 2008. Tagged for notability in NPP; no action taken beyond an unexplained and unwarranted removal of notability tag. Does not pass any section of
WP:NPROF, and there is no evidence that any other notabilities apply.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Xxanthippe, an 43 h-factor, 7726 total cites and 459 total in 2023 is definitely not high, particularly for a highly cited field, not close to passing
WP:NPROF#C1. He has one highly cited paper from his PhD thesis, but not much else. In terms of his GS area of Condensed Matter Physics he comes in something like number 300 or lower. If he had been elected as an APS Fellow it would be different, but there is no such evidence of peer recognition.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
04:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I'm a little baffled by this afd, given the expert credentials of the nom. In Web-of-science, Savvidis shows >100 papers, ~2600 citations, and H=35 (goes to PROF 1). While it's true that semiconductors (one area of research) is a high citation field, what I find here is the usual gigantic variance in research metrics of WP BLPs working in this field. There are folks both much high and much lower, for example
Herbert Kroemer (~700 papers, ~23,000 cites, H 90) and
Janice Hudgings (31 papers, ~500 cites, H 11), as well as lots of BLPs having similar stats, like
Cyril Hilsum (96 papers, ~1700 cites, H 20). On balance, I have the distinct impression that Savvidis has a research impact appreciably higher than the average professor in this field, suggesting PROF 1 is satisfied.
128.252.210.3 (
talk)
17:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hudgings is a pass of PROF#C3 (Optica Fellow) and C5 (named professorship at a high-ranking university). Her case for C1 is more borderline. For Savvidis, though, it seems C1 is the only suitable criterion. So their cases are not really comparable. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with @
David Eppstein. Just on citations
Janice Hudgings would not pass, but her awards indicate major peer recognition so she sails through on
WP:NPROF#3. Similarly
Cyril Hilsum is NAE plus a stack of other major peer recognition awards,
WP:NPROF#3 and perhaps also
WP:NPROF#1b and
WP:NPROF#2. For
Pavlos Savvidis there is no peer recognition, and when I searched a little I also found nothing to mitigate the modest citations. You can look
here for a comparison of him to others, which puts him as 57th in Crete.
Ldm1954 (
talk)
19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Admittedly the usage of the word nation can be contradictory, especially as the UK is said to be composed of four nations, with Scotland being one of those. (Although in official use the term is country rather than nation). Nevertheless, as AusLondoner indicates, subnational here is being used within the context of nation being synonymous with sovereign state (as with the other examples from Canada, Australia and the US). Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk)
00:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My search shows passing mentions, although I see no clear easy pass of
WP:NONPROFIT or the
WP:GNG. Even if those could be well satisfied,
WP:NOPAGE has relevancy - community consensus when this type of party wing is discussed appears to show a preference for subnational youth wings being folded into the appropriate subnational party wings (or national party). Three editors have indicated that they do not feel there is sufficient material to justify a standalone page, I'm happy to change my !vote, but more than a
WP:SOURCESEXIST response is required. Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk)
00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I can find some reviews, but they're from non-RS.
toweli (
talk)
16:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Looking through the Google Scholar results Loki has linked to, I could not find any detailed discussion of the Burr dilemma. Many of the articles do not use the phrase "Burr dilemma" and seem to be included in the search solely because they include Jack Nagal's paper in their list of references.
Mgp28 (
talk)
14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please identify an existing target article when proposing a Merge or Redirect or your argument will be pretty much dismissed as it can't be realized. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I checked through the first dozen articles listed as citing the relevant study
[8], and about half of those contain a statement of the type "Nagel (2007) refers to this as the Burr dilemma" or "Nagel offers a critique of this type of voting by [minimal summary]". That is not exactly grand notability but I think it suffices to show a certain amount of uptake and acknowledgement in the field. A merge would certainly work as well though. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Again, if you are seeking a Merge, you have to identify an existing target article. It's not the job of a closer to make a judgment of which article is most suitable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete there are additional citations, yes, but they're very limited (the link above only has 25 results, of which 2 are the main academic articles, and include other irrelevant topics), and don't provide any additional secondary discussion of the original articles. It's basically a non-notable neologism.
SportingFlyerT·C10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have any problem if this is mentioned in another article, either. It doesn't necessarily need to be a merge. But it shouldn't be a stand-alone.
SportingFlyerT·C10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as basically something thought up by one author. The development of that into an article with wholly uncited 'History' and 'Solutions', tied together into a story with pure
WP:SYNTH, is simply
WP:OR. The 'Solutions' in particular would remain as OR even if its components are cited, because their assemblage as solutions to this particular problem will remain completely in the mind of the synthesising editor.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
11:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable thought experiment proposed by a single author and not really covered by anyone else. A merge or redirect doesn't really seem possible given that there are multiple pages with a connection to this topic and all have a tenuous connection at best.
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk)
18:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Bullet voting: very selectively. There's not enough for a standalone article, but a brief mention in the target will cover the encyclopedic content and be useful for those searching for the term.
Owen×☎19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more relist for clearer consensus Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk15:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Bullet voting seems to make most sense here. We basically have just Nagel as the authority (both in the cited sources and what is on the Web) so it's enough for a short section in the target article.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
18:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: The previous AfD gives some sources that could be used, but they're mostly brief descriptions in papers/presentations. There's one source that writes about two paragraphs about the language, but the paper is so awfully written (obvious formatting errors and the actual content about Join Java is copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article itself) that I wouldn't be very comfortable writing an entire article around it.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
15:31, 18 July 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!15:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references to date appear to either be PR or announcements or rely entirely on information provided by the company, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, failing ORGIND.
HighKing++ 14:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a company therefore GNG/
WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or
significant sources with
each source containing
"Independent Content" showing
in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references to date appear to either be PR or announcements or rely entirely on information provided by the company (interviews), there is no in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, failing ORGIND.
HighKing++ 14:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep: I do not really see any notability issues here. The subject person has officially credited lead roles in TV series like Paatal Lok[9], Choona[10], and an upcoming series Call Me Bae[11], as well as supporting roles in projects like Music Teacher[12] and Sutliyan[13], which clearly fulfills the
NACTOR#1. Besides, The Hindustan Times interview, as well as sources from Times of India, Indian Express, and Yahoo! News that are currently cited in the article have also clearly demonstrated that the subject person has fulfilled
GNG. It does not even require a
BEFORE, as the information presented in the article is already sufficient to show that the subject person has fulfilled two notability guidelines. —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong delete, interviews do not help establish notability. Also, Times of India is not suitable for a biography. —
48JCL16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
NACTOR has clearly been fulfilled but not addressed. And yes, a single interview source itself does not establish notability. But if there are multiple interviews covering a breadth of different topics, this can count towards notability per
WP:IV. I am not sure about Times of India, but even if it is excluded, there are still multiple interviews from The Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, or Mid-Day[14], which have fulfilled this requirement imo. Still an obvious keep to me. —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment— I agree wholeheartedly with
Prince of Erebor. These are absolutely reliable sources. She is a main cast member in the television show mentioned in the article.
Comment -- She is 'way down the cast list (not in the top 6 actors listed) in either Paatal Lok or Choona, or in the streaming/web projects, so not an obviously notable career on the face of it. I am not sure whether any of the articles cited are really
WP:RSs. --
Ssilvers (
talk)
17:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment — The subject is clearly a member of the main cast. If you want to argue that a recurring or guest appearance isn’t notable, that’s understandable. However, this actress is a main cast member. The article needs strengthening not deletion.
DeleteWeak Keep - (switch to weak keep: after having reevaluated
48JCL‘s arguments) // (switch to delete: I stand by my views on policy & notability, but this specific article is progressively unearthing problems. Extremely irked by the sock puppet attempt, and that paired with
Ssilvers’s comments have me feeling uncomfortable with leaving a keep on this AfD. So I am switching to Delete) — I (still) strongly disagree with
48JCL. If someone is interviewed by the New York Times, that would make a person mighty notable. You cannot say “interviews don’t prove notability” when that is plainly untrue.
Comment, @
9t5, they were not interviewed by the New York Times. [1] -- From
WP:TOI: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." Seeing how promotional the article is, I think it is fair to say that this does not help establish notability. [2] -- From
WP:IV#Independence: "Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source." This is basically what the
Hindustan Times article discusses. It is fine for a
WP:BLP (I think) but It does not establish notability. [3] -- Another interview. [4] -- IMDb, not reliable. Per
WP:IMDb [5] -- Another interview. [6] -- Another interview. [7] -- Passing mention. [8] -- Passing mention. —
48JCL23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment— so you’re saying if it were the NYT then interviews can count? You wrote, and I quote, “interviews do not help establish notability.” It seems that you made a wildly incorrect assertion as justification for your delete vote. Have you done the proper research into the Indian outlet to determine that it is not reliable?
I still do not see any address on NACTOR. The subject person has at least three officially credited main roles. GNG does not override SNG. They are companion guidelines, and fulfilling either one is already sufficient in the first place.
I am also unclear on the purpose of your source analysis. I have already analysed them when I cast my !vote and explained why I believe the interviews can serve as evidence of notability per WP:IV. Besides, you have misidentified sources 7 and 8. They are clearly proving the subject person's involvement in certain projects, and are being used to flesh out the article, not to demonstrate SIGCOV on the subject person, just like the five sources I provided in this discussion. I believe I have made a strong case for why this is an obvious keep, and I have not seen any rebuttals directed to my arguments at all, despite the various comments. (Probably because it is inarguable that the subject person has significant roles, given their numerous credited main parts.) —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And I think 9t5 was raising a hypothetical question, asking what if someone has been interviewed by a reputable source, instead of claiming that the subject person has been interviewed by the NYT. I do not fully agree with this, given that interviews are generally regarded as PS and do not necessarily count towards notability on their own. However, if a person has been interviewed by multiple reputable media outlets like NYT+WSJ+WaPo, this could serve as evidence of notability, and I think this makes sense. You may go ahead and argue that WP:IV is an essay or whatnot, but I doubt that would be a strong and well-reasoned position. —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Prince of Erebor I simply interpret policies a lot more leniently than
48JCL, and am allowed to do so as per
WP:5P5. I have been involved in debate with
48JCL before. We are a pretty equal match. Just two different points of view. I respect their dedication to the project.
9t5 (
talk)
06:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
9t5 and
Prince of Erebor, I completely agree that
WP:IV makes sense. However, from WP:IV: but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. Also, Prince of Erebor, those sources you provided are passing mentions and do not count towards notability. —
48JCL11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
48JCL: I have already mentioned three times in this discussion - the sources I provided are to prove that the subject person has officially credited main/supporting roles in the respective projects, instead of providing SIGCOV about the person. The five roles I have listed already showed that the subject person has fulfilled
NACTOR#1, and a Keep is the only reasonable conclusion. The interviews are only additional evidence of notability, since I have noticed many Wikipedians often bring up "coverage" in cases where the subject person has already fulfilled SNG, and this part is to satisfy their concerns. I still do not see any rebuttals on why the subject person fails NACTOR in your multiple replies, and the fact that you now agree the interviews can count towards notability even makes this case not borderline, but a strong Keep. Are you sure you do not want to change your stance, given that your arguments seem to be quite affirmative to a keep rather than a delete? —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)12:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm going to say "Delete" for now, per
WP:NOTYET and because of the mischaracterization of the roles this person has played as "3 main roles". They are supporting roles, but not within the first half dozen roles listed in the cast lists. It is very suspicious that this person has not received substantial press other than interviews. --
Ssilvers (
talk)
03:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Her role in Sutliyan was also referred as "principal cast" by
Scroll.in,
[26] and mentioned in multiple reviews,
[27][28] which I do not think this is what a minor and non-notable role would be like. With at least 3 officially credited main roles and 1 significant supporting role, I still do not see how the subject person fails NACTOR. —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You are not being persuasive, because you are just throwing in a lot of refs that merely list the cast, and because you are being emotional. Instead, if you cite a review or other independent article (not an interview of someone connected to the production) for each role that *states* why it is one of the most important roles in the work, or that *describes* the role's its importance to the plot arc, I will review them and see if they persuade me. Above you mention Sutliyan, but this is not even mentioned in the article. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, add all the relevant information and cites to the article that you want to discuss, instead of
WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. Then you can make a more persuasive point. --
Ssilvers (
talk)
22:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ssilvers, why would I be emotional? I always make lengthy comments on AFD, and I normally do not expand an article with the sources and information I present before the article is kept, or else that would just be a waste of my time. If you are complaining about TLDR, here is a shortened version:
The subject person's main roles are officially credited in the billings and supported by numerous sources. Three sources per
WP:THREE, and the fourth sources are related to the billings, like the official website of
Netflix or credits listed at Screen Rant, so I believe this is the perfect amount of evidence I should provide. But for the sake of discussion, I would simply quote all the first sources:
For Choona, Created by Pushpendra Nath, the main cast includes: Jimmy Shergill as Avinash Shukla, Minister of Urban Development [...] Gyanendra Tripathi as Baankey and Niharika Lyra Dutt as Jhumpa, among others.
For Pataal Lok, Amazon Prime Video recently dropped the Anushka Sharma-bankrolled series, Paatal Lok, which stars Jaideep Ahlawat, Niharika Lyra Dutt, Neeraj Kabi and Gul Panag in the leading roles.
For Call Me Bae, The eight-part series, also featuring Vir Das, Gurfateh Pirzada, Varun Sood, Vihaan Samat, Muskkaan Jaferi, Niharika Lyra Dutt, Lisa Mishra, and Mini Mathur, will premiere on September 6.
For Sutliyan, The principal cast, which includes Niharika Lyra Dutt as the object of Raman’s affection, is uniformly compelling.
Note to closer: Perhaps I made too many comments and my argument has been messy to follow. So for the benefit of reviewing, I will make a summary: I think the subject person passes both NACTOR and GNG. For NACTOR, she has at least 3 officially credited main roles and 1 significant supporting role, supported by billings and sources, which is a clear fulfillment of NACTOR#1. For GNG, she has a certain extent of secondary source coverage, such as from Times of India[29] or
Tellychakkar[30][31], albeit not the best sources. However, this can be compensated with numerous interviews from reputable media outlets per WP:IV, including The Hindustan Times[32], Indian Express[33], Mid-Day[34], Yahoo! News[35], Sakshi[36], etc. Therefore, by combining both primary and secondary sources covering the subject person, it clearly demonstrates enough notability to pass GNG. Fulfilling two notability guidelines is a strong keep to me, and I have reservations about the opposing !votes in this discussion, as they do not seem to be based on P&G. —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)04:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Sources i find are interviews
[37]and
[38]. Source 2 is also an interview in prose form. Rest of the sourcing in the article is about other projects, not about this person. We don't have articles about her that aren't primary.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. This is an award given by a television network. There is no coverage much less GNG coverage of the topic of the article which is the award. North8000 (
talk)
13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I initially wanted to wait until either the webcomic concluded, or the most recent source is 10+ years old, but returning talkpage concerns made me decide to start this early. My argument for deletion is
WP:SUSTAINED combined with a shift in subject matter of the work covered. The most recent source, a
2016 list entry by Paste, states that it had "recently become a more specific and pointed criticism of the most toxic parts of American exceptionalism," and this is the most up-to-date information we can cite on this webcomic. Sean Kleefield in his 2020 book Webcomics did mention Sinfest as an example, but
in his blog he made clear he did not do any research for this. As editors, we have recently tried to expand on Ishida's/Sinfest's recent political and controversial aspects through primary sources, but this got (probably rightfully?)
undone. Reliable sources are staying away from Sinfest and we don't know how to cover it anymore: the article is largely about a Sinfest that no longer exists, or only exists buried in its own archives. Typically when sources on a long-running webcomic dry up, it just means it's no longer in the zeitgeist, but I don't think that really applies here: I would perhaps make the vain suggestion that reliable sources don't "want" to consider this work notable. I would like to hear what other editors think of this argument and issue. Note that "this webcomic is bad/harmful" is not a deletion rationale tho. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. SUSTAINED applies to brief bursts of newspaper coverage: the coverage already in this article passes sustained, with consistent coverage over a period of multiple years. Per
WP:NTEMP once something is notable, it is notable for good, and even though the coverage has ceased the past coverage is well, well over sustained. The past Sinfest is the notable sinfest, we do not need to discuss the current one.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. In my opinion, the discrepancy between what Sinfest was in the 2000s and what it is now is so jarring that it has become an entirely different entity, functionally separate from what it was once was. I think we can all agree that reliable sources have not given meaningful coverage to the very disturbing turn the comic has taken over the past few years.
Ordinarily, it's completely fine for an article on a comic to lay stagnant if reliably sourced coverage dries up. However, in this case, we're left with an article that discusses the generally favorable coverage Sinfest received in the past, says nothing about its current iteration, and maintains a link to the website. Together, these facts mean that this page functions as a puff piece on a work of antisemitic propaganda, which it then directly links to.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this was the intent of any editor here; I know that Wikipedia has policies for a reason, and I have not gotten any impression of fellow editors here other than that they are committed to following Wikipedia's procedures and improving the site's coverage of this comic. I do think that, in this case, we might have to be a bit flexible in the application of policy. "Notability is not temporary" is certainly a good guideline in general, but in this case, we have been left with no way to talk honestly about something that it would be harmful to talk about dishonestly. For that reason, I think deletion is the best option.
I'll be honest here, I'm only an occasional editor of Wikipedia, and I'm not thoroughly familiar with the site's policies or precedents on issues like this. I feel about this similarly to the way I do when I hear about US Supreme Court rulings, which is that I have a strong moral conviction about what is right, but I don't know much about actual legal procedure. (I've made a couple comments on the Sinfest talk page about policy in the past, and later realized that I was mistaken about how the relevant policy actually worked, which is why I haven't posted there since.) For that reason, I chose to comment rather than explicitly support deletion. My position is based not on specific Wikipedia policy but on my moral conviction that Wikipedia should not be covering antisemitic propaganda without explicitly labeling it as such.
Wehpudicabok (
talk)
21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails
WP:GNG as sources either do not provide significant coverage or are not independent of the subject. Nominator Maplestrip/Mable and comment by Wehpudicabok are correct that this also fails
WP:SUSTAINED as the only potentially reliable sources I see here, like Publishers Weekly, only provide coverage during a relatively brief time period, and the lack of sources means this fails
WP:NPOV and
WP:BLP with several poorly sourced claims about a living person's "perspectives" on "American politics, organized religion, and radical feminism."
Source assessment: Here is a a source assessment table showing the first 10 out of 11 sources in the article. The 11th source
[39] is another example of insignificant coverage, with just two sentences on this topic in a listicle of 29 other items.
Elspea756 (
talk)
15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Mentioned in a single short sentence in an article on another topic
✘No
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}}.
As nominator I cannot stand by this source assessment. I would consider many of these sources perfectly usable, notably the Publisher's Weekly articles, the paragraphs in Wired and Paste, and the WCCA, had Sinfest simply left the zeitgeist. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Could you really start an article about a webcomic with that little? The 2013 source is nothing, just sinfest's name used once as an example alongside another comic.
Are we looking at the same source??? The 2013 work contains several pages of actual analyses of Sinfest's panel usage and formatting.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
05:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What else would they write about? Plot recaps? In your eyes, what would count here?
Fictional works are typically notable based on outside reception of them. Analyses of a comic like this is a very strong sign it is notable.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Any webcomic being mentioned in a "fairly technical" book is an accomplishment in my reading, especially with several pages of coverage. The other book shows Sinfest being taken of note - it is not cited to Reddit threads other than to say that the comic's change in tone was controversial on the internet. Where else would he have gotten information on it being controversial on the internet?
Also, it's not sourced entirely from Reddit posts, it is citing Reddit posts to say there was a lot of online controversy over this. What else would you cite????
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Iunno man, I only get involved in Wikipedia a few times a year. Try finding a source for the changes to Sinfest over time on your own time. Maybe discuss that with the people who watch for changes to the Sinfest page. Lot of productive things you could do if you want to save this page. Maybe find a newspaper to publish an article about Sinfest. In the mean time, my vote remains delete due to no WP:Sustained.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
06:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Typically, the decision between whether NTEMP overrules SUSTAINED or vice-versa depends on how short-term the sources were; say a week versus a few years. I recognize that my argument is a very atypical application of SUSTAINED that almost goes into
WP:IAR territory. Regardless, I want to note that I agree with PARAKANYAA that the 2020 is a fine source, but willalso say that because Sinfest is merely an example of something that can happen with a webcomic, without much depth, it is not particularly useful for an encyclopedic article about Sinfest itself. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My rebuttal to sustained is that sustained does not mean "sources must exist that cover every appreciable moment of something", it means "it making the news for two days and then never again". Coverage over years is sustained by definition.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
07:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's a huge difference between the Stonetoss and Sinfest pages, though, which kind of illustrates my point. The Stonetoss page immediately identifies it as a neo-Nazi webcomic right from the first sentence, and the claim has several citations to reliable sources. If similar reliable sources existed to identify Sinfest that way, we would simply add them, and then I would vote to keep. We cannot do that, because as far as I can tell, reliable sources do not cover Sinfest and haven't for many years.
Wehpudicabok (
talk)
18:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, Sinfest very much lacks WP:Sustained if you can't even source such a large and obvious part of the comic. Has anyone here read the recent articles? It's openly anti-semitic and not trying to hide it. It would practically make Jack Chick say 'that's a bit much' 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)~~
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just because one aspect isn't covered doesn't mean it fails sustained.
Also, sustained doesn't even apply to the comic as a whole, it applies to events. If the owner had made one very controversial comic that would be an Event and need sustained coverage, but the reasons Sinfest is notable aren't related to that.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If Sinfest had sustained notoriety it would be possible to keep the article up to date. It is not possible to keep the article up to date. Therefore Sinfest does not have sustained notoriety.
If it has coverage over several years, it is still notable, even if the coverage ends. That is what WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP mean.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The article currently contains many statements about sinfest's early political leanings who's sources would not be accepted in the modern Wikipedia... I have a low opinion on the sourcing of this article. At least an article about the layout and formatting would be sourced correctly.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep there are two competing arguments happening in this thread and I think it's confusing the issue a lot. Argument 1 - The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to . Argument 2. The comic has never had significant older coverage. That would be a reason to delete, but I am personally a (weakish) Keep on this front. There are a variety of sources, even if the coverage isn't particularly "deep", and it appears to have held at least a minor cachet in the early 2010s webcomic scene. That said, the self-promotion citations (site news and patreon link) should probably be taken out. (aside, I am leery of the "source assessment" table, as it strikes me as a means to paint "objectivity" on the various sources by applying fancy formatting. is this a new thing to wikipedia? I've never seen it before.)
Hornpipe2 (
talk)
22:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
With regard to the comment that "The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to .", editors have done so. Other editors have then removed those edits, because they were not reliably sourced. This is what we've been discussing. There's no way to talk honestly about what the comic is now, because no reliable sources have covered the change. And this is a particularly disturbing change to omit, because the comic has veered into explicitly antisemitic propaganda. If you have coverage of the change from reliable sources, by all means, add them.
Wehpudicabok (
talk)
22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't plan to edit the page, no, but it sounds like AfD is not the venue for this discussion then? I'm pretty firmly opposed to "we should delete it because an edit war is preventing the article from being corrected".
Hornpipe2 (
talk)
22:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not what I'm saying and it's not what happened. Some editors made good-faith edits to cover the change, then others pointed out that the changes have to be reliably sourced, and the sources that had been used didn't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. As far as I can tell, there simply aren't any reliable sources that have covered the change. It's not an edit war; there's just no way to make it better unless reliable sources start covering this topic, which they are unlikely to do. And finally (this is my own opinion, not Wikipedia policy), it is unethical to cover antisemitic propaganda without calling it that.
Wehpudicabok (
talk)
22:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay. I am sorry to have mischaracterized your statements, I do not mean any ill will here. I agree that it is unfortunate that the article does not (and cannot?) cover the comic's turn into antisemitism and transphobia - things I too find reprehensible - but speaking purely from the perspective of article deletion, my understanding of the policy is simply that articles are not to be deleted for reasons like this.
Hornpipe2 (
talk)
23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you. To be honest, I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policy as I'd like to be, which is why I keep emphasizing that some of what I'm saying is not based on that policy. If this were an ordinary webcomic, I'd be fine just leaving it as it was years ago; and if this were a culturally prominent piece of far-right propaganda, I'd be editing the article to reflect that. It's only because it's in the specific overlap of "gray area of notability" and "far-right propaganda" that we have this problem.
Wehpudicabok (
talk)
23:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
All the 2013 book seems to prove is that Sinfest exists. I could write an article about it if you'd like using that source. Ahem "Sinfest is a webcomic".
In the old days you could get GNG with more original research than Wikipedia is willing to tolerate in the modern era. I helped clean up a lot of original research FROM the GNG article, including a list of characters.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The 2013 source has plenty of analytical coverage of Sinfest. What are you even talking about? It's multiple pages discussing and analyzing a comic from it.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And? It's really, honestly, not enough. Wikipedia has far too many pages about non-notable webcomics that popped up during a brief span of time in the 90's-00's when webcomics were 'hot'. It was a fad, and Wikipedia would be better if many of these irrelevant articles were removed.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
06:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete since the article no longer reflects what Sinfest has become, and editorial policies restricting its update to reflect this seismic shift.
Ssteedman (
talk)
05:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That is a reason for events. If Ishida had made one extremely controversial comic 10 years ago and it wasn't mentioned before or since, that would be a sustained issue. This is a comic strip. The coverage is already over multiple years - just because something isn't covered anymore does not make it non notable. Read
WP:NTEMP
Plenty of notable TV shows or series have less coverage as they go along. We do not delete a notable work because its later versions have less coverage.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There's 'way less coverage' and there is 'completely a non entity among major publications'. And I'm not joking about that, have you read any of the recent strips? If we can't find a source for that extreme of an event, it was probably never an important thing in the first place.
It's like, you've got two football players. A major league one and a elementary school league one. Both get a wikipedia article because they're mentioned in a newspaper. Years go by without their pages being updated. Both of them suddenly say something racist. The major league football player is covered in a national newspaper and his page is updated to include the controversy. The elementary school one isn't, and his page isn't. Do we really need a page for the elementary kid who grew into an adult that no one official cares about?
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
06:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Notability is not based on how popular something is, it's based on if it is covered in reliable secondary sources.
Your example is false because local coverage is typically given less weight in notability. Sinfest has coverage in Publishers Weekly, a respected national publication, and several books.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sure. Let's say they get an article in the same national newspaper and are even listed alongside each other. One goes on to have sustained notability. The other does not.
Sinfest does not have sustained notability. You've got a single book from 2013, and a few low quality secondary sources. The book from 2020 is unresearched per the author of that book's blog, and is largely just a citation of some uncitable Reddit threads. You do not have notibility.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If there are two football players, one of who goes on to be a household name, and one of whom is successful but less famous, and they both have continued coverage in newspapers, yes, they should both have articles. We do not only have articles on famous things.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
07:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
But that's the thing. One doesn't have continued coverage and one does.
You said it in your own words.
and they both have continued coverage in newspapers,
The difference is that Cerebere's changes can be sourced. And I think that pretty clearly shows the difference between an actually notable, sustained notability, for a comic and... well... this. Which is not sustained.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (
talk)
06:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, that depends on what happens in the comic. Has to be enough coverage to keep any major tonal shifts in the comic over the course of it's life updated. If you can't manage that, it's not actually notable.
NTEMP and SUSTAINED are not contradictory. Sustained means that it must have more than a single-event burst of news coverage to be notable, while NTEMP means that once it has cleared that bar it is forever notable. None of the coverage is the "single-event" burst of notable that SUSTAINED applies to.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You have One. Book.
That sounds like a single burst to me. The great webcomics fad of the 00's.
The other book is fine. The source analysis is incorrect, the Publishers Weekly source is not a "press release" and is fine, the Wired and Paste sources are enough to be SIGCOV.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I feel like this deletion discussion has seen enough arguments between 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 and PARAKANYAA; I'm afraid that you two may continue talking in circles around eachother until one decides to stop responding. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
07:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment A possible solution: what is wrong with
Sean Kleefeld's 2024 "On Tatsuya Ishida" post as a source for citations in the article (as previously mentioned above)? The author has written an (already cited!) book on comics, is seemingly something of an authority or expert in the subject matter, etc. I guess that blog publishing is self-publishing, but, this isn't self-promoting - more of an "addendum" or errata to the book, in my mind. If this was permitted it seems it'd let the article be further edited towards "correctness" and this discussion could be put to rest.
Hornpipe2 (
talk)
14:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am reading further about
Wikipedia's allowable use of self-published sources and I now believe this self-published article by this expert author meets the criteria for usage except it runs afoul of
Biography of Living Person: Avoid self-published sources - you cannot use a self-published third-party source to support a claim about a living individual. I'm not sure if it would be possible to carefully select parts of this that cover specifically the comic itself and not the artist, but the title doesn't give much hope :P
That said, I encourage people to read the guidelines on self-published sources and especially cases where
the subject is writing about themself: it seems likely to me that a handful of posts from the author on their site would suffice to meet both the goals of documenting the current artist's viewpoints while remaining on the right side of the allowable sources discussion. The reverted version (see first post in this thread) cites some Patreon posts and other items from the author themselves: perhaps there's some usable gems in there.
Hornpipe2 (
talk)
14:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete while I'm not usually in favor of reading
WP:SUSTAINED in such a strict manner (especially for stuff like media or events, which often only have a few bursts of coverage), it's necessary here to avoid having a page that totally misrepresents its subject. If this strip were truly notable, there'd be at least one or two sources commenting on its current nature. The fact that there isn't indicates the page should be deleted.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
People are no longer posting regular updates about
Badgers (animation), do you suggest that to be removed as well? I am really having a hard time understanding this retroactive hyper-scrutiny applied to a webcomic which was literally written about in book(s) as the best solution to an out-of-date overview. It's flatly the wrong tool to resolve the issue.
Hornpipe2 (
talk)
20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Hornpipe2:Badgers (animation) is not still being published. Again, this is a rather weird case as this almost never happens with media. But having this article as-is is not really in line with our fundamental policies. Ideally, some reliable source would cover this comic strip's transformation and we could keep the article, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does I'll switch to keep.
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
20:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Notability isn't temporary and the book sources combined with the smaller mentions in other sources add up to GNG. Most of these deletion votes are motivated by a dislike of the comic/comic author.
WP:SUSTAINED does not mean continuous coverage all the time, just that coverage is not for one event/a few weeks. Sinfest has attracted coverage over multiple years. The canvassing needs to be noted too.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
22:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, this was a major webcomic 10 years ago that is now obscure, but did have
somenontrivial coverage outside of the innermost webcomics bubble. Sure, it is not
Dilbert, but it was, as RationalWiki says, "one of the most popular webcomics on the Internet". Notability is not temporary, and there is nontrivial coverage of Sinfest back when it was a popular webcomic on Google Scholar. —
Kusma (
talk)
11:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
With only primary sources listed, the article of this men's footballer clearly fails
WP:GNG. He played
nine minutes at the highest domestic league before being sent on loan to second tier then disappeared. Using the keyword "Oliver Burian", search engines mostly find other men of the same name than this footballer, failing
WP:V too. My searches showed nothing better than match reports and passing mentions in online newspapers.
⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆12:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, seems that he hasn't disappeared completely, but moved to the third, and now, fourth tier of Slovak football (non-league). At that level there is no chance of new significant coverage, and agree that anything existing is far below the required standard. C67915:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Too early to establish notability. Typical practice is to start the article the week of the race, which tends to be when reliable sources begin to exist about the race. This event takes place in 3 month and there is no evidence of this meeting
WP:NEVENT. Should be redirected to
2024 Formula One World Championship as it was before.
Cerebral726(talk)12:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No, page shouldn't have been created until notability criteria is met. This is usually 1 week before. But there is no reason it couldn't be six months before. In this case it isn't. But arguing any outcome because this article does/doesn't meet an arbitary time frame is nonsense. There is no rule (official or by implied consensus) that this has to be the case.
SSSB (
talk)
08:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that was covered in my "standard practice is already in place here for a reason" statement. This discussion or variations of it have been had many times because it's fairly well-established that these events almost never meet the
WP:GNG until the week of the event. It shouldn't be necessary to restate the same thing every time one of these articles gets made months in advance unless there's some compelling evidence presented to the contrary.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (
talk)
02:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"it's fairly well-established that these events almost never meet the WP:GNG until the week of the event." but sometimes they reach GNG more than 1 week before the event in which case creating an article is justified. The reasoning here should be "GNG is not yet met, but may be met in the future", or "WP:TOOSOON". This idea that a Grand Prix article cannot be created more than a week before the event is nonsense and a
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Subject age argument. "It is more than one week until the event, so GNG cannot possible be met." Please provide an actually policy based arguemnt in future.
SSSB (
talk)
06:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nobody's saying there aren't exceptions? HumanBodyPiloter5 is completely correct in their statements and, in case it's not glaringly obvious, you actually agree with each other. We all edit in the same space, have done for years, and are on the same page when it comes to this discussion and the correct practice when creating race reports, there's no need to patronise each other here. 5225C (
talk •
contributions)
07:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect – No reason to delete. This was and should be a redirect. It could've been dealt with proactively—with a revert—instead of opening a whole AfD.
MSport1005 (
talk)
19:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It was reverted to a redirect but then the user reinstated the article. Thought it best to get consensus in the easiest way possible instead of edit warring.
Cerebral726(talk)19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep by the GNG and also procedural keep, as no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. The intro says It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources?, however this is an article about a TECHNOLOGY not about a company. So NORG does not apply. "Any reliable sources?" is a slap in the face of the BEFORE requirements. That's to the procedural keep. To the keep, this is an easy keep because of the large number of reviews of the technology in prime publications. Such reviews are almost by definition in depth and original as the journalist RESEARCHES the tool.
gidonb (
talk)
15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteKeep: despite what @
Gidonb: says, this was "co-founded" and is explicitly designated in the article as "the company", so you can hardly say
WP:NORG doesn't apply here. As to the "procedural keep", Any reliable sources? can also be a way of formulating the often-made query of "I haven't found any reliable sources. If anyone finds some, please ping me". Refs 1, 2 and 8 (techcrunch) are promotional ("beautifully designed", etc.) or very short, 3 (linkedin) is not independent, 4 (the next web)'s reliability is disputed, 5 (interview of co-founder) is not independent, 7 is a name-drop. This leaves 6 (the verge) as the only independent, reliable, and significant source, but notability guidelines do say sources, plural, so a single source isn't enough for notability. Also to Gidonb: you say you've found large number of reviews. I would appreciate if you could give some links to these, per
WP:SOURCESEXIST. —
Alien333 (
what I did &
why I did it wrong) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Changing my !vote to keep per last sources brought up by Skynxnex. I'm not sure the whole Max World, Mac Life, and Micro World bunch is reliable, but with that Forbes article it adds up to enough for
WP:GNG for me. —
Alien333 (
what I did &
why I did it wrong)
08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A source is promotional because it is a positive review? I think the TechCrunch sources, at least the review by Perez, should count, as it's done by their reporting side and doesn't seem to be based on any press release.
Aaron Liu (
talk)
14:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Although I might have been a bit quick with the "promotional" and it's only about the two by Sarah Perez, I can't help but have doubts whens someone writes about a beautifully designed, deceptively simple, gorgeous new app with an attractive design that stand[s] out of the crowd and is working towards building out a smarter, more intelligent system. They do look a bit like PR pieces. —
Alien333 (
what I did &
why I did it wrong)
08:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Some more reviews (many of these links are wikipedia library links, I'll try to provide enough context to show how relevant they are):
A Task Master to Beat All; Any.do is perfect for sailors who like to keep their boats organized by Donald A. McLenna in Sail, November 1, 2014. A five paragraph positive review from the perspective of a sailor. (I didn't find these articles easily but it mentions that "It won Apple’s 2012 'Intuitive Touch' Award, Android’s 'Best App' for 2012 and a nod in my 'Top 5 Apps for 2013' in the December 2013 issue of SAIL", as a sign of more continuing coverage.)
Any.Do 3 Review: Don't like apple's reminders? You might like Any.Do, By: Loyola, Roman, Macworld - Digital Edition, Jun 2015. About six functional paragraphs ending with "The different list views make the free version of Any.do better at organizing your task list than Apple's Reminders. And the ability to create subtasks and add notes and attachments is handy. The premium version of Any.do has features that'll make you seriously consider using it instead of Reminders, but you have to be willing to pay for it on a regular basis."
Any.do by Joseph, Cliff. Mac Life, Oct 2019. Four-ish paragraph review starting with "The marketing blurb for Any.do is a bit intimidating, as it seems to be aimed at budding business tycoons and “results– driven teams”. But it turns out that the basic, free version is simply a rather nice app for making to–do lists.".
I'm surprised this article made it through the draft review process, given that the subject has zero press coverage outside a few paid Nigerian blogs and the accolade "Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria" doesn't seem like a particularly notable award. On the contrary it sounds quite sexist.
Blanes tree (
talk)
12:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment:
Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria is clearly a notable award, (sexist maybe, but surely no more or less than any other national beauty pagent). But
WP:NMODEL is not met with just one notable award, so
WP:SIGCOV must be met instead, which I'm not sure it is.
Vanguard can be considered marginally reliable when, as in
this case, the article is not explicity paid content. Curiously, I couldn't find a previous discussion on VON or RadioNigeria but maybe those two being state outlets counts for something? Even then the articles are pretty short, bordering on routine. So I am on the fence here. --
D'n'B-t --
18:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What, why would you think that? I could hop off the fence with more evidence given either way but have no plans to do so as of yet. (besides: whichever field I land in, it would not be a flip - there isn't an opposite position to neutral). --
D'n'B-t --
19:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Without even looking at any source, MBGN titleholders is an easy keep. Biggest paegent in the country to determine Miss World representative. Pretty sure all Miss USA winners will also have wiki articles. As soon as I verified she was truly an MBGN winner, I didn't even bother reading the other rationale in the nom statement.
HandsomeBoy (
talk)
21:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
keep. your statement that the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria award sounds sexist is quite laughable and somewhat insulting to the people of Nigeria. This award is the highest beauty pageant award in Nigeria and the winner deserves a Wikipedia article.
Does not meet
WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Searching only uncovers further database sources and a very limited number of primary sources. C67912:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS. Shooting isn't notable enough for a standalone article, nor does it have any international coverage that I could find. I previously nominated this same page yesterday, but decided to withdraw my nomination since it was moved to draftspace by
Drmies immediately after.
CycloneYoristalk!09:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I honestly don't know what
User:AlbanianEditor1990 was thinking, first when they created it in article space, and second, when they moved it back to article space. The history reflects that I tried to indicate some of the things that were wrong with the article, but to no avail. Here's the thing: the article is in such poor condition that it looks obviously not-notable (and I added the only source in it), but who knows, it might be on a notable topic--better sourcing could make that an easier decision. If I had the choice I'd move this back to draft space, and warn the editor to stop doing this, because it is headed toward deletion.
Drmies (
talk)
17:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The lead sentence of this article describes the subject as a "fringe theoretical political philosophy", which is already quite the shaky start, but I think even this description gives it more credit than it's due, as the term is not popular enough to even show up in
Google Ngrams results.
Of the cited sources in this article, and the ones I can see on
Google Scholar, there appear to be three broad uses for the term: one is a throwaway term used by
Peter Lamborn Wilson (see
Grindon 2004;
Fiscella 2009;
Fiscella 2020); another a descriptor for Tolkien's political ideology, largely based on a single letter he wrote to his son (see
Hart 2010;
Siewers 2013;
Hayes 2017;
Davis 2021); and finally as a generic throw-away descriptor for neo-feudalism (see
Turan 2023). One other source describes Rodolphe Crevelle, the founder of Lys Noir, as an "anarcho-royaliste", but again in a throwaway line that almost reads as mocking.
Something that quickly becomes apparent in all of the sources, is that none of them give significant coverage to the subject. Almost all of the references are throw-away mentions, sometimes relegated to footnotes. The only source that goes in any depth is a student paper, which is quite clearly not a reliable source. I doubt this article will grow any larger than the stub it currently exists as.
As I stated, calling this a "fringe theoretical political philosophy" is generous, as it doesn't appear to be a real thing at all. Its references are all throwaway lines, usually either attributed to Peter Lamborn Wilson or describing a single letter by Tolkien. There'd barely even be enough to merge into Wilson or Tolkien's own articles, the sourcing is that thin. As there appears to be no
significant coverage of "anarcho-monarchism" in
reliable sources, I'm recommending this article for deletion.
Grnrchst (
talk)
08:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with Grnrchst's careful analysis and I don't agree with the edit summary used for recreation - "Created page, many new sources since the last deletion discussion"
Mujinga (
talk)
09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete there's quite a few Google hits for the French translations of this term, from reliable sources, however there's no French Wikipedia article for it, just a
Wikitionnaire entry. I don't think it meets
WP:GNG and agree with Grnrchst that the mentions in the sources are passing.
Orange sticker (
talk)
09:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I had a similar read when first reviewing this article. It's a term used as an epithet in passing but does not cohere between reliable sources into a clear system of ideas nevertheless one that is in active consideration (sigcov) by sources. czar13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, you make some great points. While the article is better than it's original form, it's lacking in many areas. Could it be transferred to my userspace for archival purposes?
Microplastic Consumer (
talk)
16:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not meet
WP:GNG. One of the reference is the company website and the other one seems more like a listing in Poets and Writers which is behind a paywall. Searches also don’t show any significant coverage.
Wikilover3509 (
talk)
08:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I had a look at the company's web page and thought it looked like a typical piece of quackery of the sort one sees all the time in TV advertisements for slimming methods. "Hear from the experts": three "experts", two of them "best-selling authors", none of them with any clear qualifications in physiology or biochemistry.
Athel cb (
talk)
16:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: I can find lots of routine product reviews, but there are a couple of in-depth sources on the product:
[52],
[53], as well as one small research study:
[54]. Any product claiming to "hack your metabolism" pushes my bullshit needle into the red, but there does seem to be some coverage.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk)
23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not notable sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources refer to sports results except for one, which is an interview with the person concerned. Searching the internet for "Karel Průša" shows other people with the same name. Same case as the recently nominated
Bedřich Slaný.
FromCzech (
talk)
06:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The sport's pinnacle are the Olympic Games and athletes do not meet the condition of notability just by participating in them. If you say 'keep' you have to objectively demonstrate notability according to
WP:GNG and
WP:NMOTORSPORT.
FromCzech (
talk)
09:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: The Olympic Games are not the sports pinnacle, there is no speedway at the Olympic Games as is the case for numerous other sports. For information the pinnacle of speedway is the World Individual championships (now called the Grand Prix) and the World Cup. I have since added additional references from books and Newspaper Archive.
Pyeongchang (
talk)
09:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for that he was one of the title clinching finalist of a world championship event.
WP:ATD will be to draftify for expansion. I agree with Pyeongchang's statement that it is the pinnacle of speedway.
SpacedFarmer (
talk)
16:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify. Competing or even winning at the pinnacle of a sport, whether Grand Prix or Olympics, is not a valid inclusion criterion. SPORTCRIT requires GNG be met and for a GNG-contributing source to be cited in the article. If the "Speedway A-Z" source is not SPS then that would probably satisfy SPORTCRIT, but multiple sources are needed for GNG.
JoelleJay (
talk)
03:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not notable sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources only refer to sports results. Searching the internet for "Jaroslav Volf" shows other people with the same name. Same case as the recently nominated
Bedřich Slaný.
FromCzech (
talk)
05:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Clearly notable because he competed in the final of the Speedway World Cup, the sport's pinnacle AND reached the final of the Speedway individual world championship.
Pyeongchang (
talk)
08:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin:
Pyeongchang (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
AfD. reply
The sport's pinnacle are the Olympic Games and athletes do not meet the condition of notability just by participating in them. If you say 'keep' you have to objectively demonstrate notability according to
WP:GNG and
WP:NMOTORSPORT.
FromCzech (
talk)
09:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: The Olympic Games are not the sports pinnacle, there is no speedway at the Olympic Games as is the case for numerous other sports. For information the pinnacle of speedway is the World Individual championships (now called the Grand Prix) and the World Cup. I have since added additional references from books and Newspaper Archive.
Pyeongchang (
talk)
09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – Unimpressed by the sources available. Routine recaps of events in local papers are not significant coverage of the individual. There is no attempt to claim significance in the article. Wikipedia is not a database (
WP:NOTDATABASE). 5225C (
talk •
contributions)
07:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep for that he was one of the title clinching finalist of a world championship event.
WP:ATD will be to draftify for expansion. I agree with Pyeongchang's statement that it is the pinnacle of speedway.
SpacedFarmer (
talk)
16:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails GNG and in particular SPORTCRIT. Accomplishments carry zero weight so !votes to keep based on appearing in a championship should be discounted.
JoelleJay (
talk)
02:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not notable sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources only refer to passing mentions and sports results. Searching the internet for "Bedřich Slaný" shows other people with the same name.
FromCzech (
talk)
05:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: The Czech version
cs:Bedřich Slaný of the article says (without a reference) that he died on 11 October 1980. Perhaps a news article about him or an obituary in a reliable source was published shortly after his death. Someone with access to Czechoslovak news media from 1980 might want to search for references from October 1980. The Wikipedia Library would also be worth searching. If you find one or more useful references, please add them to the Czech version
cs:Bedřich Slaný as well., Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)06:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The sport's pinnacle are the Olympic Games and athletes do not meet the condition of notability just by participating in them. If you say 'keep' you have to objectively demonstrate notability according to
WP:GNG and
WP:NMOTORSPORT.
FromCzech (
talk)
09:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: The Olympic Games are not the sports pinnacle, there is no speedway at the Olympic Games as is the case for numerous other sports. For information the pinnacle of speedway is the World Individual championships (now called the Grand Prix) and the World Cup. I have since added additional references from books and Newspaper Archive.
Pyeongchang (
talk)
09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course, I meant in general that if for Olympic sports the participation of an athlete in the Olympics is not a criterion of notability, the participation of a speedway racer in the Speedway World Cup is also not a criterion of notability. The sources you have added here and elsewhere do not demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia criteria.Redirect to
1962 Speedway World Team Cup may be an alternative to deletion.
FromCzech (
talk)
09:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep for that he was one of the title clinching finalist of a world championship event.
WP:ATD will be to draftify for expansion. I agree with Pyeongchang's statement that it is the pinnacle of speedway.
SpacedFarmer (
talk)
16:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article, while purportedly about a court case, seems to in fact be a bio of one of the participants in the court case. Either way, neither she nor the case itself are notable.
For the case, it received some news coverage in 2023 when it was first filed and when it was dismissed, but only
one story has been written about it this year, despite the fact that it went to the 10th Circuit. It was later
dismissed by the 10th Circuit under procedural grounds, which was not covered at all. As the case was dismissed in both venues it appeared in, it is very unlikely it will have any relevance going forward, whether to the parties themselves or to the status of case law on transgender people as a whole.
For Artemis Langford,
BLP1E applies as she is not notable for anything outside of this case. She's not even a party to the lawsuit as it currently stands. As neither the case nor Langford seem to be notable, I propose deletion. Pinguinn🐧03:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not going to !vote as I created the article and still believe the subject to be a notable one. I do see continued sourcing including
last month as the future state of the lawsuit remains unsettled. Would prefer redirection suggested by S Marshall to outright deletion should consensus land that it isn't a notable lawsuit.
StarMississippi13:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Kappa Kappa Gamma. Current article seems to largely fit under the umbrella of the section in
Kappa Kappa Gamma . I'm not sure what articles would be similar to this, the closest that I see from
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Watchlist is probably
DePauw University Delta Zeta discrimination controversy which I'm not sure this has reached the level of. As a note, this article wasn't on the WP Watchlist so I'll mention it at the Wikiproject to make sure others there see. I don't think this counts as canvassing, I fully expect one or more people there to want to keep it and/or add to the article. :) (Couldn't find any other articles on Lawsuits on membership, the closest that I found is the info in
Iron Arrow about their anti-title IX lawsuit, most lawsuit mentions that I can find are part of the aftermath of a hazing incident)
Naraht (
talk)
13:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect: This article has adequate sources to meet notability because of its national coverage. However, because the court case didn't lead to anything significant, this content is best suited for the Controversies section of the
Kappa Kappa Gamma article. There is already a subsection on this case in the Kappa Kappa Gamma article; it would be a good idea to see if any of the content from this article should be merged prior to its deletion.
Rublamb (
talk)
19:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Another one that fails
WP:NLIST. I removed everything that does not have a reference or a Wikipedia page and there are only three current original programs. Everything else falls under
WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I did a
WP:BEFORE in an attempt to find sourcing that talks about their programming as a whole and was unable to find anything reliable. I recommend a redirect of the name and maybe include the three current programs on the main
Geo Entertainment page as an
WP:ATD.
CNMall41 (
talk)
22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Standard split from the network. Redirect and merge is possible but those who wish it should imv verify what's redirecting to the list to avoid undue deletions if double redirects are created. Having spent too much time commenting and voting on similar Afds I will not make any further comments here. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
... Television Dramas and the Global Village Storytelling Through Race and Gender; Women and TV Culture in Pakistan, Gender, Islam and National Identity;Media Imperialism in India and Pakistan
contain passages that address the programming and content of the network as a set. Or
this list. or this
kind of pages. Or this
kind of articles. Keep as a standard split as I'v repeated many times. See the category for those lists. I will not reply anymore as I've said multiple times on other Afd pages what I thought, and insisted a broader consensus should be established before nominating this type of pages (see Afd concerning Hum TV programming, where I had presented sources too, btw, but this too was ignored, so why bother?). So, again, I'll leave it at that even if there are questions, pings, comments, etc. And again size-wise, especially since users regularly perform drastic cuts before nominating pages, the merge is possible. I just don't think it is necessary. If it happens, I am inviting you again to check all redirects (I had done it last time, which you concurred was a concern but guess who checked the double redirects after all?) Good luck. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
After all, this rude reply deserves a final comment: so you ask me to provide sources although I said I had no time but don't even open all links and ignore the academic study and the books? Just like last time!!! No comment on whether NEWSORGINDIA applies on the one source you opened, but hey. I hope the closer is an admin who will comment on your attitude. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
.....Thank you so much for your advice but that is clearly not the point, I'm afraid. Follow the sequence of events, please.
But since we're here, would you happen to have a link mentioning that The News International is considered
generally unreliable? I'll be careful and check again myself so as not to waste your time. Let me check ...Surprise! It's quite the opposite, it's considered generally reliable,
is that not correct?(on a page you yourself created!!!)? Again, that is not the point, but since I'm replying again, despite having said I wouldn't, I thought better to check again.....as I had indeed (not only by checking the page you created(in your userspace) but also the noticeboard for reliable sources and the board for perennial sources, before posting it in the first place, mind you.....
But never mind. Even the NEWSORGINDIA thing is not the point; the issue is not reading the sources one has asked for! whatever they are; and I don't think you can discard them but again, that is not the point. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wow. Don't jump to conclusions and before making claims a page you yourself created!, check the history of the page. The page was actually created by UPE sock farms to
game the system, and I moved it to my user NS. How do you even know about
this page? Are you in cahoots with them? —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
19:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry I had missed this. My bad, you didn't create it, it's in your user space and I thought it was your work. I apologise for thinking you had worked on that page! Will amend my comment. No comment on the rest of your reply but feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. But to the point: The News International is generally reliable, is it not?:D -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The News itself is RS, but as @
CNMall41 pointed out, this specific coverage is not reliable for the reasons they explained. Therefore, it shouldn't count towards establishing GNG. Regarding feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. Sure, I'll take it to the proper venue when and if I deem it necessary and when I've enough evidence to support my report. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
19:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Last-minute adjustment drifting from the precise topic of the original conversation :D but even then, I will reply. Maybe Dramaspice is not independent and should not be used and maybe, it is not a good source but that is not what
WP:GUNREL stands for (not listed there, which is the precise point of GUNREL, not a description but a list established by a consensus). Or just don't user "GUNREL" but other wording then. And even pretending it was, that would leave us with 5 non-GUNREL sources that you ignore, :D, including a fully available academic article focusing on the programs as a set in a comparative study. But maybe you did not have the time to open it, and that's probably my fault.
I certainly do not see how that is rude. I am only responsible for what I say, not how you interpret it. What I was pointing out is you have a history of ignoring NEWSORGINDIA in AfD discussions. The News International is considered reliable yes, but not THIS PARTICULAR REFERENCE as it is clearly churnalism. Just like Forbes is considered generally reliable but sources written by non-staff writers in Forbes are not. Not sure how to make that any clearer. It is ad nauseam at this point to go further when the first source is just a repeat of the same argument. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
18:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have a history of ignoring WP:NEWSORGINDIA is an
inappropriate comment here: but, please, do feel free to report me at the appropriate forum if you think I am of bad faith and that my input here and elsewhere (as you clearly assert) is disruptive. In the present case, I disagree with what I understand of your interpretation of that information page, an interpretation which is not the consensus, as far as I can see, and I simply do not understand your explanation (or lack thereof): "use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter " is one sign that a source might not be independent, not THE proof that you cannot use it at all. But again, that was not my point, as you can see if you make the effort of reading me with attention; and I cannot see why you are focusing on that particular section of an information page when replying to the 6 sources mentioned.
And what I find rude, in case you really did not understand, in the present discussion, is the fact that even if I was not expecting thanks for providing sources at your request in an Afd you iniated, you blatantly and explicitly ignored all of them but one you discarded contemptuously (rightly so or not (not the point, again)) and continue to do so, as you don't even mention them... I'll leave it at that, now. I don't understand the end of your reply but I guess it does not really matter, as I finally give up, this time too. Again, I do hope the closing administrator will comment on this issue. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There was no intent to be rude but I understand if you are concerned about the comment. I do not have an apology unfortunately but would recommend going to ANI should you feel my conduct is out of line.--
CNMall41 (
talk)
06:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Saqib/Mushy Yank please take the dispute elsewhere. You've weighed in sufficiently here. Please allow others to be heard. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
StarMississippi02:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as the previous AFD was closed as Delete and it seems like many sources concern her personal life, not her career. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
One of those seemingly cursed articles, created by a subsequently blocked sock, that becomes an eternal battleground between editors claiming it's historical and those claiming it's legendary. Either way, my review of the English-language sources finds no
WP:SIGCOV of this campaign, just brief mentions. I propose to redirect to
Chandragupta II#Punjab region where this campaign is already covered at only slightly shorter length.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
01:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable local organization fails
WP:NORG. There's no
WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Sources in the article are either affiliated, industry blogs (i.e.
WP:TRADES) or tangentially mention the organization. Sources outside the article are principally limited to fan blogs. There's certainly no sigcov in "media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state)" as required per
WP:AUD.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
01:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable local official. His city council position doesn't satisfy NPOL and he doesn't seem to meet GNG otherwise. Of the 6 sources cited on the page: one is his page on a database of registered lawyers, one is the Ohio Birth Index, one is his resume, one is his campaign website, and one is his bio on the city of Glendale's official website; the only actual news article cited is a
WP:ROTM article about an election he ran in. I can't really find anything better on Google.
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk)
00:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and keep improving. Easily meets
WP:BASIC and likely
WP:GNG. (And a little worried that there has been insufficient
WP:BEFORE, possibly because there is also a Los Angeles Times sports writer with the same name, so it generates a ton of irrelevant coverage if you don't use additional search parameters.) Najarian has been vocal about advocating Armenian-American issues – Glendale has one of the largest Armenian communities outside Armenia (and this
Los Angeles Times article where he is quoted is just the tip of the iceberg) – and an initial 15-minute search yielded coverage of his
meetings with the prime minister of Armenia, and he is also frequently covered in the Armenian-American community press extending beyond Glendale. It will take a long time to sort through all the coverage to identify the "best 3", but this is more a case of having to spend time to search, sort, assess and improve, rather than agonizing that this four-time mayor and councilmember of Glendale has been completely ignored by the media outside of Glendale.)
Cielquiparle (
talk)
06:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not every local official is automatically notable. IT's absolutely worth pointing out that he's received no coverage outside of Glendale. His meeting with the president of Armenia helps, but it doesn't automatically entitle him to a Wikipedia page (even if this meeting was extremely notable, which doesn't seem to be the case, it still wouldn't make Najarian himself notable, per
WP:1E). Him being "mentioned" in an LA Times article is also not especially convincing.
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk)
02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That's hardly
WP:1E if his official visits to Armenia were covered in both 2010 and 2018. Anyway in future I would recommend trying search engines other than Google. A quick Google search will tell you it doesn't function very well anymore as a search engine.
Cielquiparle (
talk)
03:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't say that it was in-depth, I said that it was more in-depth than mentions. I'm not sure whether he's notable or not, because I haven't really looked much. That's why I didn't write "keep".
toweli (
talk)
05:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Tagged as having problem in complying
WP:NORG since 2017, virtually not supported by reliable, secondary sources since the article creation in 2012. A check on its version history shows it was originally meant to be an advertisement for the hospital (and
was tagged with such problem once). Years passed, no significant improvements other than removing most promotional tone and
adding an infobox. No improvements with regards to addition of sources that are reliable and not connected to the hospital organization (in accordance with
WP:RS,
WP:PRIMARY, and
WP:INDEPENDENT). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)00:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Subject lacks the needed reliable coverage from independent sources to meet the
WP:GNG as a BLP. The sources currently in the article are either school websites or student newspapers, neither of which are independent. A check for coverage elsewhere didn't reveal anything more.
Let'srun (
talk)
00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
After extensive searching for
WP:SIGCOV in multiple newspaper archives, I believe the subject lacks the coverage needed to meet the
WP:GNG. This obit [
[57]] is rather short and doesn't make mention of his NFL career. Besides the obit, there are some passing/routine mentions like [
[58]], [
[59]], [
[60]] and [
[61]] but from what I see it is all trivial. While the subject played 16 NFL games, they took place in the early years of the league when the popularity of the league was nowhere near what it is today. I don't see a clear
WP:ATD here but am open to the possibility.
Let'srun (
talk)
00:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply