 |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the
dashboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Bass Rock (Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts)
- Bass Rock (Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. There are no sources online beyond basic location information. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 23:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Concur that it does not meet GEOLAND. If someone wants to reference it in the Lynn main article, I wouldn't oppose it, but I am indifferent to a merge, there's not much else that can be said about this rock and it definitely is not worthy of its own article. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 12:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete we do not even have an article on the harbor it is located in, there is no reason to have an article on it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Mazraeh-ye Baqr Sheybani
- Mazraeh-ye Baqr Sheybani ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only AFD'ing this because somehow this was prodded and deprodded before. This is a farm, and not a village as the article claims. -- VersaceSpace 🌃 16:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- VersaceSpace 🌃 16:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment -- Also please take a look at Mazraeh-ye Moruji. Thanks. -- VersaceSpace 🌃 16:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete both just because a gazeteer somewhere lists every farm and well in a country does not mean we need articles on all of them.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete both - The name Mazraeh-ye Baqr Sheybani literally means "Baghershibani farm", and the other name also literally just means "Meroji Farm". It is not a legally-recognised populated place, simply being listed as an abadi on the Iranian census is not evidence of being such since the Iranian census is not a listing of legally-recognised populated places but instead a listing of local features around which the population has been counted. Explicit (or whoever closes this) please review the consensuses around Carlossuarez46's mass-created articles here (and also in the links on the same page): Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46. This whole thing has been discussed many times, with ultimately clear consensuses against, so it is not clear to me why this could not have been closed as delete based on the first vote. FOARP ( talk) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Debiganj Upazila. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Debiganj Girls High School
- Debiganj Girls High School ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE returns mainly listings and wp-clones. Even the local name does not give much useful. The Banner talk 18:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Debiganj Upazila, the geographic unit where the school is located, and where it is briefly mentioned. Panchagarh.info is a self-published Wordpress blog, so not a reliable source. New Age is a reputable newspaper, but it contains just one sentence about the school. Searches in English and Bengali found no independent reliable sources containing significant coverage of the school, so it doesn't satisfy WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 01:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Bass Rock (Ipswich, Essex County, Massachusetts)
- Bass Rock (Ipswich, Essex County, Massachusetts) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. There are no sources online beyond basic location information. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 23:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a comprehensive guide to every place that might be needed to be known in water navigation. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Md Tareq Miah
- Md Tareq Miah ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable footballer. No WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 19:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG. Avilich ( talk) 14:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus, slightly leaning keep - This is held in between the biannual World Championships, so it is certainly not as large as the world championships, but it is a regular event and plausible as a notable event. The problem is sufficiency in WP:RS, making the argument of Notability a weak one, but plausible. What I find in the consensus is uncertainty more than anything, which isn't strong enough to delete the article. I considered relisting, but I don't feel that it would be likely to add more to the discussion.. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Underwater Hockey European Championships
- Underwater Hockey European Championships ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can’t see that this topic has in depth coverage in multiple RIS. A redirect to Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques might be possible but I’d appreciate knowing what consensus is. Mccapra ( talk) 21:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Europe. Mccapra ( talk) 21:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't pass
WP:GNG. Not mentioned at target article, and adding this continental competition would be undue when no other continental competitions are mentioned there.
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
07:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are there other continental competitions? It wouldn't be undue if they don't exist, or are so obscure we can't find them. This article suggests there are national competitions, a world competition, and a European competition only. Spinning Spark 15:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Notability for this is very weak, but I am going to say keep anyway because I think Wikipedia should cover the top competitions in all sports. It is discussed on this page and this book notes it as one of the major sporting events in San Marino when it was held there. The latter is just a passing mention, but the author's opinion that this was a major event that contributed to sport's tourism must count for something. Spinning Spark 15:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Surely the top competition in underwater hockey is not this, but the
Underwater Hockey World Championships?
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
15:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes but I said "top competitions" (plural), not the top competition. Spinning Spark 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Surely the top competition in underwater hockey is not this, but the
Underwater Hockey World Championships?
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
15:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep A fair split from Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques given that article is already quite bulky. Plus the ability to cover more obscure topics like this is what makes Wikipedia special, IMO. NemesisAT ( talk) 10:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's only a valid split if it meets WP:GNG, something that no-one at this discussion has tried to prove it does. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tried, but I couldn't. Mccapra ( talk) 14:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 07:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Memphis Sound Drum and Bugle Corps
- Memphis Sound Drum and Bugle Corps ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very minor and short-lived drum corps; lacks notability; their one championship win was in Division III, not World Class. Bgsu98 ( talk) 17:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Arts, and Tennessee. Bgsu98 ( talk) 17:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
*Could also consider merging what little content there is to
List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps.
Bgsu98 (
talk)
18:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete do not merge. We do not have enough to show notability. A list of unnotable organizations is not justified either, so I am pretty sure we should scap that list. Lists articles are not meant to be a way to avoid showing the contents actually meet notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I just took another look at the article and there is nothing there worth merging. The history section is almost nonexistent. Bgsu98 ( talk) 22:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Dilsha Prasannan
- Dilsha Prasannan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, references depends upon the television reality show. Onmyway22 talk 17:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, India, and Kerala. Onmyway22 talk 17:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- My opinion: She is the winner of Big Boss season 4. If winning a famous reality show is considered as an eligible criteria towards notability, I oppose deletion. If not I support deletion. Kapeeshmon ( talk) 13:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: See
Wikipedia:Notability_(Reality_Television_participants).
Kpddg
(talk)
15:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is that a failed proposal?
Onmyway22
talk
15:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, very sorry, I did not see that. Apologies. Kpddg (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is that a failed proposal?
Onmyway22
talk
15:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I strongly support the deletation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:2116:F8E2:5AC5:A0BB:E387:CD07 ( talk) 19:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Sierra Riders Band
- Sierra Riders Band ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any significant coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Ploni ( talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. TigerShark ( talk) 20:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Alafia Samuels
- Alafia Samuels ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Having previously declined this as a draft I feel like it doesn't belong in mainspace as there is no visible pass of WP:NPROF. Now I usually try to be very accommodating to the fact that academics rarely receive coverage and am very flexible on what I believe is a pass as per their h-index, but this subject falls quite below that standard. I might be missing something here so an extra pair of eyes would be helpful. As it stands, I don't think this passes notability SNG requirements. nearlyevil 665 15:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 15:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. nearlyevil 665 21:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Citations are not nearly high enough to meet NPROF in this high-citation field (diabetes).
JoelleJay (
talk)
00:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- To expand: These are the Scopus citation metrics for her 76 coauthors with 10+ papers:
- Total citations: average: 9072, median: 2513, Samuels: 529.
- Total papers: 139, 72, 37.
- h-index: 31, 22, 15.
- Top 5 papers: 1st: 1177, 399, 47. 2nd: 823, 208, 44. 3rd: 520, 154, 43. 4th: 397, 111, 38. 5th: 277, 91, 33. JoelleJay ( talk) 07:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- To expand: These are the Scopus citation metrics for her 76 coauthors with 10+ papers:
- Delete: They are only 3rd author on their most cited paper with 319 citations and their next paper has only 79 citations which makes their h-index weaker than it appears at first glance so I don't think that they would qualify under WP:NPROF. Gusfriend ( talk) 04:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: There are other criteria which apply here, other than the citation metrics. She has received a regional award and chairs a global consortium, which show her impact and recognition of that impact outside of academia.
MurielMary (
talk)
10:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, it should be demonstrated that the award received or position chaired was “highly prestigious” or “highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association”, respectively. I'm not convinced either criteria was demonstrated and no regional award or chair position is notable by default.
nearlyevil
665
12:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dr. Samuels is a Lancet One Health Commissioner and received full-page coverage in The Lancet, which is commonly regarded as one of the world's top-3 medical publications.
BigYellowDuckie (
talk)
14:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did see that, however it's not clear when she became affiliated with The Lancet (not just as a OHC); that coverage would not be independent if she was already affiliated with it. And anyway, GNG needs multiple sources of SIGCOV.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Lancet article was 2017 before any affiliation. Appointment as a Lancet OHC was in 2018
- This submission is not only based on academic output, but on a composite professional profile, which includes being a leading NCD researcher and advocate in the Caribbean. Advising Ministers of Health of the Caribbean annually, designing and administering NCD process indicators frorm 20 countries annually since 2008, leading the evaluation of the POS declaration from the first ever meeting of Heads of State on NCDs.
- Competitive regional awards from the Caribbean Public Health Agency
- Chair of NCD Child - for global advocacy
96.43.179.185 (
talk)
14:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, the Lancet article would be SIGCOV then, but again we need multiple sources for GNG. None of the affiliations or awards listed would contribute to NPROF even in aggregate, so GNG would be the route to notability (unless we can find many instances of her being quoted/discussed as an expert in multiple different independent publications (so, not from the same newspapers). JoelleJay ( talk) 20:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did see that, however it's not clear when she became affiliated with The Lancet (not just as a OHC); that coverage would not be independent if she was already affiliated with it. And anyway, GNG needs multiple sources of SIGCOV.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dr. Samuels is a Lancet One Health Commissioner and received full-page coverage in The Lancet, which is commonly regarded as one of the world's top-3 medical publications.
BigYellowDuckie (
talk)
14:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, it should be demonstrated that the award received or position chaired was “highly prestigious” or “highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association”, respectively. I'm not convinced either criteria was demonstrated and no regional award or chair position is notable by default.
nearlyevil
665
12:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment would being on the peer-review committee of a medical journal count?
[1]
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- No. WP:NPROF requires them to be the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal. Gusfriend ( talk) 06:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 23:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hermann Neuling
- Hermann Neuling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been tagged as unsourced since 2008, so for about 14 years. I did searching for sources in all the links with the article and in a few other google searches. The German article does have a source, but it looks to just be a catalog entry without substance. I can find a few name drops on one of his works, but nothing in a reliable source about him. I found one blog where someone was asking if others had information on Neuling, and another blog that did say a little about him. The first 2 works on Google scholar are works by a different Hermann Neuling, since one predates his birth and the other was published when he was 5, this person was not publishing academic works on German history at age 5 (I use publishing instead of writing not because I think there are 5 year olds writing academic level works on history period, but because academic publishing especially usually takes a while, so a book that comes out of an academic press in 2021 will often have been fully written by mid-2018 or earlier. As far as I can tell there are not sources out there that give indepth coverage of Neuling at the level we would need to have a biography that says anything of substance. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood ( talk) 14:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, I don't think we can find much more than what's here, I've tried. Nothing found.
Oaktree b (
talk)
16:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did find what I consider to be significant coverage, in case it changes your perspective. Note: both by the same author in the same journal, but in different years. CT55555 ( talk) 17:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. A google books search of his name produces pages of results. None significant coverage, but does confirm he created a large body of work. The significant coverage that proves notability can be found as follows:
- 12 mentions here (search inside by surname only) STONESTREET, R. Pedagogical Works for Low Horn. Horn Call: Journal of the International Horn Society, [s. l.], v. 45, n. 2, p. 53–57, 2015. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=100276801&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 28 jun. 2022.
- 11 mentions here: STONESTREET, R. Twentieth-Century Solos for Low Horn. Horn Call: Journal of the International Horn Society, [s. l.], v. 47, n. 1, p. 52–56, 2016. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=119061452&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 28 jun. 2022. CT55555 ( talk) 17:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
YugaTech
- YugaTech ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet
WP:GNG. (Proposed deletion reason was: Multiple issues: The notability of the site or its founder has not been demonstrated (
Abe Olandres redirects here); tone may be a bit promotional; almost all sources are primary sources citing itself, if there are any sources to begin with.
)
84.250.14.116 (
talk)
12:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Philippines. Shellwood ( talk) 13:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also noted earlier at Talk:YugaTech both this article and the redirect were created by authors who have both been banned for sockpuppetry. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 15:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Question is this Tatt award enough for notability. I've seen several news articles about it but I'm not sure about its relevance in their industry. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: lacks wp:gng, wp:rs, no significant coverage. no contribution to the filed as per the content. looks promotional to me QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 05:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's fair that I gave people that could've voted Keep to justify the notability of the Tatt Awards. Delete as non-notable. -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Aghbolagh-e Khaled
- Aghbolagh-e Khaled ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mass-created by Passportguy ( talk · contribs) in 2009 based on an unreliable database https://tageo.com. There is something at the specified coordinates, but the fact that this was not overwritten or redirected by Carlossuarez46 ( talk · contribs) when he mass-created Iranian village stubs is suspect. Search engine results for fa:آق بلاغ خالد returned only mirrors of the Farsi translation of this article. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence this is a place that meets our extremely broad inclusion guidelines for populated places. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. There is https://www.geonames.org/14183 but a better source is needed. Possibly no longer inhabited, or too small to be a village, or has another name; could even be at the wrong location. Peter James ( talk) 18:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The Straitjacket Lottery
- The Straitjacket Lottery ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another non-notable film article created by Matzonyc. Editor created the Doug Karr article in 2008, and articles for some Karr-produced films, all non-notable - and the account created nothing else. Purely self-promotional. Argles Barkley ( talk) 22:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Argles Barkley ( talk) 22:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete IMDB, Google, News, Scholar, and Books create no results, this is so obscure that it doesn't have an RT article. VickKiang ( talk) 08:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per the nominator and VickKiang. Nowhere close to passing WP:SIGCOV. No indication of notability whatsoever. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 00:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — the notability test for films requires some evidence of significance, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis by professional film critics in media. But there's none of that here, and even on a ProQuest search for 18-year-old coverage that might not have googled I still only get a couple of glancing namechecks of its existence in event calendar listings, which isn't enough. His BLP generically claims this won "multiple awards", but both it and this fail to state or source which awards so that we could establish whether they were notable ones or not — we're only interested in awards that can be shown to get media coverage to establish their notability, and not just every single film award that exists on earth — and even the film's IMDb profile just lists a couple of minor non-notability-making awards as "trivia" (like a script development award) rather than in a standard awards section, which means those awards aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have sourcing. Bearcat ( talk) 12:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Lifecycles: A Story of AIDS in Malawi
- Lifecycles: A Story of AIDS in Malawi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another non-notable film article created by Matzonyc. Editor created the Doug Karr article in 2008, and articles for some Karr-produced films, all non-notable - and the account created nothing else. Purely self-promotional. Argles Barkley ( talk) 22:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Argles Barkley ( talk) 22:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I did all the recommended searched and found nothing to suggest notability. CT55555 ( talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Very obscure film with no RT entry (surprisingly), can find two refs in Books, but all are trivial mentions ( 1, 2). Also found a niche PDF on Google Scholar, but is it an RS? IMO it's probably marginally reliable and doesn't count towards GNG. But still, these sources don't provide multiple, reliable, indepedent refs to meet GNG or the first criteria of Notability (film), and I couldn't see this being re-released five years after or winning a notable award, so I support deletion. Ping me if there is more refs. VickKiang ( talk) 22:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Africa. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — the notability test for films requires some evidence of significance, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis by professional film critics in media. But the only review here is not from a reliable or WP:GNG-worthy source, and on a ProQuest search for 20-year-old coverage that might not have googled turned up absolutely nothing. Bearcat ( talk) 12:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
List of fiction books about Montana
- List of fiction books about Montana ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A completely unsourced list, with vague inclusion criteria. While there may be sources out there discussing the depiction of Montana in fiction, the specific topic of "fiction books related to the state of Montana" fails WP:LISTN. Almost every book listed here is non-notable itself, with only a few of them actually having their own articles on Wikipedia, and the list has not been maintained since its creation in 2009. I initially WP:PRODed it, before realizing that it had already had a contested PROD shortly after its creation, so I am bringing it to AFD. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Lists, and Montana. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Other than the authors' names, it doesn't do anything better than Category:Novels set in Montana, which is also much more complete. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The list could have a use but right now it does not meet our WP:LISTN guideline. Lightburst ( talk) 01:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Category:Novels set in Montana includes books which are clearly fictional such as Jurassic Park (novel). But the list article doesn't have any of these 42 books in it. It instead list books without their own Wikipedia articles. Unless someone wants to redo the article properly, it has no reason to exist. Having everything in that category in a list format with columns to list additional information about each book would make a valid list if anyone wanted to do it. Dream Focus 06:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It is time to rid ourselves of unsourced lists. I think there also needs to be a realization that "set in" and "about" are not the same thing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but there's a large overlap. Few novels about Montana wouldn't also be set there. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Geetika Mehandru
AfDs for this article:
- Geetika Mehandru ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It does not satisfy the WP:CSD G4 C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂) 03:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂) 03:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't believe that things have drastically changed since the last AfD, 8 months back. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Administrator note Despite talking to C1K off-wiki about this, I remain very confused why he un-tagged this despite not being able to know whether it was a G4, then AfD'd it with G4 as the rationale, and then again un-tagged it for CSD... But, for what it's worth, I would have declined the G4. The new film and Hindustan Times coverage make this ineligible. No comment on suitability for deletion more generally. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
04:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, also: @ C1K98V, if you want this article deleted, it qualifies for G7 speedy deletion. Is that what you want? I'm having trouble parsing. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 04:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Ten for Grandpa
- Ten for Grandpa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable 8-minute short film. All of the coverage online is essentially the director promoting his own short film. No reliable secondary sources that are unconnected to the director's submissions. Argles Barkley ( talk) 21:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Argles Barkley ( talk) 21:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete nothing even close to showing that this is a notable film. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — the notability test for films requires some evidence of significance, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis by professional film critics in media. But there's none of that here, and even on a ProQuest search for 13-year-old coverage that might not have googled I still only get a couple of glancing namechecks of its existence in event calendar listings, which isn't enough. Bearcat ( talk) 12:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to SW postcode area#SW19. Star Mississippi 01:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
SW19
- SW19 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary disambiguation page. None of the articles has a title "SW19". The given source - incorrect on a disambiguation page - refers to the location, not to the tournament. The Banner talk 21:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Nominator probably unaware that tennis competition is sometimes called SW19:
- https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/1147243/Where-is-Wimbledon-why-is-it-called-SW19-reason-explained
- https://www.chaseyoursport.com/Tennis/Why-is-Wimbledon-Championships-Also-Known-as-SW19/1027
- https://www.essentiallysports.com/why-is-wimbledon-championships-called-sw19/
Anticipating objections, indeed these sources are not good enough for notability, but please note that is not the test for a disambig page. CT55555 ( talk) 22:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Source from BBC referring to it as "SW19"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/tennis/40545727 from
Talk:SW19.
𓃦LunaEatsTuna (
💬)
23:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The BBC source does not directly confirm that SW19 is a synonym for the Wimbledon championships. Spinning Spark 17:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment instead of deletion, it should be redirected to SW postcode area as it was originally. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna ( 💬) 23:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep; as per CT5555, SW19 is commonly used through metonymy for Wimbledon, much like Flushing Meadows is for the U.S. Open and Roland Garros for the French. Iseult Δx parlez moi 00:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment But Flushing Meadow doesn't lead to a tennis tournament. ( Roland Garros is a dab page). Pam D 18:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep; I changed the article from a redirect to a dab page, since most readers will probably be looking for the tennis tournament.
Vpab15 (
talk)
07:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- And that is why you are removing all links to the postal code out of articles about the tournament?
The Banner
talk
09:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Those links used to redirect to SW postcode area, which doesn't seem very relevant for a tennis article. That's why I removed them. Vpab15 ( talk) 09:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Vpab15: Those links should have been changed to continue to point to the postcode area, when you created a dab page over the redirect at
SW19. If it was relevant to link from the address previously (and picking 1952 as a random example, that address with linked SW19 was
added 10 years ago), it is still relevant. If you create a dab page over a redirect, it is your responsibility to clean up after yourself by fixing the links which were previously specific and now point to that new dab page, and unlinking them is not a good solution.
Pam
D
12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think a list of London postcodes is not a particularly useful link for a tennis article. There is already a link to Wimbledon, which is more relevant. Having said that, feel free to re-add the links. Vpab15 ( talk) 12:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Vpab15: Those links should have been changed to continue to point to the postcode area, when you created a dab page over the redirect at
SW19. If it was relevant to link from the address previously (and picking 1952 as a random example, that address with linked SW19 was
added 10 years ago), it is still relevant. If you create a dab page over a redirect, it is your responsibility to clean up after yourself by fixing the links which were previously specific and now point to that new dab page, and unlinking them is not a good solution.
Pam
D
12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- And that is why you are removing all links to the postal code out of articles about the tournament?
The Banner
talk
09:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep, Revert to redirect. If kept, modify to meet WP:MOSDAB. I suggest:
- SW19 may refer to:
- A postcode in London's SW postcode area, including Wimbledon
- Wimbledon Championships, a Grand Slam tennis tournament that takes place in SW19 <!-- See note on talk page -->
- SW19 may refer to:
- (ie We include a comment which will be seen by editors but not readers, referring them to a note on the talk page which gives the reference cited, possibly others, and refers to this discussion/decision. Too much time has been wasted over the years on this helpful small dab page.
Pam
D 08:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Changed,
Pam
D
18:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ PamD: To make this dab compliant, "SW19" needs to be mentioned in the target article (which it currently isn't for the tennis) and the reference should be at that mention, not on a dab talk page. Dab pages do not have references for the reason that they should not be saying anything that is not in the articles. Slightly off topic, the ref given makes a huge meal of a very simple explanation and probably isn't RS. Spinning Spark 17:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was proposing a slightly WP:IAR solution, having had the mistaken impression that this redirect/dab had been the subject of discussion off and on for ages - but I now see it's only a very recent conversion to a dab page by one editor. Quite happy for it to revert to the redirect to the postal area, and for the many links (one in address of every champsionship) which have been removed to all be reinstated. Pam D 18:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
To make this dab compliant, "SW19" needs to be mentioned in the target article
. Is that so? There is a list of cities at Big Smoke, and their pages don't mention that nickname as far as I could see. Vpab15 ( talk) 20:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Revert to redirect. The meaning of SW19 is a postcode. The SW19 metonymy for the championship also refers to the postcode (and I'm not so sure that it doesn't mean the AELTCC generally). The tennis meaning can be added to the SW19 entry at SW postcode area or else dealt with by a hatnote. Spinning Spark 17:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Revert to redirect to "SW postcode area". And SW postcode area now has a sentence explaining this.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
20:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the section at
SW postcode area#SW19. I am ok with redirecting to that section. It gives the reader the info and link to the tennis tournament.
Vpab15 (
talk)
21:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is an elegant solution. I did vote to keep, but won't lose sleep if this is the outcome. CT55555 ( talk) 21:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the section at
SW postcode area#SW19. I am ok with redirecting to that section. It gives the reader the info and link to the tennis tournament.
Vpab15 (
talk)
21:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Khoda Kandi
- Khoda Kandi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable village, possibly even a hoax. The name appears on Google Maps (possibly based on this article), alongside an alleged village called Khonda Kandi. Satellite View does not place the names at the nearest settlements.
If it’s a hoax, then it would be one of the longest-lasted by far. 00sClassicGamerFan ( talk) 21:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 00sClassicGamerFan ( talk) 21:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete One of many pages mass-created by
Passportguy (
talk ·
contribs) based on an unreliable database,
tageo.com. The claim "mystical and often forgotten" was apparently
added by an IP vandal about four months later. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
22:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I have done some further digging, and it seems that when Carlossuarez46 ( talk · contribs) did his infamous mass-creation of Iranian village stubs in 2013, he overwrote previous articles created by Passportguy, e.g. Ahaq. That means that any articles created by Passsportguy which have not been overwritten are most likely either fake or duplicates of Carlossuarez articles. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. It was originally https://www.geonames.org/13232 (probably based on an entry in GEOnet Names Server). That ID is now Mesdaraq (formerly 13521) but "Khodā Kandī" is still there under "alternate names". If it is the same place, a better source is needed to confirm, but it means there is (or was) a (possibly populated) place with this name (or a similar name) at that location (or somewhere else), which is enough to say it is not a hoax, but not enough for an article. Peter James ( talk) 18:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. TigerShark ( talk) 03:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hunter Biden iCloud leak
- Hunter Biden iCloud leak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article, created hours ago, contains lots of allegedly and supposedly and anonymous and claimed stuff about everyone's favorite conspiracy theory target and I suggest it be promptly removed. At most it might warrant a mention in the man's BLP, if even that. soibangla ( talk) 20:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep — The events surrounding this topic are still developing and, assuming it is legitimate, deserves an article.
Hunter Biden laptop controversy still remains despite its controversial nature.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)
20:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- assuming it is legitimate is not solid grounds for creating an entire article. soibangla ( talk) 21:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would not assume that anything from 4chan is "legitimate" without outside corroboration. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep You didn't present valid grounds for deletion. If you believe the article is not presenting facts properly or otherwise, fix it yourself, or tag the article accordingly / write on the talk page. The article is comprised of citations to reliable sources. Yes, it's alleged, but reliable sources have reported on it. —
PerfectSoundWhatever (
t;
c)
21:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Simply because reliable sources report something doesn't make it worthy of its own article. It doesn't even necessarily make it worthy of inclusion in an existing article. Everything about this remains nothing but allegations from anonymous people at this point. No one knows if the dump is real or has reported on any of its contents. It's hard to remember a flimsier excuse for a new article. Just absolutely absurd. soibangla ( talk) 21:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Just because something is in the news does not mean it becomes a Wikipedia article. Details are scant. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral comment: While the topic of the article is not a true "breaking news topic" (4 days old), the article was created about an hour prior to AfD nomination, so
WP:RAPID does apply to a degree. I would recommend no one else give an !vote for 24 hours to let the article have a chance to expand, then do an assessment at that point in time. In 24 hours, I will ping everyone who has voted (no matter what was !voted) in this AfD prior to this message to allow for a 2nd look. !votes may or may not change, but since
the article hasn't had a chance to show notability within an hour, it might after a 24 hour time to do improvements or have talk page discussions. (Member of WP:Current events)
Elijahandskip (
talk)
22:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- BLP concerns outweigh RAPID. I won't be changing my mind in 24 hours time, barring some serious developments. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- As stated/promised, I am pinging the editors who gave their opinion/!vote before the
WP:RAPID comment. You can (and are recommended) to reassess the article. Your !votes may or may not change, but I would be satisfied that
WP:RAPID would have been followed for any further comments/!votes.@
Soibangla:,
ElijahPepe,
Muboshgu, &
PerfectSoundWhatever.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
20:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- And as I expected, nothing has happened in the last 24 hours to change the need to delete this article. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- As stated/promised, I am pinging the editors who gave their opinion/!vote before the
WP:RAPID comment. You can (and are recommended) to reassess the article. Your !votes may or may not change, but I would be satisfied that
WP:RAPID would have been followed for any further comments/!votes.@
Soibangla:,
ElijahPepe,
Muboshgu, &
PerfectSoundWhatever.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
20:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Muboshgu's exact points. Argles Barkley ( talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The article itself makes clear it's not even clear if the even happened. WP:BLP requires verifiability. In the context of this alleging criminality (drug use), we need to have a high standard on the encyclopaedia for this. CT55555 ( talk) 22:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge with Hunter Biden: I don't think that at the moment this is in and of itself notable enough to warrant its own article and should stay under the subheading, alongside the aforementioned point regarding WP:NOTNEWS. When and if more things come to light, I wouldn't oppose the article being recreated then, but in its current state, I think a dedicated article is unnecessary. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 00:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Hunter Biden is a public figure and the coverage of his tribulations has been lasting. The hack of the account is notable and the material may also be of some notability. I think this is more than gossip and I imagine opinions vary based on political leanings. Lightburst ( talk) 01:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just wanted to clarify two things, first is that it is an alleged hack. No reliable sources have said that the event described in this article even happened; this is an article about an event whose very veracity is in question. Second, when you say that this is not gossip, I have to point to the dictionary definition of gossip: "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true." This article is by definition gossip. - Aoidh ( talk) 02:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Right now, this is
WP:TOOSOON. There isn't enough to say about the leak that can't be briefly summarised in
Hunter Biden's article. The problem though is that in two weeks, once more information is verified/there is more fallout to speak of/etc., it seems reasonably likely that there probably will be enough to talk about for a standalone article on this topic to make sense, but I guess we'll deal with that when the time comes.
Endwise (
talk)
02:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Will "enough to talk about" include stuff like
a picture of a shirtless man lying on a couch while surrounded by five underage girls and two dogs did not show Hunter Biden, nor did it come from the alleged July 2022 hacking of his iCloud account?
soibangla (
talk)
10:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- If it's not from the iCloud leak, I don't understand the point of bringing it up.
Endwise (
talk)
10:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's represented as such. If history is any guide, there will be lots of similar representations and we'll see lots of "why aren't you guys talking about that picture?!" on the Talk page for years.
soibangla (
talk)
11:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I still don't understand how that has any relevance to this deletion discussion.
Endwise (
talk)
13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unless this story is about anything other than fake/real salacious images, this article makes Wikipedia look like TMZ. We should err on the conservative until the story proves to be anything other than that, at least until after the initial frenzy of speculation and lies fades. It should be deleted immediately. It can always be restored if anything comes of it. soibangla ( talk) 14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I still don't understand how that has any relevance to this deletion discussion.
Endwise (
talk)
13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's represented as such. If history is any guide, there will be lots of similar representations and we'll see lots of "why aren't you guys talking about that picture?!" on the Talk page for years.
soibangla (
talk)
11:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- If it's not from the iCloud leak, I don't understand the point of bringing it up.
Endwise (
talk)
10:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Will "enough to talk about" include stuff like
a picture of a shirtless man lying on a couch while surrounded by five underage girls and two dogs did not show Hunter Biden, nor did it come from the alleged July 2022 hacking of his iCloud account?
soibangla (
talk)
10:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Due to WP:TOOSOON and, more importantly, failing WP:BLP (by being a contentious biographical article that isn't supported by reliable sources). 4chan is far from a reliable source, and all other sources are just discussion about 4chan's allegations. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Poorly sourced BLP-sensitive content. If it's notable, there will soon be mainstream RS instead of marginal sources and gossip dumps. SPECIFICO talk 11:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment:
We have major outlets covering the story - Newsweek, National Review also Fox News, NBC. Lightburst ( talk) 13:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- Reply/comment The first story is about how Google is not showing images due to a lack of reliable sources. The second one is about how the secret service has heard an unconfirmed rumour. Fox News is not a reliable source. #4 is the same as #2. If there was a newspaper article saying that the CIA is aware of a rumour of an alien abduction, it doesn't mean aliens abducted someone. We still seem very far away from any confirmation that the subject of the article is anything more than a hoax. Of course it might be true. And therefore we can just wait until that is confirmed. Until then, we need to be careful to avoid using wikipedia to perpetuate a rumour and we need to be mindful of the
WP:BLP rules, which are generally considered to be at the high end of the importance spectrum, I think.
CT55555 (
talk)
13:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, all that.
soibangla (
talk)
14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also
WP:NEWSWEEK post-2013 has become a gossip rag. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Although, heartfelt. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also
WP:NEWSWEEK post-2013 has become a gossip rag. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, all that.
soibangla (
talk)
14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply — The latter is the only RS here, which is why I've chosen to ignore the other sources in this article. This topic has a very right-wing bias and anything less than generally reliable is a risky source. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Snopes, The Verge and Vice, which are all RS, have covered the leak. Your decision to remove the content from Hunter Biden's article is ridiculous. X-Editor ( talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- Please put all personal attacks on my user talk page. This is the AfD.
SPECIFICO
talk
20:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- From your Snopes link: "At this stage, we advise readers to take individual rumors and memes that appear to be blooming out of this alleged hack with a grain of salt. This is not to say that this material should automatically be presumed to be false (or true). Rather, it’s simply the case that the 4chan message board has a long history of delivering up questionable content"
- From your Verge link: "Exact details are hard to confirm"
- From your Vice link: "Motherboard has been unable to independently verify..."
- It seems that even he sources you are suggestion are exhibiting caution. CT55555 ( talk) 20:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please put all personal attacks on my user talk page. This is the AfD.
SPECIFICO
talk
20:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply/comment The first story is about how Google is not showing images due to a lack of reliable sources. The second one is about how the secret service has heard an unconfirmed rumour. Fox News is not a reliable source. #4 is the same as #2. If there was a newspaper article saying that the CIA is aware of a rumour of an alien abduction, it doesn't mean aliens abducted someone. We still seem very far away from any confirmation that the subject of the article is anything more than a hoax. Of course it might be true. And therefore we can just wait until that is confirmed. Until then, we need to be careful to avoid using wikipedia to perpetuate a rumour and we need to be mindful of the
WP:BLP rules, which are generally considered to be at the high end of the importance spectrum, I think.
CT55555 (
talk)
13:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete An alleged hack of an alleged online storage account allegedly owned by Hunter Biden? Delete per guidelines on the Wikipedia not being a haven of gossipy tabloid material. The creation of such drivel shows remarkably poor judgement on the article creator's part. 4chan is a haven for malcontents and degenerates, not everything they claim is true, and not everything they do that's true is noteworthy. Zaathras ( talk) 20:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete WP:TOOSOON to have its own article. X-Editor ( talk) 20:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, I posted a neutral notification to WT:BLPN talk page inviting others to comment. CT55555 ( talk) 21:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Pretty close to G10 but regardless he is not a public figure and WP:NOTGOSSIP applies as well as general WP:BLP policy and failing WP:V. Slywriter ( talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to
Hunter Biden's laptop. Scope up modestly if needed.
Hyperbolick (
talk)
23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Abso-frikkin-lutely not, we are not making a catch-all Hunter Biden controversies, leaks, and conspiracies type of article. Zaathras ( talk) 23:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- We are if it is supported by sources. Hyperbolick ( talk) 03:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted, primarily on the grounds of WP:NOTGOSSIP. Hey man im josh ( talk) 01:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as this will not develop into anything bigger than a breaking news report. — VersaceSpace 🌃 02:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge with the option of creating again. Alternatively this could be merged into some new article that covers this as well as the laptop story. I think the AfD jumped the gun a bit and outside parties might view this as trying to suppress negative information. This concern can be addressed by keeping the content as a subsection of a proper parent article since length isn't an issue. Springee ( talk) 11:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I don't see any material updates to this story since the article was created, but now we're seeing the inevitable consequence of creating the article. Seeing as there appears to be a consensus for it, I suggest the article be swiftly nuked. soibangla ( talk) 10:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well it won’t be “swiftly nuked” because of the
WP:RAPID you did by starting an AfD before a PROD/Speedy deletion, so at least until the 7 days are up and the AfD concludes, the article will for sure be in mainspace since there is too much controversy for any
WP:SNOW closures. After that, it is up to what the AfD concludes. Technically, you caused the article to be up longer that it should be in my opinion.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
14:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply — Yes, every article is going to get someone who posts that kind of information, intentionally or not. Nothing extended protection can't fix.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)
14:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Every article will attract people calling the subject a pedophile? soibangla ( talk) 14:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply — Yes, every article is going to get someone who posts that kind of information, intentionally or not. Nothing extended protection can't fix.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)
14:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Almost certainly a hoax. I don't think anything should be merged to the main article at all, as this would violate
WP:BLP. Just
gossip.
Curbon7 (
talk)
13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Curbon7:
"some of the images shared on 4Chan haven’t previously appeared anywhere else online".
Almost certainly a hoax
is almost certainly false. Endwise ( talk) 14:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)- Images being new ≠ images being what a 4Chan user says they are
- A lack of verifiability + a person often the target of conspiracy theories = a reasonable situation to say something is likely a hoax. But a great way to destroy that concern is to share confirmation from a reliable source. I assume many of us are noting the lack of that so far.
CT55555 (
talk)
14:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "being what a 4Chan user says they are". It was just a dump of files. They weren't individually labelled by the person who posted them on 4chan or something. Endwise ( talk) 15:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Authenticated images? On a site infested with hoaxers? I can't believe we're even discussing this anymore.
soibangla (
talk)
14:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, deepfake technology has definitely progressed to some extent in recent years, but I don't think I've seen anyone seriously assert that those videos of him are deepfaked or whatever, if that's what you're suggesting.
Endwise (
talk)
15:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Have you personally examined the purported videos, as opposed to images? Are you aware of a reliable source vouching for any purported videos? Can this discussion descend any deeper into absurdity? Please don't make me walk away from this thinking lesser of you.
soibangla (
talk)
15:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the next paragraph of that same article it discusses the videos, as well
Some videos appear to show Hunter Biden smoking crack cocaine or in sexual encounters with women believed to be escorts.
Here's another random article that discusses them (alleged photos and videos hacked from his phone that show drug use and sexual encounters
). To be clear, I too think this article should be deleted. But, again, either this is a massive, highly sophisticated, state-of-the-art deepfake operation undertaken by a 4chan user, or it's not a hoax in its entirety. "Almost certainly a hoax" is, as I said, almost certainly false, so you shouldn't cite it as your reason to delete an article, particularly when there are other good reasons on hand. Endwise ( talk) 15:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the next paragraph of that same article it discusses the videos, as well
- Have you personally examined the purported videos, as opposed to images? Are you aware of a reliable source vouching for any purported videos? Can this discussion descend any deeper into absurdity? Please don't make me walk away from this thinking lesser of you.
soibangla (
talk)
15:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, deepfake technology has definitely progressed to some extent in recent years, but I don't think I've seen anyone seriously assert that those videos of him are deepfaked or whatever, if that's what you're suggesting.
Endwise (
talk)
15:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- As of right now, this is completely unverifiable, as the only stem source is a 4chan post. There is nothing here; as these are extraordinary BLP-claims tied to a single post that has a high chance of being a fabrication/exaggeration/whatever-other-word-you-want-to-use, we should not be posting it in Wikivoice as if it were fact. Curbon7 ( talk) 15:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Curbon7:
"some of the images shared on 4Chan haven’t previously appeared anywhere else online".
- Reply — I agree with Endwise's assessment here, and it is most certainly real, but what matters more is reliable sources saying that, not us. Once more information comes out about it, this article will have much better ground.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)
14:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are reporting "it is most certainly real?" Um...a great big nope on that. soibangla ( talk) 15:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply — I agree with Endwise's assessment here, and it is most certainly real, but what matters more is reliable sources saying that, not us. Once more information comes out about it, this article will have much better ground.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)
14:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, I was persuaded by the possible BLP concerns Curbon7 and others have outlined above and the I also considered the gossip arguments. If hard news emerges the article can be recreated or a section in another article. Lightburst ( talk) 15:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like straight WP:NOTNEWS. ValarianB ( talk) 16:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing any updates on this, by sources reliable or otherwise. Just sayin. soibangla ( talk) 18:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm honestly surprised by the fact that not a single source has given any updates on the leak. You'd think that at least one source would further investigate this and find something. But instead, we get radio silence. X-Editor ( talk) 00:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Of course it's being considered to be deleted. Gotta suppress the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:A000:A60A:6524:7877:D3A3:733E ( talk) 14:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that it is authentic? X-Editor ( talk) 00:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The most surprising element of this story is that 4chan, yes 4chan, removed this post. It didn't meet 4chan's standards which, frankly, I didn't know they even had. How can Wikipedia include this information which is unverified? The only story here is how the media is covering this story which seems to have blown up and then died. A media blip like so many in our current political atmosphere. If this has lasting coverage or if this leads to charges or futher events, maybe then an article can be considered. As far as I can see, there is no "there" there. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - He's the US President's son & that makes its quite notable. I'd choose keep, if it were any of Trump's children.
GoodDay (
talk)
01:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Would you consider framing your keep recommendation in terms of our notability policies rather than the subject's lineage? We already a) know who he is, and b) have an article about his biography. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- This Afd's result, will be decided by the closer. I'll accept whatever the closer's decision is. GoodDay ( talk) 02:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus and the discussion about whether to merge it can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 01:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Ryan Wiik
- Ryan Wiik ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If not for WR Entertainment, this nomination would be a slam dunk: He was voted out of the first round of a talent show, and he played a minor role in a film.
What's generated all the press coverage has been the company. He co-founded it. They acquired rights to make films of a book series. He was announced to play the lead in the films but failed his audition. Everybody in the company sued everybody else. Lurid details came out in the process.
I am not convinced, even if WP:GNG is met, that he has met the notability criteria to have a biography on Wikipedia. I am also not convinced that he is a public figure, so a lot of the details about the litigation should be removed from the article—and again, we're left to wonder where the notability is.
Full disclosure: I made this nomination after Gryanwiik attempted to reprod the article. I declined the prod, but I made an independent review of the article. This nomination is based on my years of experience on Wikipedia and my understanding of our policies, especially related to notability, biographies of living people, and presumption in favor of privacy; it is not a knee-jerk reaction to his request for deletion. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Norway. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I think the various allegations towards him are well covered in the VG documentary article to which Mr. Wiik gave limited answers to defend his stature (which is his right of course). Overall, I think Mr. Wiik is a man of such limited notability that his article can be deleted. Future references to him in WR Entertainment articles will not be excluded, as can outcome of future legislation / settlement details. T929212 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by T929212 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep - after reviewing the Variety article and the wikipedia articles on those Norwegian news sources to gauge their reliablity, I believe he passes the GNG. The Variety article focuses on him and suggests that he is the founder of WR Entertainment. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it meets GNG. So I'm not clear as to why nom think that even if it meets GNG here, it is not notable.
2603:7000:2143:8500:E5D0:F89A:4BF9:D281 (
talk)
20:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Would it be better suited as a stand-alone article on WR entertainment and that saga? Allegedly it's bankrupt now.
T929212 (
talk)
11:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- To the IP: The phrases "is presumed to be" and "is" are not equivalent. Or, if GNG is a rule, this is an exception. Further, if the coverage about the subject delves into areas that other policies say we shouldn't cover in the article but we let that coverage count for GNG metrics, then we'd in a catch-22 of saying the subject is notable, but we can't/won't tell the reader why. @ T929212: I wondered that as well, but I"m not sure that the company is specifically notable either.
- This is an edge case. If I were obsessed about AfD metrics and only nominating articles that I felt would probably be deleted, I wouldn't have nominated. IMO, this nomination isn't probable but is more-likely-than-not (or at least a toss-up). I looked at the article, then sat back for a while and thought, and decided that the best and most transparent thing to do would be to nominate this article for AfD and let the community discuss it. (Expanded commentary on talk page.) —
C.Fred (
talk)
13:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
C.Fred: Maybe we can add it to film adaptation paragraph for Morgan Kane rather? That is notable in my view.
T929212 (
talk)
14:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
T929212: Now that's a possibility I hadn't thought about: distill this article down to one paragraph, two at the most, about the company, particularly as it relates to the potential Morgan Kane movies. If the community decides this content should be merged into that article, then I am on board with preserving the history of this article for attribution purposes and turning
Ryan Wiik into a redirect to
Morgan Kane. —
C.Fred (
talk)
13:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm on board with that. The drama surrounding WR entertainment and Mr Wiik can also be included there then. I'm not sure who holds the movie rights currently. T929212 ( talk) 20:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
T929212: Now that's a possibility I hadn't thought about: distill this article down to one paragraph, two at the most, about the company, particularly as it relates to the potential Morgan Kane movies. If the community decides this content should be merged into that article, then I am on board with preserving the history of this article for attribution purposes and turning
Ryan Wiik into a redirect to
Morgan Kane. —
C.Fred (
talk)
13:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
C.Fred: Maybe we can add it to film adaptation paragraph for Morgan Kane rather? That is notable in my view.
T929212 (
talk)
14:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Would it be better suited as a stand-alone article on WR entertainment and that saga? Allegedly it's bankrupt now.
T929212 (
talk)
11:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet, but further scope for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark ( talk) 02:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 20:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to 7de Laan as sourcing appears insufficient per current consensus. This preserves the history should that change with further work. Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Francois Lensley
- Francois Lensley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Barely acted. scope_creep Talk 19:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to their main role, 7de Laan. I was unable to find coverage that would add up to GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to 7de Laan, does not meet WP:NACTOR and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Martial arts, and South Africa. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
CommentKeep 7de Laan is/was immensely popular, and someone with a regular role is likely to have received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The popular press, especially the Afrikaans popular press (Huisgenoot and the like) may have coverage. It would be useful to look for sources there. Park3r ( talk) 11:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- UPDATE. Huisgenoot does indeed have a celebrity profile
[2]. Here’s a profile in another wide circulation Afrikaans magazine
WP:RS Sarie
[3]. I’ll look for more, but this is enough to make me change to keep
Park3r (
talk)
11:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Both are interviews.
scope_creep
Talk
12:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- ’Here’s a trailer for a 2019 episode of the Afrikaans prime time TV magazine show Pasella (again on the national broadcaster and widely watched) where he takes a viewer on a road trip.
[4]. Here’s a 2007 article that describes him as a star that covers a robbery at his home.
[5] He also attracts “screaming crowds” when he makes appearances in public
[6]
Park3r (
talk)
13:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is a PR. Visiting a school. Normally having started in 92 episodes of a series with other work and other coverage would be sufficient, but there is no other coverage and no other work. Its a case of
WP:TOOSOON. He fails
WP:NACTOR.
scope_creep
Talk
10:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like the IMDB entry stating 92 episodes is out of date. 7de Laan has had over 5300 episodes (it runs 5 days a week), and according to TVSA he’s been on the show since 2003. As a main cast member he’s going to have appeared in a lot more than 92 episodes, and Google has numerous episode synopses indicating his appearances. Is this is case of WP:TOOSOON or a case where we fail to account for WP:WORLDWIDE? FWIW this Sarie article in Afrikaans was published in 2017 and said that he had been playing the role since 2003. Incidentally the same article states that he was “one of a handful of men who appeared on the magazine cover”. [7] Sarie is a wide circulation and well established Afrikaans magazine that’s published by Naspers since 1949 Park3r ( talk) 12:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is a PR. Visiting a school. Normally having started in 92 episodes of a series with other work and other coverage would be sufficient, but there is no other coverage and no other work. Its a case of
WP:TOOSOON. He fails
WP:NACTOR.
scope_creep
Talk
10:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- ’Here’s a trailer for a 2019 episode of the Afrikaans prime time TV magazine show Pasella (again on the national broadcaster and widely watched) where he takes a viewer on a road trip.
[4]. Here’s a 2007 article that describes him as a star that covers a robbery at his home.
[5] He also attracts “screaming crowds” when he makes appearances in public
[6]
Park3r (
talk)
13:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Both are interviews.
scope_creep
Talk
12:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- UPDATE. Huisgenoot does indeed have a celebrity profile
[2]. Here’s a profile in another wide circulation Afrikaans magazine
WP:RS Sarie
[3]. I’ll look for more, but this is enough to make me change to keep
Park3r (
talk)
11:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark ( talk) 02:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 20:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment He may have done 5300 episodes which would make him a household name, but the references do not support WP:NACTOR. They are junk, making it no more than a brochure article. I would suggest passing up WP:THREE references to prove the person is notable, and that includes, for example, reviews of work in a national newspaper or magazine. Otherwise it will need to redirected as there is no evidence from the WP:BEFORE that the subject is notable. scope_creep Talk 21:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment agree with above, zillions of hits on his name, but most are gossip magazine stuff. I'd likely vote keep if we can find the quality references about him.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sarie is a national magazine dating back to 1949 and published by one of South Africa's largest media groups. He's been covered on national television. He meets
WP:GNG, I'm not sure why we need
WP:NACTOR as an additional hurdle.
Park3r (
talk)
05:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Park3r: The article states he is an actor. There must sources, there must be sources, that is confirmed by conensus on Wikipedia recently. Please submit three sources that confirm he is notable.
scope_creep
Talk
07:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I included a number of sources above including: the Pasella prime time TV show that featured him. The News24 article that covered the attack on him at his home (home invasions are depressingly routine in South Africa and not generally newsworthy: the fact that his was covered is a sign of notability). The Sarie articles, including the one that stated he was only one of a handful of men to feature on its cover since it was founded (in 1949). Park3r ( talk) 08:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Park3r: The article states he is an actor. There must sources, there must be sources, that is confirmed by conensus on Wikipedia recently. Please submit three sources that confirm he is notable.
scope_creep
Talk
07:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sarie is a national magazine dating back to 1949 and published by one of South Africa's largest media groups. He's been covered on national television. He meets
WP:GNG, I'm not sure why we need
WP:NACTOR as an additional hurdle.
Park3r (
talk)
05:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Tosi List for Veneto. TigerShark ( talk) 21:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Venetian Centre-Right
- Venetian Centre-Right ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First of all, I premise that "Venetian Centre-Right" was not a party ( WP:Original Research by the author of the page) but a mere local assembly group. The page has not any utility, and this is evident from its reading: the page merely states that the group (erroneously defined as a party) existed, then it only describes the previous and subsequent political career of its members. In practice, there is not the slightest relevance from reading this page. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 08:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. It does not really matter what a political party is or is not (see note below) or whether a political grouping is active only in a local assembly: also parliamentary-only parties are encyclopedic, indeed. In our case, the subject is notable, is sourced (additional sources might be found) and deserves an article of its own. The Venetian Centre-Right was a relevant split of the Tosi List for Veneto, the sixth largest party in the 2015 Venetian regional election. For fully three years was active in the Regional Council, at the local level (especially in Verona) and played a distinctive role in Venetian politics. A minor party in a polity like Veneto, counting 5 million people, is definitely more relevant than minor extra-parliamentary parties from small countries, of which Wikipedia is full (and, as an inclusionist, I happy of that too). Wikipedia is great especially when it gathers and organises information difficult to find elsewhere. If, regretfully, there is no consensus on keeping this article, I hope it will be possible at least to merge with another article, like Tosi List for Veneto, in order to keep the article's history. Note. It may be disputable what a political party is. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a political party is a "group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power" (like the Venetian Centre-Right!). Several political scientists have given different definitions and categorisations of political parties, e.g. cadre, mass, catch-all and cartel ones. Especially, at their origins, a role is also played by parliamentary parties, that, according to our own definition in Wikipedia, are groups "consisting of members of the same political party or electoral fusion of parties in a legislative assembly such as a parliament or a city council". -- Checco ( talk) 10:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- It was not a political party but a local assembly's group, personal interpretations of the nature of an organization are
Original researches. Its distinctive role must also be fully demonstrated. Furthermore it is not relevant where this group has operated, but if it meets the criteria of general notability, and in my opinion this group does not meet them. However, as a compromise solution, I could agree to merge it to the
Tosi List for Veneto.--
Scia Della Cometa (
talk)
10:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever its nature, the subject is encyclopedic, but I appreciate your openness to compromise. I know that Italian politicians and journalists make distinctions between political parties, political "movements", political associations, parliamentary groups, etc., but these have nothing to do with political science and its international standards. --
Checco (
talk)
10:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I re-affirm it even here: it is not the Italian politicians or journalists who distinguish between parties and parliamentary groups, which are objectively and juridically different entities.-- Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 11:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever its nature, the subject is encyclopedic, but I appreciate your openness to compromise. I know that Italian politicians and journalists make distinctions between political parties, political "movements", political associations, parliamentary groups, etc., but these have nothing to do with political science and its international standards. --
Checco (
talk)
10:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- It was not a political party but a local assembly's group, personal interpretations of the nature of an organization are
Original researches. Its distinctive role must also be fully demonstrated. Furthermore it is not relevant where this group has operated, but if it meets the criteria of general notability, and in my opinion this group does not meet them. However, as a compromise solution, I could agree to merge it to the
Tosi List for Veneto.--
Scia Della Cometa (
talk)
10:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - 1) it is not a party, but a regional parliamentary group; 2) as regional parliamentary group, it had local notability only at most; 3) no inherent notability: the fact that a party exists/existed doesn't mean it deserves an article in Wikipedia; 4) the first two paragraphs of the article, which are focused on the "party" itself, are without sources; 5) the remaining paragraphs are related to politicians who may or may not have been part of this "party" (no source directly pins them to this specific "party"); 6) finally, almost all the sources don't even contain the name of the article's "party", so I'm asking if it ever existed at all... -- P1221 ( talk) 14:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, given the length of the article and its number of sources; also agree with
SDC's compromise to merge the content with the
Tosi List for Veneto article to preserve it, if we cannot agree on maintaining it as a standalone article.--
Autospark (
talk)
10:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let me point out however that, of all the sources in the article,
only one spells out the name of the party... The other ones are valid sources, but they appear to be totally unrelated with the party called "Centrodestra Veneto".
P1221 (
talk)
09:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The party (or whatever we would like to call it) was represented by three regional councillors out of 51 for three years in the Regional Council of Veneto, a region of 5-million people. There are thus official sources regarding the party's presence in the legislative body. This alone should convince anyone on the party's relevance and the opportunity of continuing to have an article on it in Wikipedia. -- Checco ( talk) 08:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let me point out however that, of all the sources in the article,
only one spells out the name of the party... The other ones are valid sources, but they appear to be totally unrelated with the party called "Centrodestra Veneto".
P1221 (
talk)
09:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- You refer to this subject as a political party, but in reality it was just a regional assembly group, it does not appear that this group has ever undertaken initiatives that have ever given it general notability: indeed, it is almost impossible to find mere news/sources about this group.-- Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 20:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Checco Neither a party nor a parliamentary group are notable for the simple fact that they exist: as per
WP:ORGCRITE, a political party
is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject
. - In my opinion,
official sources regarding the party's presence in the legislative body
are not valid secondary sources (at most they confirm the presence of this group in Veneto's parliament). The party's relevance might be confirmed only if the sources point to the fact that Centrodestra Veneto was able to influence the legislature to pass laws in accordance to Centrodestra Veneto's political objectives. If this happened, however, I'm expecting newspapers would have covered it. As said above, I'm simply struggling to find sources citing Centrodestra Veneto by name... - I don't doubt that Centrodestra Veneto existed as parliamentary group (but not as political party), I simply doubt that it was the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, so that it was notable enough to deserve its own article in Wikipedia.
P1221 (
talk)
08:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- As final comment, there is an objective difference between " political party" and " parliamentary group". A political party is usually open to general public, not only to members elected in parliament; a parliamentary group is formed only by politicians elected in parliament. The main aim of a political party is to contest elections and possibly elect somebody; the main aim of a parliamentary group is to regroup politicians who share common political goals.
- A political party might not have a parliamentary group with the same name (for instance, because the number of persons elected is too small to form a political group - example: Azione); a parliamentary group might not represent a political party with the same name (because it represents different parties, which usually do not run under the same coalition - example: Per le Autonomie -, or because a corresponding party hasn't been established - example: Insieme per il Futuro as of today).
- I think it is wrong to consider a political party and a parliamentary group as the same thing and I think that an encyclopedia shall be very precise on the terminology used in its articles. P1221 ( talk) 08:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per User:P1221's comments which are actually based on WP policies. Another option would be to merge, i.e. mention its existence in some other article of a more relevant party, if multiple sources certify that such a party Centrodestra Veneto existed. Yakme ( talk) 07:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 20:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I think that a good compromise could be the merger with Tosi List for Veneto, since at least 3/4 of the page concerns the Tosi List and not this group.-- Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 21:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Whether other articles should exist or not, it appears this one meets GEOLAND Star Mississippi 20:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Bagh-e Latifan
- Bagh-e Latifan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deletion proposed by VersaceSpace because "It's a garden". Looking at the coordinates on Google Maps' satellite view, it doesn't look like a garden to me. Seems like a small town. According to Google Maps, there's a mosque. There's also the "چشمه الیا" ("Elia Fountain") nearby which Google says is a "tourist attraction". @ 4nn1l2: any comment? — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 13:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely not a garden now! If Liverpool is a swimming pool, then Bagh-e Latifan may be a garden too ;-) Statistical code: 216806, population: 257 persons in 66 families, including 127 men and 130 women, according to the latest census in 2016. Use Ctrl+F: 216806 to find its entry. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 13:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to be a genuine village, so passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Looking at these many prods, VersaceSpace seems to think just because the co-ordinates given point specifically to a garden this is all the article is referring to! No, the article refers to the whole village. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- There have been dozens, no hundreds, of these locations that have been PROD'd over the past two years (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography/Article alerts for some recent examples), not just by VersaceSpace but by quite a few editors who are trying to clean up some mass produced stub articles. There was even an AN discussion and an Arbitration case about thousands of articles that all had the same questionable source used to justify that they were an actual occupied settlement. You can debate the fate of this one article but, speaking as an admin who reviews PRODs each day, this deletion tagging has been a movement on the part of several editors to clean up "village" and unincorporated settlement articles (places in Azerbaijan, Iran, Africa, California, Virginia, etc.) that could not clearly be confirmed to have been occupied settlements meeting GEOLAND requirements.
- And that doesn't even touch on the successful effort a while back to PROD the New York state "pond" articles which weren't about lakes and large bodies of water but about larger puddles in someone's back field or the articles on numerous local streams that couldn't ever be considered to be notable except for the people who lived next to them and weren't well documented. Years ago, Wikipedia had many mass produced articles from editors who are now long gone who seem to have had some free time and a local map or atlas and who created articles on every geographic feature for a location. It was a big problem a decade ago that some editors are trying to clean up these days.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. But that is all irrelevant to this particular article, which is very clearly a village and therefore meets our notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was one of those users who helped cleaning up the mess Carlossuarez46 had created. I only PRODed abadis with no population, but here we see that abadis with a sizable population are getting tagged and PRODed too. We should be more careful about these abadis. I suggest we wait until the Iranian government publishes an official list of villages in Iran. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 10:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 20:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus to delete per WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. Almost all Keep arguments based upon NBC and Vice sources. No convincing argument that the NBC is sufficiently about the subject to satisfy GNG, or that the Vice article can be considered a sufficiently reliable source. High likelihood of comments from questionable account, but does not change the consensus.
TigerShark (
talk)
00:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturned to No Consensus. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 24. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Patrick Lancaster
- Patrick Lancaster ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This video-blogger does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NJOURNALIST. It had been previously deleted. Netherzone ( talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. There are hardly any sources on this person. Not notable.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 18:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep sources listed in article. 666hopedieslast ( talk) 22:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- note to reviewer: this account was started on May 29 2022 with one innocuous edit. Went into overdrive on June 19 (no edits in between) displaying an astonishing amount of knowledge of Wikipedia editing techniques. Probably worth considering, as another "keep" vote comes from IntrepidContributor, an account created 5 days ago and also well-versed in Wikipedia immediately. Wes sideman ( talk) 12:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- note to reviewer: many votes were cast before I added several Dutch sources. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 14:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete lacks enough coverage to justify a standalone article IMO. Maybe merge any relevant information to Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis?- KH-1 ( talk) 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Netherzone ( talk) 04:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. See sources I posted in talk page which can be added. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 04:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable propagandist youtuber. -- IgorTurzh ( talk) 10:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- CommentThe article includes two sources at present (only one of which discusses Lancaster at length) and formerly also included The Daily Mirror which mentioned Lancaster in passing. That hardly speaks to notability. Bobfrombrockley has listed one source by Task and Purpose and one article in Polish in the talk page of the article that discuss Lancaster in depth and also four that mention him in passing as "the most popular pro-Russian influencer" on YouTube or some such. That gives exactly three sources that talk about Lancaster beyond the bare minimum and several brief mentions. None of this satisfies WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete no sources found, passing mentions. Might be notable later, not at this time. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I added a few more references. The Wired article alone is enough to establish notability in my opinion. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 21:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)— IntrepidContributor ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- note to reviewer this account was started 6 days after this deletion discussion was created, and immediately knew how to do everything on Wikipedia correctly. I believe the vote should be disregarded.
Wes sideman (
talk)
12:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The sources you've added are passing mentions. They do not help the article or its notability.--
Ermenrich (
talk)
21:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- What is wrong with passing mentions? I am trying to help keep the article. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 21:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)— IntrepidContributor ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I added now a full article by Zaborona which is not just passing mention.
IntrepidContributor (
talk)
21:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)—
IntrepidContributor (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The Zabrorona "full article" is a work of
native advertising, it even says on their about page that they are
"We are open for native advertisements"
. It does not count towards WP:GNG because it is paid advertising mascarading ad an article. Netherzone ( talk) 02:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)- The Zabrorona article is a work of
journalism. Many publishers offer native advertising and
Advertorials, but they usually provide advertising disclosure. The Financial Times offers
"engaging and impactful multimedia storytelling" to advertisers, but that doesn't mean they aren't also capable of producing journalism. Wikipedia cites the Financial Times 463,714 times.
IntrepidContributor (
talk)
15:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are incorrect,
IntrepidContributor, this is
native advertising and is a primary source from his family - the article title starts with
From the Lancaster Family
- it is a placed advertorial not a work of journalism. Primary sources or placed advertorial content do not count towards notability. Netherzone ( talk) 03:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)From the Lancaster Family
in the title is not advertising disclosure. Please provide evidence that this is native advertising, and not journalism, like Zaborona itself claims. The lead of the article saysZaborona investigated the life and work of one of Russia’s most popular propagandists and sought to find out who could fund Lancaster and why he supported the war
. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 09:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are incorrect,
IntrepidContributor, this is
native advertising and is a primary source from his family - the article title starts with
- The Zabrorona article is a work of
journalism. Many publishers offer native advertising and
Advertorials, but they usually provide advertising disclosure. The Financial Times offers
"engaging and impactful multimedia storytelling" to advertisers, but that doesn't mean they aren't also capable of producing journalism. Wikipedia cites the Financial Times 463,714 times.
IntrepidContributor (
talk)
15:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Zabrorona "full article" is a work of
native advertising, it even says on their about page that they are
- I hope you are addressing the community, because people that put up AFDs rarely ever ever change their mind, no matter how many sources are provided.
666hopedieslast (
talk)
12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't expect some people to change their mind here. I do expect the administrator closing this discussion to make a good judgement on whether the Zaborona article is an advertorial or not. I also posted for community input on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Zaborona and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Geographic sourcing bias on Wikipedia. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 14:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I hope you are addressing the community, because people that put up AFDs rarely ever ever change their mind, no matter how many sources are provided.
666hopedieslast (
talk)
12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have that Zaborona got paid money for that article?? And let's pretend for a second that you're right... and they got paid money for what you're calling is an "advertorial", well the article basically reads as a slanderous hit piece against Patrick Lancaster! If your theory is true and he paid for it, then that's got to be one of the biggest waste of money ever. Mathmo Talk 16:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The sources you've added are passing mentions. They do not help the article or its notability.--
Ermenrich (
talk)
21:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 20:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is a difficult one, most of the sources you find are his "disinformation" on fishy looking websites. His name seems to come up with Gonzalo Lira, who was up for AfD here a few months ago. More than enough passing mentions of this fellow; could probably be a brief mention in an article about propaganda. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete One in-depth independent source (the Vice article) is not sufficient to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: it's not clear to me that the Zaborona article is an advert funded by the Lancaster family – it takes a remarkably critical stance on Lancaster if that's the case! It calls him a "propogandist", strongly implies that he has lied about his credentials and experiences, quotes Bellingcat's description of him as a "useful idiot", talks about his "fake report", and discusses his connections with the FSB. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 11:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Passing mentions are sometimes fine for substantiating some claims but they do not add up to notability even if there is a plethora of them. Reliable sources are ones such as quality mainstream press that discuss the subject as its major treatment. Zaborona is not mainstream press. There is a big difference between Zabrona and the FT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep – In fact, the more I look into it the more convinced I am that the Zaborona source is neither advertising nor a primary source; that and the Vice article seem to be the significant coverage in sources independent of the subject that
WP:GNG asks for. The question becomes whether Zaborona is reliable. I am not familiar with it, but the founders do seem to be journalists who have published in certainly-reliable sources (Katerina Sergatskova has
published a couple of articles in The Guardian; Roman Stepanovych produced a
Peabody Award-winning documentary for PBS). Zaborona doesn't seem to have been discussed on e.g.
the reliable sources noticeboard previously, but unless there's something I'm missing I'm inclined to think that they are reliable. They are no FT, but the FT is not our minimum standard for a reliable source – if it were, we'd delete a lot of articles which presently survive deletion discussions
Caeciliusinhorto-public (
talk)
11:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no chance that the Zaborona source is advertising paid for by Lancaster, as for what logical reason could he possibly have to do that?? Quite the opposite... it might be argued the Zaborona goes "too far" and violates WP:LIBEL but that's a discussion for another day. Mathmo Talk 17:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note User:Ermenrich who edit wars against Gonzalo Lira with staunch POV, has been actively in a bad faith edit war today with me about this article, he continues to remove well sourced articles, including the BBC. Earlier source removals: [8], [9] Latest removals. 666hopedieslast ( talk) 12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for drawing attention to your attempts at white washing the subject. I was considering posting about it here myself.—- Ermenrich ( talk) 12:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Kto wierzy Lancasterowi? Nachalna ustawka rosyjskich służb". Wiadomości z Polski i ze świata (in Polish). 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-06-27.
- ""Information Dumps": From the Kremlin to Your Screen". bywire news. 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-06-27.
- Rabiega, Hubert (2022-06-12). "Głos Rosji w internecie. Wpływowi youtuberzy szerzą na Zachodzie propagandę Putina". Polska Times (in Polish). Retrieved 2022-06-27.
- "Putin-Propaganda: Wie deutsche und internationale Influencer die Blockade russischer Medien unterlaufen". stern.de (in German). 2022-06-09. Retrieved 2022-06-27.
- Bright, Sam (2017-07-24). "The communist soldier using charity sites to fund his war". BBC News. Retrieved 2022-06-27.
- Schogol, Jeff (2022-04-19). "How a former US Navy sailor became a Putin propagandist". Task & Purpose. Retrieved 2022-06-27.
- As Ermenrich deleted in the article in an edit war to remove well sourced documents, the BBC states, "Lancaster's videos have been featured by mainstream media outlets and has contributed to The Telegraph and Sky News" and also RT.com. 666hopedieslast ( talk) 12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to complain about my reverting your attempt to call Lancaster a journalist and removing the fact that he’s a pro Russian propagandist, something not supported by the sources you’ve provided, please do so in the appropriate forum. This is not the place.—-
Ermenrich (
talk)
12:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did not remove the statement that "he’s a pro Russian propagandist".
Look at the last edit I posted. This lie needs to be retracted.
666hopedieslast (
talk)
12:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- My friend... You can not begin with a collection of personal attacks, half truths, and innuendo and then demand that "This lie needs to be retracted." Retract your own and then you can get back on that high horse. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did not remove the statement that "he’s a pro Russian propagandist".
Look at the last edit I posted. This lie needs to be retracted.
666hopedieslast (
talk)
12:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep (weak) - per talk page and sources there - GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - is one of the very very few western journalists reporting from within DPR/LPR itself, and has been doing so for eight years! Longer track record with a deeper knowledge than anybody else like him. Easily passes notability criteria without breaking a sweat.
Mathmo
Talk
14:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any credible sources actually calling him a journalist. Vice calls him a journalist with apostrophes and NBC calls him an influencer.
IntrepidContributor (
talk)
15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- He's a
War Journalist going in to report in places where none of them dare to go. No surprises the opinions they have about him.
Mathmo
Talk
15:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you think that Russia or the DLNR allow "western journalists" to go to territory they control?--
Ermenrich (
talk)
15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Of course they'll let in western journalists if they want to come, as Russia/LDR/DPR doesn't seem have a blanket ban against them like Ukrainian has a blanket ban against Russian news sources. For instance French24 journalists reported from within a so called "liberated" city: https://twitter.com/ivan_8848/status/1544426255260459009 And here is another different example, Sky News TV also reporting from within a former Ukrainian city: https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/status/1543258956537143298
- The issue is that western journalist seem to only very rarely report from the other side, and spend almost no time on it (aside from a few very very rare exceptions, such as Patrick Lancaster). We can only speculate as to why they wish to ignore reporting from the other side?
Mathmo
Talk
16:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for barging in, but I think that France 24 reported from Lysychansk when it was still under the Ukrainian control. The locals accuse the Ukrainian soldiers of trying to 'deport' them. Alaexis ¿question? 06:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you think that Russia or the DLNR allow "western journalists" to go to territory they control?--
Ermenrich (
talk)
15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- He's a
War Journalist going in to report in places where none of them dare to go. No surprises the opinions they have about him.
Mathmo
Talk
15:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any credible sources actually calling him a journalist. Vice calls him a journalist with apostrophes and NBC calls him an influencer.
IntrepidContributor (
talk)
15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep coverage in sources such as Vice & NBC is sufficient for WP:GNG. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- NOTE - I have reduced the content of the article to remedy BLP violations. Those here may wish to review those changes. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete There's only one reliable source in that article (NBCNews) which only mentions him in passing (and not in very positive light - so if we do keep this article this will be what it's based on) but other than that there's no indication of notability. Reason this was created is because the guy is popular on the fringe parts of social media (youtube, twitter) among fanatic pro-Putin supporters. This is just an attempt to amplify his non-notability. Volunteer Marek 02:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, the Vice article is specifically about him and he's
notable enough to be a subject of a report by Institute for Strategic Dialogue (mentioned in the NBC article. Alaexis ¿question? 06:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)- You might want to read the discussions about Vice in the archives of
WP:RSP, as it's reliability as a source is questionable. It's not a high quality source, and some consider it
gonzo journalism, certainly not a good source for politics but may be OK for music reviews. The only decent source in the Lancaster article is NBC, and that is not in-depth significant coverage as mentioned above.
Netherzone (
talk)
06:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is literally no consensus about it, there was no RfC that established that it's not a high quality source.
Alaexis
¿question?
07:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Alaexis, there is no such report by the IDS on their website, try searching "Patrick Lancaster" there yourself
[10]. The IDS just spoke to NBC about him.--
Ermenrich (
talk)
13:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ermenrich, you're right, thanks for checking it. I've amended my comment accordingly. This doesn't change my vote in view of the coverage by Vice, NBC and Dutch media mentioned by User:Alexis Jazz. Alaexis ¿question? 14:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Alaexis, there is no such report by the IDS on their website, try searching "Patrick Lancaster" there yourself
[10]. The IDS just spoke to NBC about him.--
Ermenrich (
talk)
13:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is literally no consensus about it, there was no RfC that established that it's not a high quality source.
Alaexis
¿question?
07:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- You might want to read the discussions about Vice in the archives of
WP:RSP, as it's reliability as a source is questionable. It's not a high quality source, and some consider it
gonzo journalism, certainly not a good source for politics but may be OK for music reviews. The only decent source in the Lancaster article is NBC, and that is not in-depth significant coverage as mentioned above.
Netherzone (
talk)
06:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I actually recognized this name because his name has been mentioned in Dutch media more than once in relation to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 being shot down. This article in
NRC (newspaper) (definitely a reliable source) for example mentions "Lancaster" 7 times:
[11].
[12] by
De Telegraaf about Russian media is also clearly more than a passing mention. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me)
17:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- These Dutch media are useful references for the article. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 06:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. Most of the references are fluff - self-published, or paid advertising. Additionally, I notice that two of the major contributors to this article started their accounts a month ago, and 5 days ago. They both displayed an astonishing knowledge of Wikipedia editing right from the get-go.
Something is rotten in Denmark.
Wes sideman (
talk)
12:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Wes sideman, how much coverage would be enough? Did you also count the Dutch sources I added? (some are paywalled, but that doesn't affect notability) Also note I just added a few more. None of those are self-published or paid advertising.
Edit: in case anyone would wonder, the reason I'm here is because User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång pinged me for template help on Talk:Patrick Lancaster, which was appropriate due to my contributions to {{ Infobox YouTube personality}}. Noticed the RfD tag and here I am. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 13:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC) - Can't say I agree with you on delete, but I second your nose... There is something off here.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk)
16:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I contributed to the Russian, Ukrainian and English Wikipedias when I was in university in England (5 years ago). I can't access my old account because it is connected to my old email which I also can't access (because I can't access my Ukrainian cell). The Zaborona article is not "paid advertising," as claimed by Wes sideman, so their "Additional" point is ad hominem. I have no connection to any of the other accounts Wes refers to. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 17:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Wes sideman, how much coverage would be enough? Did you also count the Dutch sources I added? (some are paywalled, but that doesn't affect notability) Also note I just added a few more. None of those are self-published or paid advertising.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. TigerShark ( talk) 20:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
DeHorizon
- DeHorizon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is very run-of-the-mill game studio working on a crypto game that might one day be released. It's received only the run-of-the-mill coverage that it exists and has created a token. No different from all the other crypto game startups, with one exception : Its one point of interest is that Richard Garriott seems to be involved, so if there was any content to speak of, I'd say it should be merged to his article. But there isn't. ApLundell ( talk) 20:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Richard Garriott per rationale. Cat's Tuxedo ( talk) 16:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ApLundell ( talk) 20:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Routine coverage of the puffed-up type that vaporware crypto projects always generate. Maybe when something actually comes out we'll revisit. Axem Titanium ( talk) 22:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Mary Starrett
- Mary Starrett ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Being a staff member of a minor political party, or a local broadcaster, or a local officeholder, or an unelected candidate for a major office is insufficient for presumption of notability. All of the sources currently cited in the article are either WP:PRIMARY, non- WP:RS-compliant, or merely routine campaign coverage. A WP:BEFORE search on multiple search engines produced no more than a (very) small handful of local news items about the subject, not nearly enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sourcing to satisfy the standard notability criteria. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, News media, Conservatism, Women, and Oregon. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete. It looks like the subject has been elected to the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners in 2014 and 2018. She's gotten coverage for that in The Newberg Graphic, a small local paper with a circulation of less thank 5k (articles here and here). She got coverage from The Oregonian for her stance on vaccines and masks during the coronavirus ( here). The News-Register also covered that (although the article doesn't have a byline), and they have a circulation of about 10k (article here); so did the Oregon Capital Chronicle (article here). Other local affiliates do as well, but I think it turns into churnalism at that point. Besides that, there's not much else out there. NPOL states local politicians can be notable under the following description: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." I do not think, at this time, the subject meets the "major" and "significant" bar part of that description. The coverage seems to mostly be from very local papers, about a local politician, without sustained and lasting coverage. I am not married to my assessment, however, and anyone wanting to discuss can ping me and I'll be happy to discuss. -- Kbabej ( talk) 20:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure) NemesisAT ( talk) 14:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Marissa Lingen
- Marissa Lingen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I may very well be missing something major here but I can't find any meaningful coverage of her or her work - just that "hey she was published in xyz" and most of the publications are self published/fansites/blogs. I don't see coverage in any of the normal, major critical outlets and aside from the Asimov award, which I'm not sure if on it's own confers notability, there simply isn't much to substantiate an article. There are plenty of hits for her name as publisher but not much or any in the way of reliable coverage of her. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Science fiction and fantasy, and Illinois. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This article should never have been brought up for an AfD (although, yes, the article needs a major cleanup but that's a topic outside the scope of an AfD). Marissa Lingen hasn't merely been published in "self published/fansites/blogs" as stated above. Instead, more than a hundred of her short stories have been published in all of the SF/F genre's top magazines, including Analog Science Fiction and Fact, Tor.com, Lightspeed, Nature, Apex Magazine, Uncanny Magazine, Beneath Ceaseless Skies, Clarkesworld Magazine, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and many many more, along with being reprinted in various Year's Best Stories anthologies. Her fiction has also been reviewed in Locus Magazine countless times ( one example here but there are many more), SFF Reviews, Analog Science Fiction and Fact (can't link to reviews b/c not online), Amazing Stories ( see this one review but there are others, Tangent Online ( see this one review, there are many others), and a number of other places. There are also a number of interviews with the subject in genre magazines and mentions of her work in other media such as Book Riot and Locus. As stated at Wikipedia:Notability (people), "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." That is certainly the case here, with the large number of reviews and coverage of this author proving notability.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 22:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I agree with southernnights, "This article should never have been brought up for an AfD". Multiple independent reviews, multiple magazines, etc. The bibliography section is a bit bloated, but I think an edit or two is much preferred to article deletion. Twopower332.1938 ( talk) 23:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I agree with southernnights. and others Well-known and clearly notable young author. Yes, the article could be improved.... -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 00:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep finding biographical articles on the person is not easy - I found none in books and newspapers etc. It is however easy to find reference in newsprint for her work or interviews about her work. But this is a biography, and we cannot base a biography of the person on interviews, we need fact checking. Lightburst ( talk) 02:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - this article (Marissa Lingen) should stay, but with the bibliography in a separate article at Marissa Lingen bibliography, as per guidelines at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies Sunwin1960 ( talk) 04:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: clearly notable author. No strong view as to whether the bibliography should be in this article or split off (it is currently duplicated, with an AfD for
Marissa Lingen bibliography): the bibliography should remain in the encyclopedia, somewhere, but should not be duplicated.
Pam
D
08:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. I moved the bibliography into its own article, but another editor has copied it back into the main author article, presumably pending the outcome of the AfD process for both articles. Sunwin1960 ( talk) 08:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Reviews establish that WP:NAUTHOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as meets WP:NAUTHOR. The article certainly needs significant cleanup, but WP:DINC. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 20:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - While the article needs improving, the subject's notability has nonetheless been shown through sources in the article. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 04:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Camilo Aretxabala
- Camilo Aretxabala ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about former footballer who appeared in a handful of Chilean Primera A matches during his career. There is no SIGCOV available in online English- or Spanish-language sources (just routine/trivial coverage like database entries, match reports and transfer announcements), and the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Jogurney ( talk) 19:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Chile. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete not even close to enough sourcing to meet GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental ( talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. TigerShark ( talk) 03:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Cory Spotts
- Cory Spotts ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:NMG, all self referential or primary sources. FrederalBacon ( talk) 18:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FrederalBacon ( talk) 18:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note This appears to be an article that has sat abandoned for a long time without much update. The notability when it was created was from one article and the subjects own website. Looking, it appears there is nothing but that, even after 15 years. FrederalBacon ( talk) 18:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I believe the reasoning for deletion is erroneous. The cited sources (Phoenix New Times and Allmusic.com) are established and are not primary sources. I did remove the primary sources previously listed under "further reading." Thank you. IakaNoctra ( talk) 18:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The noted "All Music" is just a discography list. Same with the Discogs link. Only link that infers notability is the one article in Pheonix New Times from 2005. Googling him give me nothing but primary sources or lists of his discography. None of that confers notability. FrederalBacon ( talk) 18:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lack of in-depth independent coverage. I searched Newspapers.com and found only a handful of minor hits [13]. This biggest was an interview. MB 21:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete passing mentions in connection with bands in Phoenix, nothing much about the fellow himself. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Alcidio Fleitas
- Alcidio Fleitas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about former footballer who made a handful of appearances in professional leagues, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in several pro leagues, but participation is no longer sufficient to establish notability at WP:NSPORTS. I've searched online English- and Spanish-language sources and can only locate routine/trivial coverage such as database entries and match reports. There is no SIGCOV available. Jogurney ( talk) 17:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Paraguay. Shellwood ( talk) 17:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete not even close to enough sourcing to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental ( talk) 13:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hardeep Singh Dimpy Dhillon
- Hardeep Singh Dimpy Dhillon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Not held office. Perpetual candidate. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Punjab. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails NPOL and GNG - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, article creator most likely has COI and paid editing issues, not notable to warrant inclusion. MxYamato ( talk) 18:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Daisy Whitney
AfDs for this article:
- Daisy Whitney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG ~ T P W 15:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete we need indepedent sources about here, this is too heavily based on her own website. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep USA Today piece about one of her books [14], Common Sense Media [15]. One here in a journal [16]. Teeny Kirkus Reviews piece [17] Not much but I think it's AUTHOR. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep there are more reviews than ones that
Oaktree b was able to find and so I've added them in. Indeed they give her a clear pass at
WP:AUTHOR
CT55555 (
talk)
16:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- ohhh nice one, good finds! Oaktree b ( talk) 18:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:AUTHOR#3, she has created a collective body of work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Per WP:HEY and with an assist from the WP Library, the article has continued to be expanded to incorporate reviews and additional content about her writing. She has four Kirkus Reviews reviews, for The Mockingbirds, the sequel The Rivals, Starry Nights, and The Fire Artist. Her work has also been reviewed in School Library Journal, Booklist, The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, and Publishers Weekly, e.g. The Mockingbirds, When You Were Here, Starry Nights. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As per above, evidence of meeting WP:NAUTHOR. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 21:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Helmut Schlegel. czar 07:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Jesus Christus, Menschensohn
- Jesus Christus, Menschensohn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability: while this short text has been included in some religious song books, it doesn't seem to have received any actual attention from reliable, independent sources. Sources in article are databases, or lists of contents: only source with some further text is the "Werkhilfe zum Singheft", which is more of an educational/technical guide on how to perform it.
Trying to find actual sources about the song turns out to be fruitless. Nothing in GNews [18] or GBooks [19] (the one source is by Schlegel so doesn't count), and the 25 regular hits [20] produce nothing useful not already in the article. A redirect to Helmut Schlegel may be a good alternative for deletion. Fram ( talk) 14:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Religion, Christianity, and Germany. Fram ( talk) 14:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I think it is well-enough sourced, and is of education value. -- evrik ( talk) 18:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I'd defer to Gerda on this since she's the one who speaks German and has access to the sources. But I'd presume that there might be more coverage of the song in offline sources? I imagine the topic has wider coverage offline than online. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 00:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's review the sources in the article (current as of
Special:Permalink/1095357779):
- 1 is a "hymn portrait", published in the Diocese of Limburg's semi-annual church music journal. Authors are a priest and the diocese of Limburg's head of church music, who also edits the journal.
- 2 is a database of hymns that mentions which hymnals contain the song
- 3 is a list of songs in the Limburg version of the Gotteslob (might be better to cite the Limburg Gotteslob directly)
- 4 is a primary source sales listing for 5
- 5 is the table of contents of a songbook that contains the hymn
- 6 is an excerpt from a songbook containing the hymn
- 7 is a booklet accompanying this collection of choral settings (published annually). Author is "Bundessingwart und Kantor im Christlichen Sängerbund", an evangelical choir organisation.
- Of these sources, only 1 and 7 are worth considering, the rest is trivial database entries or sales material. Source 1 is from the time the new Gotteslob was introduced and contains several portraits of the new songs that were included for the Diocese of Limburg's version of the hymnal (the first part of the hymnal is identical for all German-speaking Catholic dioceses, but most dioceses have their own songs in the other part). I wouldn't be surprised if the authors were involved in the decision to include this song in the Limburg hymnal, but I haven't researched this further. Anyway, this is a good source. Source 7 is not Catholic and shows reception of the song outside the diocese and denomination of its origin. It is fairly short but a reasonable description of the song, written for people who want to use it in church service or for choirs.
- Without source 1, this would be a clear "redirect to author" for lack of independent secondary sourcing. As it stands, we don't really have "multiple" independent sources doing an in-depth treatment. While the songs of the main (common) part of the Gotteslob have all been subject to in-depth critical commentary (see
[21] for a list of some literature) there does not seem to be much about the Limburg hymns so far. Probably merging to the author is still the best solution until there is another in-depth discussion of the song. —
Kusma (
talk)
09:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. To clarify: Gotteslob is one book, with a regional section for numbers 700 and up, the regional section a collection of hymns traditionally sung in the region and new songs fro the region, like this one.
- I think the guidelines for songs are mostly made for recorded songs with a broad publication. It seems a bit unfair to expect the same kind of reception for a regional hymn. What I see:
- This is a song that is actually sung. There are many in Gotteslob which get practically never sung, but this one fits many occasions (as could be expanded based on ref 1 which I found only yesterday).
- This is a hymn that has not yet made it to other regions of Gotteslob but to several other collections.
- This is a text that inspired two composers.
- This is a text written by a prolific and thoughtful author, and worth knowing about - I think - even if no second in-depth discussion pops up. We have IAR, no? Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glauben können wie du. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- These are not particularly good arguments. "People sing this", well, we need them to write about this. "This is only a regional hymn, so we should expect sources to be bad" sound more like a reason not to write individual articles about regional hymns, not to accept lower quality sourcing... and I do not think invoking IAR works particularly well to have four songs by this author as individual articles. Remember, we are not here to promote them, no matter whether they deserve that or not (and many texts are "worth knowing about" and we exclude them to prevent people from promoting their causes). Der Herr wird dich mit seiner Güte segnen in the main part of the Gotteslob is probably easiest to source; there seems to be far more written about it, even if the article doesn't reflect that. (I find the sources for Glauben können wie du slightly worse than the ones presented here, and am surprised it got so many "keep" comments). All of these articles btw suffer badly from broken links. — Kusma ( talk) 10:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider the possibility of a merger and to welcome other viewpoints to this discussion and examination of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge without prejudice against recreation if more sources emerge - With deepest regrets, I think I have to side with Kusma's arguments here. It appears that there's really only one source that gives the hymn any decent coverage, with the rest being passing mentions at best. It's not because of the material because other hymns from the same collection appear to have had more coverage. This is not a !vote I take lightly: in fact, I was originally leaning a weak keep when I first saw that the article had been nominated, until I made my own search and found very little of use. I appreciate that the hymn helped inspire other musicians, but that isn't a claim to notability in and of itself.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions)
00:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see no reason why new sources should cover this song. It began regional and was successful beyond that region, that makes it notable for me even if not formally for Wikipedia. It will likely appear in the common section of Gotteslob in the next edition in a few decades. I could name a few in the same category (regional but beloved) but fear that I'd just provoke new deletion discussions. So just one example: Das Weizenkorn muss sterben. Big difference: the author is dead. I wish Brother Helmut a long life. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Helmut Schlegel. Fails WP:NSONG per Kusma's analysis. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Phillips Academy. Needs a redirect target in the target article. czar 07:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The Phillips Academy Poll
- The Phillips Academy Poll ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
completely and utterly non notable poll created by students in a high school with no meaningful in depth coverage. It's only sourced to their student papers, local papers with interviews and not otherwise meaningful in depth coverage (also worth noting, this appears to have been created and tags removed by obvious socks of the previous creator(s).) PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Massachusetts. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- While the poll has been run by high schoolers, I would argue that the national coverage it has received lends itself to the credibility of the poll. Furthermore, the continual growth of the poll would suggest the wikipedia page is a necessary resource for information on the subject matter.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
20:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It hasn't received national coverage from major media outlets or significant in-depth coverage - Newsweek isn't reliable.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
20:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Saying that "Newsweek isn't reliable" does not discount it being a major publication... What's more, being cited by
FiveThirtyEight and the
National Republican Congressional Committee lend a significant amount of credibility to this organization. Moreover, it is supported by the
Abbot Academy's fund and grant organization.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
21:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Read
WP:RSP and
WP:OSE while you're at it. Your arguments don't hold up.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
21:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have looked at both of those pages, actually, and my arguments fit in well with what has already been codified. Newsweek was previously classified as highly reliable, and now it is considered ambiguous (not unreliable, as you have claimed. SEE:
Wikipedia:RSP). And my citing of other articles is not simply claiming that they exist, but rather that major national institutions and publications have relied upon data gathered by this poll to form their own opinions and create publications.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
21:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. In retrospect, maybe the Concord Monitor, 7News Boston, and a school newspaper aren't the most nationally notable publications for this argument-- I certainly don't dispute you there. However, NHPR is no small source: in 2017, they reported over 190k weekly page listeners and 450k website views. [22] And, as Nicholas pointed out earlier, the argument here is about notability, and NHPR supports notability. FiveThirtyEight is also highly-respected, especially in the polling world. In 2015, they published an article reporting they had nearly 8 million unique visitors per month. [23] This poll certainly meets notability criteria. Vergilreader ( talk) 22:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)— Vergilreader ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I have looked at both of those pages, actually, and my arguments fit in well with what has already been codified. Newsweek was previously classified as highly reliable, and now it is considered ambiguous (not unreliable, as you have claimed. SEE:
Wikipedia:RSP). And my citing of other articles is not simply claiming that they exist, but rather that major national institutions and publications have relied upon data gathered by this poll to form their own opinions and create publications.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
21:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Read
WP:RSP and
WP:OSE while you're at it. Your arguments don't hold up.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
21:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Saying that "Newsweek isn't reliable" does not discount it being a major publication... What's more, being cited by
FiveThirtyEight and the
National Republican Congressional Committee lend a significant amount of credibility to this organization. Moreover, it is supported by the
Abbot Academy's fund and grant organization.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
21:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It hasn't received national coverage from major media outlets or significant in-depth coverage - Newsweek isn't reliable.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
20:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: As someone who declined an earlier version of this page at AfC I am not going to !vote but when I considered it I felt that it was
WP:TOOSOON and references available would only improve through the current electoral cycle.
Gusfriend (
talk)
23:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the content would improve towards the election, but the necessity to have a page w/foundational information and the current popularity of the poll would make keeping the page up highly important.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
00:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- highly important to who?
PRAXIDICAE🌈
00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
Praxidicae The highly aggressive tone is not appreciated. The same question could be asked of any Wikipedia article, but in this case spe cifically the sudden rise in popularity of the poll makes the creation of a Wikipedia page important as it allows for information about the poll to be disseminated.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I asked a specific question. It's not an unreasonable one.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Seeing as this poll is credible, the current Wikipedia consensus seems to indicate that other polling organizations that have been covered to a similar degree ( Siena College Research Institute, Franklin & Marshall College Poll, or Monmouth University Polling Institute, to name a few) are notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Nicholas D. ( talk) 20:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I asked a specific question. It's not an unreasonable one.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
Praxidicae The highly aggressive tone is not appreciated. The same question could be asked of any Wikipedia article, but in this case spe cifically the sudden rise in popularity of the poll makes the creation of a Wikipedia page important as it allows for information about the poll to be disseminated.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- highly important to who?
PRAXIDICAE🌈
00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the content would improve towards the election, but the necessity to have a page w/foundational information and the current popularity of the poll would make keeping the page up highly important.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
00:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect/Merge to Phillips Academy. Like Praxidicae, I don't think that the poll itself is independently notable. But I do think that the poll could be covered within the context of the institution that conducts it. If this is a WP:TOOSOON thing, like Gusfriend suggests, then merging some of the content into the article on the school and then creating a spinoff if/when the poll itself becomes notable seems like it's more than reasonable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 03:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I stumbled across an article covering this poll, and came to Wikipedia for more information but was appalled that it was in discussion for deletion. Allow me to apply the criteria for the NHPR and WHDH features under WP:SIRS.
- Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. (The NHPR article is focused on the group's methodology and motivations to create the poll, including opinion from others in the polling industry. The entirety of the WHDH video is dedicated to the group.)
- Be completely independent of the article subject. (Both these features are from independent journalists.)
- Meet the standard for being a reliable source. (NHPR is affiliated with NPR and therefore reliable, while WHDH is an ex-CBS and ex-NBC affiliate)
- Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability. (Both are secondary sources reporting on the poll's stated methodology and leadership).
- In WP:ORGCRITE, it states multiple independent and reliable sources must be provided, which the two sources I just analyzed have. In another way, Steve Kolceza's Twitter criticism also points toward notability, albeit not in the form of an article, but he represents WBUR, which is also backed by NPR. Sure, the one-line mention in Newsweek isn't in-depth, as Praxidicae noted above, but that doesn't discount the sources I mentioned above that points toward notability.
- In full disclosure, a friend of mine is a Phillips Academy alumnus, but I have not discussed this poll with him, and this should not in any way discount the points I made, as it is not a particularly small school and would not be uncommon to know someone from there. 50.75.166.40 ( talk) 00:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, as no convincing arguments have been made as to why the subject is not notable. The nominator's reasoning seems to have more to do with personal feelings than policy. The fact that the poll is run by high schoolers and has been covered by local news is completely irrelevant, as no policy states that this is grounds for the subject to be deemed "utterly non notable." Keepabortionlegal35 ( talk) 21:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
*:I would point to separate articles on
Siena College Research Institute vs.
Siena College, or
Franklin & Marshall College Poll vs.
Franklin & Marshall College. The polling apparatus and the school are usually considered distinct entities, since the school page will typically focus specifically on the academic institution. Also,
WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not a policy. At least in my view, the potential for greater future notability does not diminish the poll’s already-existent notability as a prominent source for political data.
ChristianATurk (
talk)
15:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Phillips Academy, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 27. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE ( talk) 17:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. For the reasons that I outlined above, I believe that this article and its subject matter have relevance and credibility at the national level. Nicholas D. ( talk) 17:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
:Keep. Being cited by national organizations such as
Newsweek,
FiveThirtyEight, and the
National Republican Congressional Committee is no trivial venture. I would imagine, given the wide audiences of these organizations, that their reliance on this poll’s data confers notability, due to the manner in which this poll influences the political landscape…whether you feel this is justified given the high school thing shouldn’t affect
WP:Notability. I also agree with Nicholas that Wikipedia consensus indicates other polls with similar levels of source material do meet notability guidelines.
ChristianATurk (
talk)
15:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note to closer: I have struck through the comments made by the CU-confirmed sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit (blether) 17:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss without sock disruption
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Phillips Academy. Here's why. We need multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Since this is an organization, the appropriate guideline is
WP:NCORP which includes
WP:ORGIND and
WP:ORGDEPTH. ORGIND requires "Independent content" which, 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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot *rely* only on regurgitating information provided by the organization/school so articles that rely only on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, etc all fail ORGIND. So when you remove this stuff from the article, whatever is left over must meet ORGDEPTH. Also, we don't "combine" references - each reference must meet all the criteria (see
WP:SIRS. Let's look at the references (omitting PRIMARY sources):
- This from NHPR relies entirely on information provided to the reporters by the org itself. The article contains sentences such as "have launched what they believe", "they view the survey as an alternative way", "the students launched what they argue is" - so the journalist is being very careful to ensure this is the students' opinion. The rest of the article discusses one of the polls that the students published - it doesn't discuss the topic organization in any depth (or at all). Fails WP:ORGIND because there's no "Independent Content" about the *organization* and fails WP:ORGDEPTH because there's no in-depth information about the org either.
- This from WHDH says nothing about the topic org, fails ORGDEPTH
- This Newsweek reference and this one mentions the topic organization in-passing, only as the name behind the *poll* (which isn't the topic here), nothing in-depth about the org, both fail ORGDEPTH
- Both this and this from FiveThirtyEight provide no in-depth info on the org, both fail ORGDEPTH
- This in nrcc.org simply regurgitates the results of one of the polls, no in-depth info about the org, fails ORGDEPTH
- This in the Phillipian and this also are good in-depth articles but both rely entirely on information provided by the school and the students. There is just no "Independent Content", therefore both fail ORGIND
- It appears to me that some !voters might assume that getting the name of the organization into a prestigious publication makes the organization notable, but that isn't the case. None of these references meets our criteria. Topic should be redirected. HighKing ++ 19:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT ( talk) 14:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Made in Timeland
- Made in Timeland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It appears there is only one source present in the article that is specifically about the album release, that being Live for Live Music which doesn't even have the album's name in it. Others cover the cancelled festival, aborted release plans, and other KG projects from around that time where the album is mentioned secondarily, but there is very little material about the album itself here. I've found zero reviews from major online publications (if someone has access to magazine archives to confirm there's nothing there either that'd help, but Album of the Year doesn't list any so I'm doubtful). QuietHere ( talk) 14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
QuietHere (
talk)
14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Worth noting that there have been notices for sourcing/notability issues on the article since March. Also worth noting that those notices were added by me (which I forgot about until just now after already making this), dunno if that affects anything though. QuietHere ( talk) 14:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I wouldn't ever agree to delete a top-40 album or an album that charted in Australia, whatever the chart position, and regardless of charting not guaranteeing notability, which is always brought up as a reply to any keep nomination pointing out charting. The sourcing could be better, yes, but perhaps no user has been bothered to find any better sources. Ss 112 05:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - The article is too dependent on tidbits from the band's social media, but those can be removed easily. As a charting album this article can be expanded and cleaned up rather than deleted. Here is a possibly useful review: [24]. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 02:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Multiple charts, though I'd prefer a couple more reviews. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 05:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Charting album. I've added a review of the album (thanks to Doomsayer520) and provided some clean-up/copy editing. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 07:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
List of number of Michelin restaurants in European countries
- List of number of Michelin restaurants in European countries ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn’t have encyclopedic purpose, more like trivia. Fails WP:LISTN (read linked section for criteria). Also doesn’t list all European countries (see https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/countries-in-europe/ for example). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Europe. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails
WP:NOTSTATS, plain and simple. I could also identify
Le Louis XV in
Monaco, but Monaco is not in the list. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
17:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have added Monaco Feuerstern2015 ( talk) 11:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete While the guides themselves group some countries, Michelin_Guide#Guides already has the main dataset, though this table could be split by country too. Reywas92 Talk 18:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This does not meet our requirements for lists. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Promotional catalog. Orientls ( talk) 13:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there, I am currently working on and improving this list. Please allow me a few days to finish these last details. Feuerstern2015 ( talk) 11:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Dragon Ball Z. As for concerns regarding disruptive edits by sockpuppets and IP users, anyone is free to request the redirect for protection. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Bruce Faulconer
- Bruce Faulconer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Faulconer has received some limited press for composing music for the American dub of Dragon Ball Z. At best, WP:BLP1E applies here, and his article should be reduced to a redirect to the DBZ article. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Anime and manga. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect and wow that's a lot of, well, not much, up there. He's known and almost exclusively cited for his Dragon Ball Z (DBZ) works. Redirect to DBZ.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe you will find an enormous number of works by Bruce Faulconer listed in BMI. It is quite substantial, being 276 titles. His television music alone includes more than merely DBZ, and yet he did 224 episodes of DBZ. Short of sending 224 VHS tapes to verify Faulconer's contribution (or the orange box DVD set available from FUNimation), I believe the IMDb has supporting relevance. Other television works were included in the original post. Here is an annotation for one of his many works for PBS.
- In a brief search, Faulconer has had multiple performances at universities around the US, some of these include: Bolling Green University, North Texas State University, Ohio State University, and the University of California at San Diego https://library.uta.edu/sci/sites/library.uta.edu.sci/files/nc_1979.pdf.
- Faulconer had the premiere of his Interface I at the International Gaudeamus Music Week in the Netherlands. His works were played during concerts in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Hilversum, and was also broadcasted over Radio Netherlands.
- Faulconer was a composer invited to the MacDowell Colony for a residency in the summer of 1982, where he worked on his Sonata for Flute and Piano, and Concerto for Trumpet and Orchestra.
- He was featured in DMagazine, and received the 1980 National Endowment for the Arts Award.
- In 1986, Faulconer's Washington on the Brazos was premiered by the Dallas Symphony Orchestra as cited in DMagazine.
- Bruce Faulconer made Fantasia for viola solo (1980), as well as Fantasia No. 2 for viola solo (1990) which was listed here.
- As far as coverage from anime and manga resources, he has been posted by numerous anime news websites, blogs, and forums.
- This is by no means an exhaustive list of the plethora of entries remaining on the internet concerning the compositional output of Bruce Faulconer. ````
Wikiherm (
talk)
19:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @ Wikiherm: Perhaps you have not read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of musicians. We require multiple instances of significant coverage, or achievements (such as major music awards) that would then presume the presence of significant coverage. None of the examples you list meet these criteria. Also, stating that Faulconer was "featured" in D Magazine is something of a stretch: in a page of over 7,000 words listing the notable events occurring in Dallas in March 1980, 31 words are dedicated to the announcement of a concert by Faulconer and 4 other artists at SMU, where he was teaching at the time. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect Basically no coverage from any anime and manga resources. I can't really establish notability with what's posted above, or the awards section from his website. Esw01407 ( talk) 16:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect I couldn't find a single usable source for a standalone article. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dragon Ball Z. AKK 700 00:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, do not redirect. Resoundingly non-notable, one passing mention of him on JSTOR, as an assistant professor in 1978. No mention of him in Grove Music Online, where we'd expect any notable composer to appear. Given the rate at which the sockpuppets are appearing, this page should be deleted and not redirected – but without prejudice to the subsequent creation of a "clean" redirect. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I don't believe that the bad intentions of the editors should weigh on the inherent notability of the subject. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Sarah Milne
- Sarah Milne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NBAD, no notable achievement at the senior level. zoglophie 12:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and England. zoglophie 12:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as it is no evidence of notability. -- Vaco98 ( talk) 13:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Johann Sithmann. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Sithmann
- Sithmann ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only one entry is an article, and I can't find any others, except maybe Seith Mann as a See also. Perhaps redirect to Johann Sithmann, as in German Wikipedia? Leschnei ( talk) 11:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Leschnei ( talk) 11:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect. Not even the German Wikipedia has any content about the other Sithmanns. – Uanfala ( talk) 11:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala ( talk) 11:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete the list does not disambiguate anything. It can be recreated if it ever does. Lightburst ( talk) 13:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect per Unafala. MB 14:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect as {{ R from surname}}; a surname page should be created if/when there is another nameholder on whom we have information. Pam D 08:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- This surely didn't really need to come to AfD: if I'd noticed it during my editing I'd have redirected it on the spot. It would be different if there was any sourced content about the name itself, but "is a German surname" isn't enough to be worth keeping. Pam D 08:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect as R from surname. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep as re-scoped during the course of this discussion Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
List of Manhattan Beach municipal parks
- List of Manhattan Beach municipal parks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not satisfy WP:NLIST. – Meena • 09:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and California. – Meena • 09:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Why not have this as part of a list including all the parks in LA county?
Category:Parks in Los Angeles County, California
Dream Focus
10:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- TY for your very good question. There are 88 incorporated cities in Los Angeles County (pop ~10 million), many operate their own parks. The county also operates parks. (There are also state parks within the city although those are already well covered.) The jurisdictional boundaries are moderately important, even if every single municipal city park is not. I was imagining that ultimately the larger cities in LA county (Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena, Torrance, Santa Clarita) would have similar lists. There are also various trails, bike paths and beaches which sometimes have multiple “stakeholders” or cross the territory of multiple cities.
- List of parks in Los Angeles - CITY - 21 have extant articles
- Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation - COUNTY - 183 parks mentioned, mix of cities and unincorporated areas, also manages Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area on behalf of the state etc.
- List of Santa Monica municipal parks
- List of Culver City municipal parks
- Beverly Hills, California#Landmarks - 5 mentioned are municipal parks, 1 county-operated park
- Which is to say that a single list might get unwieldy. This list is part of a nascent organizational attempt! jengod ( talk) 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- TY for your very good question. There are 88 incorporated cities in Los Angeles County (pop ~10 million), many operate their own parks. The county also operates parks. (There are also state parks within the city although those are already well covered.) The jurisdictional boundaries are moderately important, even if every single municipal city park is not. I was imagining that ultimately the larger cities in LA county (Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena, Torrance, Santa Clarita) would have similar lists. There are also various trails, bike paths and beaches which sometimes have multiple “stakeholders” or cross the territory of multiple cities.
- Keep, and expand. User:Jengod, as User:Dream Focus suggests, expanding the scope of this list would be helpful, and I suggest moving it to either List of municipal parks in Los Angeles County (and include upfront link to List of parks in Los Angeles and state that this one covers all but the ones in the City of Los Angeles) or to List of parks in Los Angeles County (in which case mention the state and national parks too). I prefer the latter. It would also address/avoid minor question of whether a sublist of just Manhattan Beach municipal parks are notable as a small group on their own. The main idea is that of course "parks" are notable, and we can have a list of parks, worldwide, and we can sensibly break out subsections for nations, U.S. states, etc. It is also okay to build up towards having a comprehensive list of parks in California or in the United States by building a list of Los Angeles County ones. Which, as you say, could possibly become unwieldy already at that scope. I suggest moving this to larger scope, which is obviously Wikipedia-notable IMHO, and adding some non-Huntington Beach ones. It doesn't have to be all-inclusive immediately, it will be marked "incomplete list" as the current one is, and it can be divided into sections with one for Huntington Beach. It doesn't need to include, at first, all of the logical sections of Los Angeles County, presumably one section for each municipality and one or more for unincorporated areas. And, if/when it does become unwieldy, it is obviously fine to split out sections such as the Huntington Beach one to a separate list-article. In Wikipedia we often work on very big lists, like I spend most of my Wikipedia time working on List of RHPs, a 90,000+ item list broken into sublists. So, briefly, think big or at least think bigger, and go ahead and expand the scope. Whether or not this is done immediately, the scope can be expanded and the list-topic of "parks" in some geographic area is fine, so this AFD should only be closed "Keep", although that can be with comment that this should be expanded. -- Doncram ( talk) 15:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, by the way, the general topic is so obviously notable that I rather think this AFD should not have been opened at all. The narrower topic of municipal parks in Huntington Beach can probably be proven to meet wp:GNG by rounding up sources on the collection of them and/or on each one of them, but that is not even necessary, we actually don't need sources unless something is challenged (and of course I do believe your assertions that these are parks in Huntington Beach). -- Doncram ( talk) 15:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Seeing no objection, I went ahead and moved the AFD target article to List of parks in Los Angeles County, California and developed that somewhat. It now includes sections on parks in Beverly Hills, Culver City, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. It is somewhat unusual to move an article when it is under AFD discussion, but doing so is not prohibited, and in this case I think it moves us all along in a good way. I didn't add sources; I think there is no need to copy sources from the listed articles into the list itself; there is no real question whether these are parks where they are, and no real question whether parks can be listed in Wikipedia. IMHO this is ready to be closed "Keep". -- Doncram ( talk) 22:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thapaswini Poonacha
- Thapaswini Poonacha ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC. No significant coverage and 1 recorded role. – Meena • 10:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. – Meena • 10:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Bears ( talk) 11:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I found an entry on IMDB which ain't sufficient to keep the page. The cinemaexpress article does not do justice either. VV 11:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Faith in You without prejudice against recreation, albeit under a different artist. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Faith in You (song)
- Faith in You (song) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Song only barely charted. I found no reviews of the song in a WP:BEFORE involving Newspapers.com, World Radio History, Billboard, and Rolling Stone. Redirect and prod both declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Faith in You#Track listing: Does not meet criteria's for a stand alone article, it's better to redirect. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, not a likely search term due to disambiguation. Avilich ( talk) 18:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Faith in You, do not delete. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP ( talk) 23:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment A different song by Randy Travis comes up higher in my searches. It might be more deserving of the article than this song, making me question any redirect. Heck, ABBA's I Still Have Faith in You also comes up better the way I search. Jacona ( talk) 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more relist to consider on whether a different song of the same title is more notable than the other. Editors are encouraged to indicate sources about it. If neither of them are notable enough, then consider disambiguation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete nothing found beyond track listings or lyrics. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Graham Jones (English author)
AfDs for this article:
- Graham Jones (English author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources do not support notability. Associate lecturer, fails WP:PROF. cagliost ( talk) 09:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are using the wrong information. I have updated to show I am a Senior Lecturer at one university and an associate lecturer at another. To say associate lecturer fails the WP:PROF guideline misses out the Senior Lecturer role, and misunderstands perhaps, what being an Associate Lecturer means. These are both senior academic roles which together with the authorship of multiple books and documents means that deletion for not supporting notability is mistaken.
Graham Jones (
talk)
09:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Still fails
WP:PROF, also fails other criteria in
WP:BIO. Lack of Significant Coverage.
cagliost (
talk)
12:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Criteria 7 of WP:PROF is clearly satisfied.
- In WP:BIO the Creative Professionals requirement is satisfied
Graham Jones (
talk)
12:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Criterion 7 of WP:PROF not evidenced by the sources ("The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"). "Creative Professionals" in WP:BIO not evidenced by the sources.
cagliost (
talk)
13:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
- This page had references to media coverage and interventions that could be considered for meeting Criterion 7 - at least it should be debated.
JamesKH76 (
talk)
16:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Was the issue coming from the fact those references to media appearances are not the media appearences themselves? And I thought that's why @ Cagliost removed them. It seems that references to the Mirror, the BBC, and other where directly referenced in the previous version of the page. So those elements can count for criterium 7. JamesKH76 ( talk) 16:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Criterion 7 of WP:PROF not evidenced by the sources ("The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"). "Creative Professionals" in WP:BIO not evidenced by the sources.
cagliost (
talk)
13:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Still fails
WP:PROF, also fails other criteria in
WP:BIO. Lack of Significant Coverage.
cagliost (
talk)
12:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The state of the article just after I proposed it for deletion is here. I have since removed some sources but I will still consider them in the following analysis:
- Summary of talk given at the University of Buckingham. Primary source but could be used to argue for importance of subject.
- Mediafirst: Professional biography, commercial source from a business that employs Jones.
- Personal CV, primary source.
- University of Buckingham profile
- Society of Authors profile: commercial promotional material.
- PSA profile: commercial promotional material.
- espeakers profile: commercial promotional material.
- espeakers profile: commercial promotional material.
- Telegraph: article by Jones himself.
- Wired: article by Jones himself.
- Mirror: article by Jones himself.
- PSA president: statement of fact.
- Realbusiness: trivial mention.
- Business2Community: articles written by Jones himself.
- BBC - trivial mention.
- Mirror - brief article written by Jones himself.
- realwire - trivial mention.
- BBC - repeat of BBC source (trivial mention).
- CityAm - trivial mention.
- Wired - repeat of Wired source above
- HuffingtonPost - article by Jones himself.
- Mirror - trivial mention.
- Metro - trivial mention.
- JustStyle - paywalled, I can't read it.
- JonLloyd - review of a book by Jones.
- Link to a book by Jones.
- Link to a book by Jones.
- Link to a book by Jones.
- Amazon - list of Jones' books
I am not seeing the notability. He does not meet WP:PROF including 7 "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". No significant impact, no senior positions.
We have one book review, the presidency for 1 year of a professional association, and a bunch of brief quotes in the media.
If we ignore commercial promotional sources, we have zero sources *about* Jones, apart from statements of fact (PSA presidency and University of Buckingham profile). We have no sources analysing him, listing his accomplishments or asserting his notability. We have no facts that impart notability (e.g. senior academic positions (Senior Lecturer is not a senior position as per WP:PROF, we would need a named chair or something similar)).
I am also not seeing any of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE satisfied. cagliost ( talk) 16:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you @ Cagliost.
- I agree that criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals are not met.
- I think op-eds on wired, the mirror, huffington post, and other, even written by Jones count as media appearances as presented in Criterium 7 Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I guess it depends how many media appearances consist notability but there are certainly some there. Would be interested to know what other think.
- It is right that no other notability criteria are met.
JamesKH76 (
talk)
17:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Six trivial mentions in the media do not constitute substantial impact or significant coverage. cagliost ( talk) 22:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. Shellwood ( talk) 10:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I fail to see how this user even remotely meets the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, WP:SCHOLAR or WP:GNG (although considering he's in the conversation, I am certain I shall be shown the error of my ways before long). The PSA is not really a professional association ('public speaker' is not a profession – law is a profession, medicine is a profession, accountancy is a profession, public speaking is a thing people do), and "senior lecturers" in the UK are actually fairly junior. They certainly are not part of the professorial class and nowhere near named chairs. I do agree that when it comes to the UK, American-influenced notions of academia such as "named chairs" (which are much less frequent in the UK) do not necessarily apply without qualification, but a "senior lecturer" is far from sufficient to meet WP:SCHOLAR. In short: Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 22:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Spammy apparent autobiography, does not appear to have the independent published book reviews necessary for WP:AUTHOR. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete See nomination. So far in this discussion, the only support appears to be from Graham Jones himself. Wikipedia doesn’t work that way, and Wikipedia doesn’t publish autobiographies. Dolphin ( t) 22:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Rightly or wrongly, the involvement of the subject in this discussion makes me lean delete, and looking at the article akes me think WP:TNT even if the subject is notable. St Anselm ( talk) 04:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The subject writing articles/books is not sufficient for notability, significant independant reviews would be better for WP:NAUTHOR. There is some limited over coverage (e.g. quotes in the media), but not enough to meet WP:GNG. Don't see how would meet WP:NPROF. The obvious WP:COI issue doesn't help either. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Braindance (band)
- Braindance (band) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've declined a {{ db-band}} on this, as given how long it's been live and the number of different editors who've edited it I don't believe deletion would be wholly uncontroversial. However this is clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia; there's nothing even approaching a reliable source, and no indication that the band has any particular significance. ‑ Iridescent 08:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. ‑ Iridescent 08:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as CSD tagger; the article makes no assertion of notability and largely consists of a directory listing the band's members and albums, almost none of which have articles. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - They have been around for a long time with a lot of releases, but reliable and significant media attention has eluded them. All I can find are occasional fanzine/blog mentions (e.g. [25]), and minor directory entries (e.g. [26]). While searching you may find the residue of a fairly desperate type of amateur promotion in the early Internet era -- a few fans (or themselves) would namedrop the band in message board discussions about other people. That type of fan effort seems to be behind this WP article as well, given its reliance on red links and links that look blue but are actually to unreliable outside promotional sites. They're very underground, so much so that they don't have the notice required here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Spam from globally locked user who was probably socking. An established editor is welcome to create an article of this Association is in fact notable. Star Mississippi 17:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Association for the Defense of Animals and Nature
- Association for the Defense of Animals and Nature ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant WP:PROMO. As it is, fails WP:NCORP. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are plenty of external references. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete there may be "external references" but that does not mean that they are suitable for establishing notability and that is hte case here. This is nothing more than a paid for puff piece about a non notable org.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
13:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The creator has been globally locked for spamming. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete there is no sources, it should be deleted, it is not notable. Chip3004 ( talk) 14:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - The NPR source seems to be the only one offering the sort of coverage we need, the rest are minor coverage, interviews & a student-run blog. Source search is turning up the same items, likely injected as a refbomb to help save the article. I might have said draftify instead, but it seems that's already been attempted, and the article as it is written is promotional and does not meet our standards. (Note- there are sources available that mention the topic, they're just not sufficient) Note 2: Given the fast pace this is moving at, the global block and now a paid tag, I can see this heading into WP:SNOW territory. ASUKITE 14:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Just noting that the creator has also made multiple drafts & redirects of this material, some of which but not all have been removed. This really looks like a spamy attempt to create variations of the article with every possible title for SEO. Regardless of the decision here these need cleanup. These are the 3 actives I can find, there might be more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft:ADAN&redirect=no
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft:Association_for_the_Defense_of_Animals_and_Nature&redirect=no
/info/en/?search=Draft:Foundation_ADAN
JamesG5 (
talk)
17:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- tagged for CSD. This could also be an IAR speedy, but unclear if it's a G5.
Star
Mississippi
16:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Star Mississippi I'm pretty sure these are all socks of
this user anyway.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
17:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- You understand global locks, etc. better than almost anyone else. I will take out the trash. Thanks for flagging. Star Mississippi 17:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Star Mississippi I'm pretty sure these are all socks of
this user anyway.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
17:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- tagged for CSD. This could also be an IAR speedy, but unclear if it's a G5.
Star
Mississippi
16:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Purrple Cat (musician)
- Purrple Cat (musician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Search finds only passing mentions. No significant independent reliable secondary coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable musician – I took a look at this earlier but couldn't find anything. Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 07:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Only currently cited source is self-published, notability is not established and doesn't appear to be claimed. PHANTOMTECH ( talk) 08:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Someone has adopted an interesting strategy of making music as an anonymous cartoon character, but the reliable media has not noticed. Only visible in self-uploaded sites and other typical directory/streaming services. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I looked around and I could only find one (not) source which was a list of artists on a blog post. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 23:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO Kazanstyle ( talk) 11:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per above. Also, this is barely an article. Just a single sentence about this musician's existence, then a discography listing. Like a database. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 19:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- You’re right, I probably should have requested speedy deletion. Guess I was dazzled by the infobox picture. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 08:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Princess Sura of Parthia
- Princess Sura of Parthia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sura of Parthia and List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. World History Encyclopedia seems to have been fooled by this hoax and I know question its reliability. The other sources don't mention a "Sura". Doug Weller talk 07:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Wow I remembered hearing about hoaxes during NPP school, but never thought I would see one pop up like this. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 07:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Middle East. Shellwood ( talk) 10:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete of course, and this title should presumably also be salted to prevent it popping up again. --
asilvering (
talk)
14:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Asilvering definitely. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae ( talk) 16:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete -- Dio Cassius says little on the subject. Herodian records the diplomatic negotiations (including as to marriage), but without naming the daughter. The rest of the article is wholly unverified and could be a hoax. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete like last time. Srnec ( talk) 20:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Xiong Rui
- Xiong Rui ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NBAD zoglophie 06:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and China. zoglophie 06:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. In the absence of any policy based arguments, and no suggestions that WP:SIGCOV is met. Already relisted twice with no further discussion forthcoming. TigerShark ( talk) 03:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
14 Reels Entertainment
- 14 Reels Entertainment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (14 Reels Entertainment: Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (14 Reels Plus: Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article on a film production company, titled under its earlier of two names. An article under the later title (14 Reels Plus) was deleted at AfD in January 2022, and the current instance was created last month. I can't see the earlier article instance to assess whether it a repost, so opening this new AfD. Perhaps the company's involvement in Dookudu might be more than falling under WP:NOTINHERITED, but if so, explicit coverage would be needed. If not, this appears to be just a company going about its business, with passing mentions rather than coverage, and failing to demonstrate specific notability. AllyD ( talk) 10:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. AllyD ( talk) 10:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment the company has a long list of Telugu movies. Perhaps it's notable. -- Bash7oven ( talk) 12:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment: This company has a decent amount of films produced over a time span of 10 years and they are notable in the Telugu industry for producing bigger budget films so it seems like an article that could exist. SP013 ( talk) 16:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was clear consensus against outright deletion and no consensus as to whether to merge or keep. The merge issue does not need this AFD discussion to be extended any further.
Note that some countries, especially anglophone countries or western countries, the UK comes to mind, do have individual articles on all railway stations, and metro stations, in that country, and there may be issues of bias if other countries are not given that treatment. However, coverage in this article is indeed very basic. As such the issue is not settled.
But for purposes of whether or not to delete this article, that issue is settled against deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Pan'an South railway station
- Pan'an South railway station ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Merged to rail line during new page patrol and was reverted. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. No content other than it's existence. IMO would be an inevitable permastub limited to that. I moved the content and image to the line article which IMO is a good, appropriate and stable place for it and was reverted. North8000 ( talk) 16:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood ( talk) 17:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Not enough coverage to justify a standalone article per WP:NOPAGE. And before the inevitable "WE MUST KEEP THIS BECAUSE OF ADJACENT STATIONS!!!!" consider the adjacent station Xianju South railway station. That article has managed an impressive zero views over the past 30 days. Nobody is reading these. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple references that focus on the subject, it meets WP:GNG. Number of views is irrelevant. NemesisAT ( talk) 21:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Mere existence doesn't warrant a standalone article.
XtraJovial (
talk •
contribs)
22:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You haven't presented any reason for deleting the article.
NemesisAT (
talk)
22:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- A merge is not deletion. Surely you understand that. This permastub would convey all the same information as part of a larger article.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
22:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
A merge is not deletion.
The article is no longer visible, so it is effectively deletion. I've already gone over in various AfDs with multiple reasons why I feel separate station articles are beneficial to the project. There's no such thing as a permastub - for example, an event could happen at any station in the future warranting expansion to the relevant station article. NemesisAT ( talk) 22:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)- It's not a deletion - the page could still survive as a redirect. I don't think this article should be outright deleted. The content would still be there, but it would be part of a larger article, not as a standalone permastub. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- A merge is not deletion. Surely you understand that. This permastub would convey all the same information as part of a larger article.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
22:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You haven't presented any reason for deleting the article.
NemesisAT (
talk)
22:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:GNG:
- "磐安县融媒体中心：火车开进磐安 梦想照亮前方". m.thepaper.cn. Retrieved 2022-06-27. - Article about the station opening, has significant information about the station which could be added to the article
- "金台鐵路通車運營一周年：山海之路串聯幸福生活". zj.people.com.cn. Retrieved 2022-06-27. - Describes impact of the station after 1 year, shows WP:SUSTAINED coverage
- 中国蓝新闻. "金台铁路开通运营在即 磐安南站进入冲刺扫尾阶段_哔哩哔哩" (in Simplified Chinese). Retrieved 2022-06-27 – via www.bilibili.com. - A local news report about the construction progress of the station
- Jumpytoo Talk 07:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Longstanding consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment People keep talking about an imaginary "consensus that all rail stations are notable" which does not exist. First, the place such a thing that came out of an actual consensus process is at WP GNG and the SNG's. They aren't mentioned under any SNG's leaving it to GNG says that they have to meet GNG souring. Some folks point to WP:RAILOUTCOMES which:
- Is not even a guideline, it's an observation of common outcomes, and per other posts, it appears that even that observation may be wrong
- Conflicts with their blanket statement, stating a few types which are usually kept after which it says:"Other stations are usually kept or merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they are on.""
- North8000 (
talk)
13:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- All
WP:RAILOUTCOMES does is illustrate the consensus, which most assuredly exists and has been established over many AfDs. Nobody is claiming it is a guideline, but
WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- My post just said that that is not accurate, and gave many specific. You are just repeating your previous assertion. North8000 (
talk)
16:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD.
Is this is a heritage railway? No it isn't. And yes, it is accurate. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- My post just said that that is not accurate, and gave many specific. You are just repeating your previous assertion. North8000 (
talk)
16:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xingke Avenue station Here's consensus to merge a similar train station stub. Your tired, worn out, and mindless "Keep because I say so" argument is wrong, disruptive, and you would be best off dropping it. You're an experienced editor, you should understand that there is no policy that supports your argument. The consensus is determined right here and right now, not at some hypothetical mysterious past event you can never actually identify. Either you can start an RfC to try and support your claims, or you can drop them. You are not the AfD police, and the only reason many previous AfDs for train station stubs have been keeps is because you and your fellow travelers show up religiously at every such AfD to spam "Keep" without being able to point to ANY POLICY to support you, while most do not attract much attention from the broader community. You have repeatedly twisted the concept of consensus into a stick to beat other editors over the head with at AfD. "Keep because all train stations are notable" you cry. We ask you, where is this established? And you can provide nothing except "these other AfDs ended in keep, therefore this one must too, regardless of the differences between those articles and the one here and now." And even if we were to accept your claim that all train stations are inherently notable, that would not mean they all deserve standalone pages. See
WP:NOPAGE. It's interesting that your userpage contains a giant rant about notability policies, yet you appear to have little understanding of them. You say there "we don't have rules that must be inflexibly obeyed" yet that is EXACTLY what you do every time a train station appears at AfD. You inflexibly insist that every single article must be kept regardless of the merits or lack thereof.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
20:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I am an experienced editor. And I understand very well how Wikipedia works. So try to avoid teaching me how to suck eggs with your grand eleven months of editing experience. I say that station articles are notable because I believe they are and, I repeat, that consensus supports me. You may not like it, but it is the case. And be very careful before you accuse other editors of posting spam and being disruptive. A valid opinion is not spam and not disruptive. These attempts to shut down editors who don't agree with you are getting worrying. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Necrothesp, please read the first section from the essay that you have been quoting from and trying to mis-use
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Common outcomes#Citing this page in AfD and you will see that what you have been trying to do with it here conflicts with it in many ways and is invalid.North8000 (
talk)
13:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Specifically the sentence: "Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as "Notability is only an optional guideline" or "We always keep these articles"." Interesting how you're doing exactly what the very page you point to says not to do. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- A valid opinion is not disruptive, and as far as I'm aware no one is shutting you down for having a different opinion than them. It doesn't take over a decade of editing experience (or 11 months, even) to recognize that many of your arguments are unsound and weak. You can !vote keep at railway stations all you want, but if persistently citing RAILOUTCOMES the consensus that supports you without providing where it was established (aside from station AfDs) isn't disruptive, I'm not sure what is. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Necrothesp, please read the first section from the essay that you have been quoting from and trying to mis-use
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Common outcomes#Citing this page in AfD and you will see that what you have been trying to do with it here conflicts with it in many ways and is invalid.North8000 (
talk)
13:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I am an experienced editor. And I understand very well how Wikipedia works. So try to avoid teaching me how to suck eggs with your grand eleven months of editing experience. I say that station articles are notable because I believe they are and, I repeat, that consensus supports me. You may not like it, but it is the case. And be very careful before you accuse other editors of posting spam and being disruptive. A valid opinion is not spam and not disruptive. These attempts to shut down editors who don't agree with you are getting worrying. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- All
WP:RAILOUTCOMES does is illustrate the consensus, which most assuredly exists and has been established over many AfDs. Nobody is claiming it is a guideline, but
WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. For those editors who refuse to accept that a consensus exists that railway stations are notable, here it is very clearly illustrated. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus is a particular Wikipedia decision-making process. You trying to "interpret" something out of a list of articles (including ones that that are there due to "no consensus to delete") isn't it. North8000 (
talk)
19:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I do love it when editors try to poo-poo consensus because it conflicts with their own beliefs on what should be kept. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Having grown sick of your constant berating and attacking anyone who rightfully points out the inherent lack of any real argument you're making, I started
an RfC on the question. The overwhelming consensus there already is that your argument is full of shit, to put it mildly.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- It truly is laughable that you claim I'm "berating and attacking" you! Utterly hilarious, given your growing unpleasantness. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Having grown sick of your constant berating and attacking anyone who rightfully points out the inherent lack of any real argument you're making, I started
an RfC on the question. The overwhelming consensus there already is that your argument is full of shit, to put it mildly.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I do love it when editors try to poo-poo consensus because it conflicts with their own beliefs on what should be kept. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus is a particular Wikipedia decision-making process. You trying to "interpret" something out of a list of articles (including ones that that are there due to "no consensus to delete") isn't it. North8000 (
talk)
19:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep without prejudice to a merge discussion, as not even the nominator has advanced any rationale for deletion. If a bold merge is reverted, the correct next step is to discuss a merge, not AfD. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge, per nom; a standalone article is not justified here, but since the station is verifiable it is appropriate to merge the content.
- On using AfD to propose a merge; it is unorthodox, and perhaps not ideal given the concerns about the overloading of the AfD process, but since the merge process is in an even worse state I don't see it as a problem. BilledMammal ( talk) 15:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge, per nom. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge - fails
WP:GNG,
WP:NOTGUIDE, &
WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
Atsme
💬
📧
17:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sources have been provided above that show it passes GNG. Specifically which parts of NOTGUIDE and NOTDIRECTORY does this fall foul of? NemesisAT ( talk) 17:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment ( edit conflict) May any editors provide any input on the sources I provided above, which both show WP:GNG is met and show that this article can be expanded out of a stub? I also note the next station on this line was also nominated for deletion (likely prompted by a comment in this very AfD!), I presented similar sources, and the consensus was to keep. Is there a reason the sources would be sufficient for that station, but not this one? Jumpytoo Talk 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Long-standing consensus as demonstrated at User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for railway stations is that (a) railway stations and services as a concept are notable and covering them is not WP:UNDUE and (b) they're better covered at standalone articles instead of in lists. Calling other editors "full of shit", while perhaps satisfying in the moment, doesn't change that. Mackensen (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I'm of no fixed opinion; if I was creating the article from scratch, I'd try to find better sources than simply those proving it exists. If there are none, it can be deleted. Is there any indication of architectural details/historical context at the station? If yes, it could be kept. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Satisfies GNG per refs. Djflem ( talk) 21:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge. The sources presented contain insufficient significant coverage of the station from which to build an article so this fails GNG (see also WHYN); the substantive coverage in the sources is mostly of the line. As it stands, this stub is little more than a directory entry. If nothing substantial can be found, the merge is the best option. wjemather please leave a message... 16:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I have expanded the article with the sources provided above and one additional source which describes the planned development around the station:
- "山城磐安拥抱铁路新时代" [Mountain City Pan'an Embraces the New Era of Railway]. Jinhua Daily. Retrieved 2022-07-06 – via Eastday.
- Jumpytoo Talk 19:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- CommentThe article and sourcing has been beefed up. IMO still no GNG sources but IMO it upgrades it into an edge case. Sincerely,North8000 ( talk) 20:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- So that's "best covered as a section in a higher level article", "has moved up to an edge case regarding GNG" and "hell no" to the non-existent claimed "consensus". North8000 ( talk) 14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Article has been significantly expanded by Jumpytoo since all of the merge votes above. NemesisAT ( talk) 21:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a mainline rail station. It's impossible for such projects to be completed without extensive government reports and studies. Sources further demonstrating GNG have been added. Time to move on to more productive editing. Oakshade ( talk) 05:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Reaffirming my merge !vote; while the article has been expanded, I still don't believe a
standalone article is justifiable here, or more beneficial to the reader than a larger article giving the reader a broader picture than this stub does. I also note that I can't read Chinese to be able to determine whether GNG is met.
BilledMammal (
talk)
05:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- You can use Google Translate, it works well enough for evaluating if a source provides significant coverage. The first, second, and fourth sources I provided in this AfD provide significant coverage across several different topics regarding the station across 4 years, which is more than enough to show GNG is met and enough information is available to create a Start-class article or better. Merging the article to the line article would either cause the loss of encyclopedic information or cause WP:DUE issues (think about if every station on the line has the same amount of content as this one). Jumpytoo Talk 07:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep the rationale of Necrothesp. I know we can have a new
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at any time but as evidenced by this AfD, that time is not yet.
Lightburst (
talk)
13:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Necrothesp claimed a consensus that simply does not exist, as comprehensively demonstrated above and at WT:N.
wjemather
please leave a message...
14:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, he definitely didn't. Consensus very clearly exists at AfD. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, consensus at AFD does exist. The problem is, it just isn't what you claim it to be (or even close). Your claim that
"all railway stations are notable"
is demonstrably false – RAILOUTCOMES ("generally kept" is plainly not equivalent to "all are notable") and your own list of AFDs confirm this, as does the 2019 RFC. The current RFC also reaffirms this. wjemather please leave a message... 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- I think you need to reread the list of AfDs. The vast majority of actual railway stations have been kept at AfD.
Consensus does not have to be 100% to be consensus. And also reread the conclusion of the 2019 RfC. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- You didn't claim "vast majority"; you claimed "all". Perhaps you should learn the difference between the two before misrepresenting consensus again? wjemather please leave a message... 12:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- As for the RFC:
"No consensus exists... to presume all train station articles... are notable..."
(a sentiment repeated more than once in the closing statement, e.g."I do not see a consensus to presume all train stations are notable"
). How anyone could possibly read this as consensus for all stations being notable, I simply do not know. wjemather please leave a message... 12:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)- I don't think you quite understand the definition of consensus. Never mind. I'll let somebody else explain. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, what's clear is that you (an admin!) either do not understand the difference between verifiability and notability, or worse, are deliberately conflating them in order to gaslight the community. wjemather please leave a message... 10:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you keep being disruptive by deliberately ignoring the consensus clearly reached at the RfC, I will be seeking sanctions against you. Please don't let it get to that point. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you quite understand the definition of consensus. Never mind. I'll let somebody else explain. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think you need to reread the list of AfDs. The vast majority of actual railway stations have been kept at AfD.
Consensus does not have to be 100% to be consensus. And also reread the conclusion of the 2019 RfC. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, consensus at AFD does exist. The problem is, it just isn't what you claim it to be (or even close). Your claim that
- No, he definitely didn't. Consensus very clearly exists at AfD. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Necrothesp claimed a consensus that simply does not exist, as comprehensively demonstrated above and at WT:N.
wjemather
please leave a message...
14:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge
WP:RUNOFTHEMILL station, does not warrant a standalone article.
MrsSnoozyTurtle
09:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay, not policy or guideline, and certainly no basis for deleting an article.
NemesisAT (
talk)
10:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- No one has proposed deleting the article? BilledMammal ( talk) 10:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay, not policy or guideline, and certainly no basis for deleting an article.
NemesisAT (
talk)
10:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Meets GNG per sources provided by Jumpytoo. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 00:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge - Per the other merge votes which set out good reasons. The "all stations are notable" argument is a ghost zombie consensus - does not exist yet refuses to die.
MaxnaCarta (
talk)
23:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not only that, it has actively been refuted by a well-attended RfC; see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of train stations which found an active consensus against train stations being inherently notable. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe I just missed it, but for all the "merge" !votes here, I don't see any indication about what the merge target should be. Would someone please specify the target? --
MelanieN (
talk)
20:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ MelanieN: That would be Jinhua–Taizhou railway, the rail line the station is located on. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Apache AGE
- Apache AGE ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:TOOSOON. Announced 2 months ago. There is not enough coverage in reliable independent sources yet. MarioGom ( talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom ( talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi MarioGom,
- Before discuss about this deletion, I am really wondering this was announced 2 months ago about independent sources. I just tried to edit at 20 June. Does this mean anyone tried to edit earlier? Sellme4001 ( talk) 00:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT ( talk) 10:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Bernard Coyne (giant)
AfDs for this article:
- Bernard Coyne (giant) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not the Guness Book of World Records. Merely being the tallest person in the world at a given time is not enough to show notability, and the sourcing here I do not think is enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was able to find
this in a brief search.
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
15:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- This looks to be a source very local to where Coyne lived. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iowa. Shellwood ( talk) 15:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per the two existing sources in the article, the extra source from BeanieFan, and the lasting coverage from Guinness over at least a couple of decades (from the editions I've checked). At worst, a redirect to List of tallest people would be an other option rather than deletion, per WP:ATD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, being 8 feet tall is very rare and is surely a keep worthy thing as is being in the guinness book world records.
- Height records are not a sign of default notability, and merely being mentioned in the Guiness Book of World Records is not a substantial coverage incident, so it really does not add toward passing GNG, let alone on its own constitute enough to justify keeping an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, I do think that lasting coverage from Guinness over at least a couple of decades is grounds for keeping, and shouldn't warrant a delete, not by much though, but still worthy of a keep. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 02:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: The sources are authentic, worthy of a keep Proton Dental ( talk) 01:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Rainbow S.p.A.. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Colorado Film
- Colorado Film ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable subsidiary of Viacom Italia, fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP tagged for notability since Feb 2022 now here we are. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Business, and Italy. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Any further insights? The article was mainly created as an English-translation of the Italian studio. MegaSmike46 ( talk) 12:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- And the Italian article has issues and tags highlighting these. Different languages apply different standards, so this may be notable by Italian Wikipedia standards, but I believe this fails the EnWiki notability guideline. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It's hard to find anything on them due to Google returning unrelated results for "Colorado Film." However, based on the number of films that they have on Wikipedia, I would think it would be beneficial to keep this page, but I am not sure if there are any policies around this. i.e based on WP:NACTOR if an actor is in multiple well known roles then they qualify, so wouldn't a production company that has multiple well known movies also qualify??? Zeddedm ( talk) 03:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Rainbow S.p.A. as per ATD, on its own this studio fails NCORP criteria for notability of companies. HighKing ++ 16:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral comment As the name would make you think of filming in the state of Colorado rather than the name of a film company (here the "Colorado Office of Film, Television and Media'), I thought a natural disambiguation could be part of this page, but we do not have any plausible redirects for articles regarding the film industry in that state. Nate • ( chatter) 21:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing ++ 15:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Rainbow S.p.A.. No notability on its own. Very little coverage that I can see. Wes sideman ( talk) 12:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Josephus. The extent to which there is encyclopedic, non-redundant content can be determined during the merge process (and if there is none, this can be redirected outright). @ 333-blue: There was no need to relist this. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 15:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Flavius Justus
- Flavius Justus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also including:
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. None of the articles say anything notable about Josephus's sons that isn't either trivial (i.e. name etymologies), or simply relating to the life or ancestry of Josephus himself. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Israel. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Josephus, they are mentioned there.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) ( talk) 08:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge to Josephus without leaving redirects. Normally I would suggest leaving redirects, but it seems unlikely that anybody will search for the sons of Josephus without visiting that article. As far as I can tell, none of them seem to have done anything of historical significance, and according to these three articles virtually nothing is known of them except their existence and relationships to other persons—all of whom should be mentioned under Josephus. There is a little speculation about their names—but that could reasonably be included in the section about Josephus' family. The only incoming links, besides a redirect or two from alternative forms of their names and various user pages, are from each other, Josephus, and Flavia gens, so I see no particular reason to believe that users would expect to find articles about them. P Aculeius ( talk) 11:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per Aculeius, but I think keeping redirects would be fine. ★Trekker ( talk) 12:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Josephus (which will leave a redirect). He is not separately notable: WP:NOTINHERITED. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Josephus per the arguments above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 20:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect all to Josephus. For people who lived 2000 years ago, notability is often inherited. Here we know the names of three sons of Josephus and nothing else. Everything else is trivia or information on Josephus. The names of the sons can be listed in the target article. And since they are already listed there, a merge is unjustified. gidonb ( talk) 15:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Independent-Green Party US
- Independent-Green Party US ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable political party fails WP:NORG ( t · c) buidhe 04:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. ( t · c) buidhe 04:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The Independent-Green Party US is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Their state affiliates in Alaska, Geogia, Rhode Island, and Virginia already have a Wikipedia page. The 2008 Green presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney supports and is a member of the party. There has been no failure to meet notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackrobert007 ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ Jackrobert007: Comments in discussions are placed at the bottom, and notability is not inherited — you must provide at least two independent reliable, secondary sources about Independent-Green Party US. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ LaundryPizza03: with all due respect, notability inheritance was not the argument I justified this page’s creation with, a political party organization and it’s notability are the product of its membership (state party affiliates and notable individuals involved) and work. The Independent-Green Party US is a notable parent organization to the affiliated notable branches of this said parent organization. In addition, more than two sources proving the organization’s notability and notable work have been added. – <b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackrobert007 ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment An ANI report about this AfD has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious_AfD_closure. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- DeleteThere is an absence of significant, independent secondary coverage of this organization (see WP:NORG, WP:NEXIST, WP:ORGDEPTH; WP:BRANCH might also apply), indicative of, or at least consistent with, WP:TOOSOON. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 08:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The relatively generic words in the name make is hard to search for without getting results about other parties, but I was not able to find significant independent coverage about this party, and the sources already provided in the article are definitely not enough to establish notability. -- RL0919 ( talk) 15:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Clemen Chiang
- Clemen Chiang ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. Puff article. Refs are profiles, blogs, dead links, dissertion, primary. No significant secondary coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep Talk 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Singapore. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Quick question: is there no hope for draftification? There's no draftification move in the edit history.
– robertsky (
talk)
14:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well that is the new rules, it can be drafted if that is the decision of the Afd, its certainly within the time frame for it. I sent it to Afd as I examined the first two blocks of references, and they were woeful. I suspect that they're all in there already but they're very very poor. The 15 day rules applies on new articles, but its well past that. If you think its needing drafted, please say so. scope_creep Talk 14:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I created the article and I was under impression it would easily fulfill the notability guidelines. Probably the nominator looked only into the initial blocks of references. There is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. There are a few sources directly related to him that I used to add some personal information about him. That information (like education, personal life) is obviously not the type that would give the idea of notability and not used with that intent. Most of the sources are with WP:SIGCOV in mind and there is plenty of them. To put it briefly, the notable coverage about him is related to co-founding CozyCot, founding Spiking and bringing Dîner en Blanc to Singapore/Asia. The coverage about the last thing was to some extent increased by some controversy about the way he handled the inclusion of local food, but it looked too trivial to me to mention it in the article. For example, the coverage in Wall Street Journal is focused on the other general aspects around this event. I searched online to see if there is new coverage about him and I added some articles from Forbes and Entrepreneur. Manzzoku ( talk) 16:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ Manzzoku: Post up some decent references, so we can examine them, to see if he is notable. Three per WP:THREE will do. scope_creep Talk 11:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- For example, Marissa Lee (2 April 2016).
"New app to track big players' share trades".
The Straits Times.
- Aaron Low (10 October 2016). "Helping retail investors gain an edge". The Business Times.
- Hoe Pei Shan (30 June 2014). "3,000 guests expected at Diner en Blanc picnic". The Straits Times.
- There is a more comprehensive article about the initial 2012 Diner en Blanc, with the controversies about the initial rejection of local hawker food (I am not sure if this would be too trivial to include in the article), but it is behind paywall:
- Shibani Mahtani (31 August 2012). "Diner en Blanc Takes Off in Singapore — With Chicken Rice". Wall Street Journal.
- Manzzoku ( talk) 11:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Omoba Central Model School
- Omoba Central Model School ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to draftify as Draft:Omoba Central Model School already exists. In my searches, I was unable to find any sources that meet the requirements of WP:ORGDEPTH, therefore school appears to fail WP:NORG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nigeria. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I have removed content that appears to have been a copyvio. Singularity42 ( talk) 16:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If the consensus is to Draftify this article, that can be done as the existing draft is a blank page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The draft and article were created by the same user, User:Harvey PearsonKing. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B ( talk) 20:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify: the article doesn’t appear to be ready yet. – 333 -blue at 06:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete both per NORG. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Clearly, the consensus is that this article does not adequately demonstrate that the topic fulfills the notability requirements that all standalone WP articles must satisfy. However, with that said, I am unilaterally and preemptively moving this article to Draft:UAPx for a few reasons:
- Judging from the number of new editors who joined WP only to participate in this deletion discussion, there is clearly a small set of editors that have an interest in covering this topic on WP. If we simply deleted the article, this (obviously determined) group of editors would probably just recreate it and cause disruption. Moving it to a draft page keeps it out of mainspace and Google searches, but preserves the content and allows this group (and other editors) to continue working on the article without being disrupted or causing disruption, if they're interested in doing so.
- This group of new editors seems interested enough to at least start learning about WP policies and guidelines, and slowly delving deeper into our strange world here. I'd like to encourage them to continue learning about how things work here, in the hopes that perhaps some of them will eventually join us more permanently as editors.
This long discussion should provide copious amounts of instruction on what you'd need to do to get this article to a state where it clearly satisfies our notability guidelines. Note that there is no guarantee that you'll ever get it to this state no matter how hard you work on it: if the sources simply don't exist, then it's not notable. But, please understand that all articles on Wikipedia must be supported by significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you decide to continue working on this article, please at least thoroughly read WP:GNG and WP:ORG to understand the bar that you're shooting for. And, once notability has been established, please understand that the article must be written from a neutral point of view, and cannot have a promotional tone. Good luck. —ScottyWong— 03:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
UAPx
 | 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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- UAPx ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
complete vanity spam about a non notable, obscure UFO research group (seriously, the "doctors" are linked to...imdb?!) with no coverage in reliable academic/scientific journals and only brief passing mentions from random people in interviews. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- GNG: How is the above ad hominem deemed acceptable here?
seriously, the "doctors" are linked to...imdb?!
The author linked to IMDB when he/she should have linked to established university faculty pages at SUNY Albany. How is that in any way reflective of the qualifications of those linked? — Answer: Obviously, it is not. The aforementioned scientists are tenured physics professors at a US research university, each leading independent federally-funded research groups of their own. From Wikipedia guidelines:Editors are not expected to know everything. Anyone acting in good faith may contribute.
The organization is covered in multiple secondary sources, e.g. Ex-Military, NASA Veterans form UFO Research Group or This Silicon Valley Startup Is Dedicated to Detecting UFOs Off the California Coast. Did deletionist trolls take over all free reign precluding even a smattering of due diligence? WP:TOOSOON it may well be, but the above bias colours the entire debate in bad faith from the outset. Your Kangaroo court is now in session. 🤖 Not the droid you're looking for ( talk) 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)— Not the droid you're looking for ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.- i joined the social media of this UFO group to have a look and can confirm there is an effort to brigade this page for support. this comment is a very good example of this, as can be seen by the fact it shares many of the exact buzz words as the other menbers of UAPx below
Fafrotsky (
talk)
17:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC) —
Fafrotsky (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Doubling down on an ad hominem with yet another ad hominem? I've no part of any gossip group or effort to ‘brigade.’ It's the content that counts. Parent comment engaged in deliberate mischaracterization. Those big bad ‘buzzwords?’ Not so much, each being sourced from the references themselves.
WP:AGF. Not everyone whose perspective differs from your own is part of a conspiracy. 🤖
Not the droid you're looking for (
talk)
05:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Conspiracy, no, brigading is obvious from the above post. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Doubling down on an ad hominem with yet another ad hominem? I've no part of any gossip group or effort to ‘brigade.’ It's the content that counts. Parent comment engaged in deliberate mischaracterization. Those big bad ‘buzzwords?’ Not so much, each being sourced from the references themselves.
WP:AGF. Not everyone whose perspective differs from your own is part of a conspiracy. 🤖
Not the droid you're looking for (
talk)
05:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- i joined the social media of this UFO group to have a look and can confirm there is an effort to brigade this page for support. this comment is a very good example of this, as can be seen by the fact it shares many of the exact buzz words as the other menbers of UAPx below
Fafrotsky (
talk)
17:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC) —
Fafrotsky (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- GNG: How is the above ad hominem deemed acceptable here?
- One issue that plagues UFology is “instant gratification” - historically, a video comes out, a slew of folks make comments on it and arguments happen with zero final determination as to its legitimacy. I can assure you that UAPx is not an "obscure UFO research group."
- They aren’t playing that game, and people mistake thier silence for a lack of work. I can assure you this isn’t happening with UAPx.
- Almost a year ago, their team signed an agreement with a producer. The abbreviated version of the agreement was this: In exchange for the producer covering all of their expenses and giving them access to the UAPx team and activities, UAPx would do an expedition. The location was selected as Catalina Island. The budget wasn’t large. They were only given 5 days, 4 of them were used for actual research.
- They honestly never expected to capture anything given the time constraints and the working conditions - but They did. They STILL DO NOT KNOW what it is they captured. In figuring that out they are/have:
- written, created and tested custom artificial intelligence neural nets which are now analyzing 600 hours of FLIR video. This took almost a year to create - it never existed before. Now that they have this neural net, future analysis doesn’t need to wait for a year to begin.
- created custom machine learning applications that analyze images to output probability percentages of the size and shape of objects seen in the video. This needed (and needs) trained. They have to input every basic geometric shape along with all known aircraft, drone, missile and targeting pod the civilian world and military world uses - then run the system for millions of iterations on each shape to get the machine learning system to output an accurate probability index of a match/no match.
- They are STIll fighting the United States Government to obtain satellite imagery - you can see their denied and delayed FOIAs on their Twitter and discord.
- They did obtain a mountain of data from 3rd party agencies such as CalTech’s “LIGO” and the USGs NOAA - they are still in the process of parsing that data to find any correlations between statistical anomalies which may be buried in that data with the times of their captures. This requires a 60 hour a week position by a computational astrophysicist- which they just onboarded a week ago. (Welcome Dr. Ben Placek, Ph.D.) and please thank the continuing and tireless efforts of Dr. Matthew Szydagis, Ph.D.)
- As a startup company, their administration team is constantly responding to threads of complaint, social media issues, website maintenance, fund raising and new onboarding and evaluations. This is their contribution as they aren’t physicists.
- The peer review process, after submission, is not under their control. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to write a peer-review article in a respected journal that suffers from stigma caused by 80 years of pseudo-science? Once the papers are finalized (which they are not because the data is still being analyzed) then the process takes weeks at best and many months as expected. Their writing and findings must be reviewed by whichever Ph.Ds the journal selects (a blind process to them) and all questions, comments, and concerns must be addressed by UAPx with a re-submission. This is what guarantees that the final output has withstood the scrutiny of peer-review science, not just knee-jerk social media wanting bias confirmation.
- I’m sorry that people have been programmed for this idea of instant gratification - but this just goes to show how little ACTUAL science has occurred in this field. When you do it right, these things take a LOT of time.
- But an "obscure ufo research group" UAPx is not - having a full length feature-film about UAPx as well as an episode of History's "The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch" depicting their approach to research does not make an "obscure UFP research group"
- FOR THE PEER REVIEW PUBLISHED PAPERS, please see:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514271/ by Dr. Kevin Knuth of UAPx as well as
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14667302/
OSIRIS UAP (
talk)
22:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)—
OSIRIS UAP (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Furthermore, UAPx is even referenced in other scientific publications - for example (and already included in the article is:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.04438.pdf "Multistatic radar measurements of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena by cell and open access radio networks" by Karl Svozil∗ Institute for Theoretical Physics, TU Wien, Wiedner Hauptstrasse 8-10/136, 1040 Vienna, Austria (Dated: March 17, 2022)which directly references UAPx on page 2 and in the publication's citations.
OSIRIS UAP (
talk)
22:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you please be more concise and stop diatribe bombing this AFD? Also read WP:RS and wP:NOT. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Skinwalker Ranch is on History TV, which insn't a reliable source. The other sources are published by a member of the group, not about the group. None of these are usable. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- OSIRIS UAP - The two journal articles that you listed above ( here and here) do not provide coverage of any kind in regards to the article subject. The first article is a journal that documents the mathematics involved with the estimation of flight characteristics of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) - nothing about the article subject itself. The second article is just an abstract involving the use of computational techniques to solve difficult and complex problems and equations. The other reference you provided, which was a link to this document here also fails to provide any kind of coverage regarding the organization. I still fail to be shown or provided with any kind of references or sources that comply with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Do you have any? ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Furthermore, UAPx is even referenced in other scientific publications - for example (and already included in the article is:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.04438.pdf "Multistatic radar measurements of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena by cell and open access radio networks" by Karl Svozil∗ Institute for Theoretical Physics, TU Wien, Wiedner Hauptstrasse 8-10/136, 1040 Vienna, Austria (Dated: March 17, 2022)which directly references UAPx on page 2 and in the publication's citations.
OSIRIS UAP (
talk)
22:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete all sources are from their website.The Arxiv pre-print server isn't a reliable source and the two papers cited above don't help either. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)- There are plenty of sources that are not from the UAPx website, ergo your assertion that "all sources are from their website" is manifestly incorrect.
- Regarding Dr Knuth's paper; he is the VP of UAPx. Therefore, the published paper is not only directly relevant to my article about UAPx, but his position with the organisation also informs regarding its nature as a scientifically grounded research group. That was the point of that reference. The criticism has been raised that UAPx is somehow "not scientific". The core team consists of 4 professional physicists - amongst them, Associate Professor in the Department of Physics at the University at Albany, Dr Knuth. He has a published article in a respected peer reviewed journal pertaining to UAP. As UAPx vice president, I would argue that this demonstrates the organisation is a science focused research group.
- This is Wikipedia - which is supposed to contain factual information about notable organisations. My article did precisely that - it claimed to do no more and no less. Cosmoid ( talk) 00:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Cosmoid - The only references cited in the article are from the organization's website. This constitutes a primary source and cannot be used to determine the
notability of an article subject. If there are other references that are
reliable,
secondary, and
independent of the article subject that cover the subject primarily (not in passing mention or while covering a different subject or topic), please by all means, list them here so that I can take a look at them. I'll be more than happy to assist you should you have any questions, or have these other sources that you can provide. :-)
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
02:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- This source, for example, speaks to the notability of the organisation. It also quotes UAPx VP Dr Kevin Knuth. Granted it is not *entirely* about UAPx, however this is more than just a name-check.
-
https://www.space.com/2022-turning-point-study-ufos-uap
Cosmoid (
talk)
02:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Cosmoid - Thank you for the link. Looking at the information provided in the reference you linked me to, it does make some passing mention of UAPx, but does not cover this organization as the jounral's primary topic or story. While this certainly can be used to cite a very small amount of content that might be added to the Wikipedia article, this reference alone doesn't meet Wikipedia's
general notability guidelines. To quote an important statement on that page, an article subject or topic can be presumed to be
notable if it has "received significant coverage in
reliable sources that are
independent of the subject." To explain, there must exist enough significant coverage of this article subject in secondary reliable sources to where a full and complete article can be written that where all content is either
attributable to reliable sources, or directly attributed to them (meaning that all content is
verifiable and able to be referenced by reliable sources). I'm afraid that I don't see that this necessary level of coverage exists...
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
02:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for considering the points I have raised. Whilst I maintain that I believe the tone, nature and intent of this article merits notability - being that UAPx is a reasonably well known UAP scientific research group with a host of highly credentialed professional scientists - I acknowledge that in terms of the 'letter of the Wikipedia law', one might make the case that additional secondary sources would certainly enhance my article's notability. I will endeavour to seek these out, and am also looking forward to the publication of the group's scientific papers later this year, which I hope would lend even greater weight to my case for UAPx's inclusion in Wikipedia. Cosmoid ( talk) 03:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oshwah - I have another reference. This is *about* UAPx as its primary subject matter:
- https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group/ Cosmoid ( talk) 12:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- And, another link specifically about UAPx, Oshwah:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost
Cosmoid (
talk)
12:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK these are seemingly better sources (which is good that you have found some articles which discuss the subject specifically, thanks for that). I would just comment on Vice as I can't comment on PopularMechanics.com for the moment, It is considered to on WP:RS to have 'no consensus on the reliability' of the publication, while this doesn't immediately rule out it does not lead very well as one of your main sources for establishing notability (but is better then anything currently anyway).
Tweedle (
talk)
14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your positive engagement Oshwah, I appreciate that. I'll continue to seek additional reference sources.
Cosmoid (
talk)
14:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh no this is me Tweedle, apologies, I should have responded under your comment underneath mine!
Tweedle (
talk)
14:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah I didn't notice it was your name at the end there - either way thank you for the feedback! Cosmoid ( talk) 19:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh no this is me Tweedle, apologies, I should have responded under your comment underneath mine!
Tweedle (
talk)
14:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your positive engagement Oshwah, I appreciate that. I'll continue to seek additional reference sources.
Cosmoid (
talk)
14:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK these are seemingly better sources (which is good that you have found some articles which discuss the subject specifically, thanks for that). I would just comment on Vice as I can't comment on PopularMechanics.com for the moment, It is considered to on WP:RS to have 'no consensus on the reliability' of the publication, while this doesn't immediately rule out it does not lead very well as one of your main sources for establishing notability (but is better then anything currently anyway).
Tweedle (
talk)
14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Cosmoid - Thank you for the link. Looking at the information provided in the reference you linked me to, it does make some passing mention of UAPx, but does not cover this organization as the jounral's primary topic or story. While this certainly can be used to cite a very small amount of content that might be added to the Wikipedia article, this reference alone doesn't meet Wikipedia's
general notability guidelines. To quote an important statement on that page, an article subject or topic can be presumed to be
notable if it has "received significant coverage in
reliable sources that are
independent of the subject." To explain, there must exist enough significant coverage of this article subject in secondary reliable sources to where a full and complete article can be written that where all content is either
attributable to reliable sources, or directly attributed to them (meaning that all content is
verifiable and able to be referenced by reliable sources). I'm afraid that I don't see that this necessary level of coverage exists...
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
02:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Cosmoid - The only references cited in the article are from the organization's website. This constitutes a primary source and cannot be used to determine the
notability of an article subject. If there are other references that are
reliable,
secondary, and
independent of the article subject that cover the subject primarily (not in passing mention or while covering a different subject or topic), please by all means, list them here so that I can take a look at them. I'll be more than happy to assist you should you have any questions, or have these other sources that you can provide. :-)
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
02:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please reinstate this very useful and relevant Wikipedia page. UAPx is comprised of reputable former NASA and PhD level scientists, reputable military veterans who are devoted to the scientific process, and UAPx has been strongly endorsed by world renown physicist Michio Kaku and other celebrities. Mungermentalmodel ( talk) 01:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC) — Mungermentalmodel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Saying two peer reviewed articles from government websites "don't help" hardly constitutes a sound argument for dismissing them as relevant.
Mungermentalmodel (
talk)
01:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- They don't help as explained above. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I find this to be a very subjective argument. How do you define notable? How do you define what is a passing mention vs a more substantial mention? Praxidicae is putting the word doctors in quotes, implying that UAPx isn't comprised of people with doctorate degrees, which it is. Here you can see Michio Kaku and William Shatner participating in a documentary about UAPx and talking at length about them: (search youtube for "A Tear in the Sky Trailer") I'd hardly call this a non notable group with only passing mentions by people. Please reinstate this useful page that has been taken down by someone who I would say is trolling.
Mungermentalmodel (
talk)
01:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- ok now you have to be kidding. this account is obviously a sock puppet that is unabashedly shilling for this UFO group, its specially obvious in the language you use Fafrotsky ( talk) 01:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Mungermentalmodel - Wikipedia's notability guidelines are available to be reviewed by navigating to
this policy page. A helpful section within this policy page is
here, which explains Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best -
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
01:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. It would seem to me the UAPx group meets this burden by being mentioned in a peer reviewed article written by a former NASA AMES research scientist who has a PhD in physics. This is not a group of people looking to make money, these are scientists who brave ridicule and are doing the good work of promoting the scientific process in a field that's hotly debated and filled with quacks. They're using scientific instruments and just want a platform to support the honest effort to bring the unbiased truth to this topic. I'm sure they'll be happy to make any improvements to their page to satisfy requirements. I see them as being taken seriously by the scientific community which is a rare and welcome occurrence when it comes to UAPs.
Mungermentalmodel (
talk)
02:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Key here is being "mentioned", the article isn't about them directly, only in passing. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. It would seem to me the UAPx group meets this burden by being mentioned in a peer reviewed article written by a former NASA AMES research scientist who has a PhD in physics. This is not a group of people looking to make money, these are scientists who brave ridicule and are doing the good work of promoting the scientific process in a field that's hotly debated and filled with quacks. They're using scientific instruments and just want a platform to support the honest effort to bring the unbiased truth to this topic. I'm sure they'll be happy to make any improvements to their page to satisfy requirements. I see them as being taken seriously by the scientific community which is a rare and welcome occurrence when it comes to UAPs.
Mungermentalmodel (
talk)
02:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- speedy delete Bad and dishonest sourcing, obvious AD language ("popular movie tear in the sky"), little notability, lack of scientific rigor and likely sockpuppeting from one of the menbers of the organization
Fafrotsky (
talk)
01:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Fafrotsky - Which
speedy deletion criterion do you believe that this article meets?
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
01:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:G11
Fafrotsky (
talk)
01:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Fafrotsky - The article is not worded in a manner that constitutes blatant advertising or promotion, and is not eligible for
G11.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
02:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- thank you, i am new here and open to criticisms
Fafrotsky (
talk)
17:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fafrotsky - No problem! Assisting new Wikipedia editors and users is part of the duties and responsibilities that I regularly carry out on Wikipedia. If you run into any more questions, please don't hesitate to contact me by messaging me on my user talk page. I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you. :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- thank you, i am new here and open to criticisms
Fafrotsky (
talk)
17:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Fafrotsky - The article is not worded in a manner that constitutes blatant advertising or promotion, and is not eligible for
G11.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
02:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:G11
Fafrotsky (
talk)
01:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I have already explained - and as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the comments - "popular" was in reference to being made for a popular audience - as opposed to niche demographic, like for example a video presentation at a scientific conference.
- What, exactly, lacks "scientific rigour"? The article was not about a scientific theory. It was about a research group.
Cosmoid (
talk)
02:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then say 'mainstream'? Come on everyone knows the connotation of the word 'popular' in the phrase; 'The popular movie included commentary by well known physicist (...)'. Look I can even re-word it for you 'The movie was released with the intended market of a mainstream auidence and featured physicist (...).'
Tweedle (
talk)
12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be more than happy to replace the word "popular" with "mainstream". For what it's worth: the use of "popular" was not used with the *intention* to convey a subjective or objective measurement of the movie's audience size or ratings, and it is commonly used in the way in which I did intend it in British English (where I live) - i.e., to denote its appeal to a popular, as opposed to a niche audience.
- In any case, given that I pledge to change that word to "mainstream" once I am able to edit the page (it is locked, ergo I cannot make changes at the moment), I'd request that you reconsider the aspect of your objection that is based on this phrase. Cosmoid ( talk) 17:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then say 'mainstream'? Come on everyone knows the connotation of the word 'popular' in the phrase; 'The popular movie included commentary by well known physicist (...)'. Look I can even re-word it for you 'The movie was released with the intended market of a mainstream auidence and featured physicist (...).'
Tweedle (
talk)
12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Fafrotsky - Which
speedy deletion criterion do you believe that this article meets?
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
01:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Majority of non-unique and unique sources are from this organisations own website, produced by the subject organisation such as the 2 research papers linked (both here fall under primary sources and are Source's 1 to 11), or from sites affiliated with the organisation such as Source 20 for example. Furthermore, links to sites which are not affiliated only mention the subject briefly;
- Source 13 only mentions the subject in one line quote; 'Fundraising is the hardest part. [The nonprofit] UAPx is one, and the Galileo Project [at Harvard University] is another.'
- Source 14 is a copy-paste of a blog post on Medium by the organisation themselves.
- Source 15 is better, much more proper coverage, but again the subject is not the main focus of the Space.com article is only included at the very ending section out of a total of 5 sections.
- Source 16 is from a small movie review website which does not demonstrate notability of the organisation themselves.
- Source 21 (Source 22 would fall under this as well) by Heavy.com are more articles based more around interviews of the professor of this organisation and a discussion about Star Trek but WP:RS says that Heavy.com is not great of a source and should not be relied upon; 'There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied :upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead.'
- Whether these can be used can be debated, Source 22 is actually better in this because at-least it discusses the Tear in the Sky movie, but again is more of a discussion around that then a discussion around the organisation
- Source 23 is a unrelated 1974 article about UFO spotting's which has nothing to do with this group at all.
- Source 24 is from the History Channel which is unreliable. 'Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories.'
- Also the 'Catalina Island Expedition - A Tear in the Sky' section reads kind of like an ad?
- Overall in my opinion the group is not really notable enough for a Wikipedia article (but by all means does not mean that the subject is irrelevant in the UFO scene of-course)
Tweedle (
talk)
12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Catalina Island section does not "read like an ad". It is describing a key event in UAPx's history which is entirely pertinent to the organization's notability.
- Source 23 was cited as evidence to support the claim that the Skinwalker Ranch area is widely regarded as a "hotspot for UAP sightings". This is directly relevant to UAPx's recent expedition to the ranch and thus the mention in my article.
- Regarding additional sources, here are two more (which I'm currently unable to add, due to the article's locked status):
- https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group/
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost
Cosmoid (
talk)
13:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- 'The Catalina Island section does not "read like an ad"' - I dont want to obsess too much on this point, I think it could be re-written mainly but to stress this is not an assumption of bad faith of you by the way.
- 'Source 23 was cited as evidence to support the claim that the Skinwalker Ranch area' - Fair point, mistake on my behalf as I was skimming through the sources, however we would most likely have to remove said section due to the main point and source being the History Channel citation to which the History Channel itself is considered to be unreliable.
- Regarding the two additional sources attached to this I will just copy and paste what I wrote above which you responded to;
- I would just comment on Vice as I can't comment on PopularMechanics.com for the moment, It is considered to on WP:RS to have 'no consensus on the reliability' of the publication, while this doesn't immediately rule out it does not lead very well as one of your main sources for establishing notability (but is better then anything currently anyway).
Tweedle (
talk)
19:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd certainly re-write that section to remove any language that might be considered promotional in any way. No problem at all.
Cosmoid (
talk)
19:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The rest of the sources are problematic as discussed, removing the promotional items might help, but we need better sourcing.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
RedirectI was hoping for something in this Cnet article [27], the group is only mentioned in the last few lines of the article. Rest of the Gnews pages are press release type articles or sketchy websites. I don't think this group has notability, yet. I would reconsider a redirect to the " /info/en/?search=Unidentified_Aerial_Phenomena_Task_Force", which is basically what this group is studying, the US Navy videos. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)- I don't think redirect a non-notable group is a good idea just based on it's mere existence. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- UAPx is *not* studying the US Navy videos. The organisation is conducting its own research expeditions with a view to obtaining primary data for analysis by the team of analysts and professional physicists. Case in point, the Catalina Island expedition, which was filmed by the independent production company for the Tear in the Sky movie that I referenced. Preliminary analysis of the data was presented at the recent SCU AAPC conference (also referenced) and the science team is currently writing several papers for submission to peer reviewed journals towards the end of this year.
- In reference to the "notability" requirements - please see these two links, which specifically pertain to UAPx:
- https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost
- I would add these to my article, however I am currently unable to edit as it is locked. Cosmoid ( talk) 18:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd also add that a redirect to the UAPTF would be wholly inappropriate. UAPx is a nonprofit organisation and is not affiliated with any US government agency. Cosmoid ( talk) 18:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force -was- a tax-dollar funded US Government Program which is now defunct and those responsibilities have been taken over by another USG department called the irborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG) https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2853121/dod-announces-the-establishment-of-the-airborne-object-identification-and-manag/ Both of those are official US Government programs. UAPx is, as has been clearly stated here, on their site, and in nearly every reference, a civilian organization which does not work with or for the US Government. Redirecting the UAPx page to the UAPTF should not occur. 174.68.143.246 ( talk) 18:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The rest of the sources are problematic as discussed, removing the promotional items might help, but we need better sourcing.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd certainly re-write that section to remove any language that might be considered promotional in any way. No problem at all.
Cosmoid (
talk)
19:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- From what I saw, they were studying what was in the tic tac video. I'd just delete it at this point, notability has not been established and it appears at best a fringe group, at worst, something filmed for television (not quite as bad as the Ancient Aliens fellows which is another reason why we can't accept History TV as a source imho)). Submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal doesn't help, it needs to be accepted and published (heck, I can submit a paper to them, just as anyone could).
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- For a group established 3 yrs ago, they have 1300 something followers on Discord and 3000 or so on Twitter, or the other way around. I'd expect a much larger following if it was in the least bit notable. Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes, but I follow train bloggers on youtube that have more followers than this group does. It's mathematicians/scientists gathering data at the end of the day, which is what they do. Almost appears routine at this point.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- So following my providing the additional links that clearly support "notability", you're now trying to shift the ground by trying to define that on the basis of how many social media followers the group has? Really?! You contradict yourself by stating "Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes"; so then why bring it up if it is not legitimate grounds to speak to "notability"? Is it because I have gone out of my way to provide references that meet what has been asked, so you're now looking to create a perception to sway opinion that is not, in actual fact, based on Wikipedia's own stated requirements?
Cosmoid (
talk)
11:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's showing how non-notable it is. I'm colouring the discussing, you can read it however you please. I still don't see notability. If you don't like my two cents, well, it's only two cents.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, your social media comment clearly was not "showing how non-notable it is", being that - as you have already conceded - "Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes".
Cosmoid (
talk)
22:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- exactly, and the group is even less notable in the public eye, which shows how it's not terribly notable either.
Oaktree b (
talk)
16:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- A subject's social media presence is entirely irrelevant to the discussion - as you have already conceded. So, the statement it "shows how it's not terribly notable either" is fallacious & adds nothing of substance to the discussion; there can be no impact on "notability" from a domain that lies outwith the bounds of how "notability" is defined. Cosmoid ( talk) 21:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- exactly, and the group is even less notable in the public eye, which shows how it's not terribly notable either.
Oaktree b (
talk)
16:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, your social media comment clearly was not "showing how non-notable it is", being that - as you have already conceded - "Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes".
Cosmoid (
talk)
22:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's showing how non-notable it is. I'm colouring the discussing, you can read it however you please. I still don't see notability. If you don't like my two cents, well, it's only two cents.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- So following my providing the additional links that clearly support "notability", you're now trying to shift the ground by trying to define that on the basis of how many social media followers the group has? Really?! You contradict yourself by stating "Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes"; so then why bring it up if it is not legitimate grounds to speak to "notability"? Is it because I have gone out of my way to provide references that meet what has been asked, so you're now looking to create a perception to sway opinion that is not, in actual fact, based on Wikipedia's own stated requirements?
Cosmoid (
talk)
11:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding your statement that you saw "they were studying what was in the tic tac video" - presumably as pertaining to the US Navy videos of 2004 as were released by the Pentagon and referenced by the UAPTF - I’d suggest you look again.
- Being generous, I'll assume you are referring to the work of Dr. Knuth and Dr. Szydagis regarding presentations on the "Flight Characteristics & Physics of UAP", where the US Navy data was analysed. Note, that although Dr. Knuth and Dr. Szydagis are members of UAPx, this work was done independently of the organisation and was published in academic literature in October 2019. UAPx was not even formed until August 2019. Dr Knuth's work in this regard has developed over time with input from members of UAPx such as David Mason (who is no longer with the organisation). However, UAPx as an organisation has never undertaken analysis of the US Navy videos. Cosmoid ( talk) 13:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Currently the sources which are at least 'decent' enough to establish some sort of notability are as follows for this page:
- Indepth discussion;
- PopularMechanics.com article
- Partial coverage;
- Space.com article
- LiveScience.com article
- Personally I am sticking to my belief of either my initial vote of Delete or at best a Draftifying the article so it can be re-written, the subject seems to have *some* notability in the UFO scene and I sympathise that it is probably hard for the creator of this page to find articles which meet Wikipedia's strict tendency, especially for on a group which is dedicated to studying UFO's, but for the moment I don't think it reaches Wikipedia levels of notability.
Tweedle (
talk)
13:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- The "ufo community" is a small group across the globe. Granted there are larger groups that like and discuss trains - mostly because trains don't get stigmatized. Comparing the social media followings of a ufo group to that of a train group is a non sequitur simply due to the disparity in the overall population's association with those two topics. One must take this into consideration and concede that UAPx has a tremendous following of people from all over the globe in their niche. The fact that the streaming channel, Tubi, just released a new documentary featuring both Jeremy McGowan and Gary Voorhis of UAPx and spent a considerable amount of time discussing UAPx directly in the film speaks volumes. Tubi reaches into a new and different demographic and brings this discussion to more to the forefront than before. Additionally, the previous comments regarding the assumption that UAPx is only studying Navy incidents is patently incorrect. UAPx, even on their own website states they do not study or analyze any data they themselves do not capture. Hence they are developing new scientific equipment, processes, procedures, and acquiring the requisite talent to do so - and have done so and are continuing to do so. UAPx is in partnership with the State University of New York UAlbany (SUNY) as well where they have presented to the physics department and they are noted and mentioned by the Harvard-back "Galileo Project" with many members of UAPx also serving as advisors to the Galileo Project.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- This boils down to a bunch of science guys that measure stuff in the sky, that most people don't see/consider to be real. Yes they've published stuff, they're taking measurements. I don't see them as being any different than other researchers in the field of study, it's almost routine at this point what they're doing. I suppose we could draftify it, but I don't think anything notable will pop up for a while; they may just have to toil away in silence until something big "hits", then we can establish notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I feel I have established that UAPx is absolutely notable enough within its knowledge domain to warrant inclusion. The organization is at the forefront of the scientific investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena - a field of investigation which is gaining ever greater public awareness owing to the ongoing US Government Congressional hearings into the UAP question.
- Whilst the subject of my article does not command the same broad public awareness of the latest Hollywood blockbuster, the organization is nevertheless notable in terms of the domain in which it operates and the contribution it is making to this field of study - a field which is of intense interest to the US military and, recently, politicians. I would submit that notability for an encyclopaedia should be judged on the basis of the contribution an entity is making to its domain, rather than a public popularity contest. Surely part of the raison d'être of Wikipedia is to educate readers about subject matter that they may not readily find reported in their newspapers week after week.
- I feel I have provided references to good secondary sources to establish that UAPx is everything I am claiming them to be. Their position within a domain where the potential global impact of discoveries is unmatched by general public awareness of the process of discovery, merits this organization highly notable, in my opinion. Hence, my spending the time and effort to author the article. Cosmoid ( talk) 22:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- no offense but this is blatantly, an AD. i am not sure what the organization appearing in an obscure documentary recently has to do with the notability of the article
Fafrotsky (
talk)
21:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, it is not "blatantly an AD". You can say that until you're blue in the face - doesn't make it true. You're clearly being unreasonable - indeed you've already been told the article did not merit deletion for "blatant advertising or promotion". You're starting to sound like a broken record.
- The link to the documentary was yet another example of UAPx's notability - even though it may not suffice in and of itself, owing to the documentary not being entirely about the organization, such as Wikipedia seems to require.
Cosmoid (
talk)
22:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- and it's still not a reliable, notable source. It's a documentary on an obscure app. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- This boils down to a bunch of science guys that measure stuff in the sky, that most people don't see/consider to be real. Yes they've published stuff, they're taking measurements. I don't see them as being any different than other researchers in the field of study, it's almost routine at this point what they're doing. I suppose we could draftify it, but I don't think anything notable will pop up for a while; they may just have to toil away in silence until something big "hits", then we can establish notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- The link to the documentary on Tubi that features Jeremy McGowan and Gary Voorhis, to which the previous commenter referred, is: https://tubitv.com/movies/675565/aliens-abductions-and-ufos-roswell-at-75
- Again, I would have added this as a reference on my article, but am unable to edit.
Cosmoid (
talk)
21:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
-
https://www.cnet.com/science/the-upcoming-pentagon-ufo-report-isnt-the-place-to-look-for-the-truth/ while this also only briefly mentions UAPx, CNET has published the article at the link in this message that does reference UAPx
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
13:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Still not notable, as I explained above. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
-
https://www.cnet.com/science/the-upcoming-pentagon-ufo-report-isnt-the-place-to-look-for-the-truth/ while this also only briefly mentions UAPx, CNET has published the article at the link in this message that does reference UAPx
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
13:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The "ufo community" is a small group across the globe. Granted there are larger groups that like and discuss trains - mostly because trains don't get stigmatized. Comparing the social media followings of a ufo group to that of a train group is a non sequitur simply due to the disparity in the overall population's association with those two topics. One must take this into consideration and concede that UAPx has a tremendous following of people from all over the globe in their niche. The fact that the streaming channel, Tubi, just released a new documentary featuring both Jeremy McGowan and Gary Voorhis of UAPx and spent a considerable amount of time discussing UAPx directly in the film speaks volumes. Tubi reaches into a new and different demographic and brings this discussion to more to the forefront than before. Additionally, the previous comments regarding the assumption that UAPx is only studying Navy incidents is patently incorrect. UAPx, even on their own website states they do not study or analyze any data they themselves do not capture. Hence they are developing new scientific equipment, processes, procedures, and acquiring the requisite talent to do so - and have done so and are continuing to do so. UAPx is in partnership with the State University of New York UAlbany (SUNY) as well where they have presented to the physics department and they are noted and mentioned by the Harvard-back "Galileo Project" with many members of UAPx also serving as advisors to the Galileo Project.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- For a group established 3 yrs ago, they have 1300 something followers on Discord and 3000 or so on Twitter, or the other way around. I'd expect a much larger following if it was in the least bit notable. Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes, but I follow train bloggers on youtube that have more followers than this group does. It's mathematicians/scientists gathering data at the end of the day, which is what they do. Almost appears routine at this point.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment A thought, would it make sense to put a brief mention of the group here
[28], under the Research part? We have a brief mention there of the Mufon group, basically the same idea as these fellows. Not enough for a stand-alone article, but a brief mention there.
Oaktree b (
talk)
16:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- UAPx is nothing like MUFON. That you'd suggest they are demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of what the organisation actually does. Once again - and for the avoidance of any doubt - unlike groups like MUFON, UAPx does NOT investigate UAP/UFO sighting reports from the general public. UAPx conducts its own field research to detect, measure and record UAP activity. The collected data is then subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, and papers authored for submission to the academic literature. Cosmoid ( talk) 21:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The mission, duty, and purpose UAP Expeditions Organization (UAPx) is to identify, classify, understand, and provide a public repository of knowledge on Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. UAPx, with preliminary data analysis, supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved, they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, government or industry developmental program, foreign adversary system, and classifications which will require intense scientific study to explain appropriately. The primary purpose of UAPx is to research the UAP phenomena as defined by the United States Government while providing direct data access from data analytics to the general public. In addition, their goal is to inspire and educate citizen scientists to participate in the national identification process of aerial phenomena. UAPx designs, tests, implements, and utilizes specialized equipment which fills the gaps in sensor technology as identified by the United States Government. Functioning as a civilian analog to the U.S. Government’s UAPTF, UAPx seeks to provide research, education, inspiration, and technological developments to study unidentified aerial phenomena. The UAPx Mobile Response Team creates a detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting collected during expeditions which include, but is not limited to that of data collected by: Geospatial Intelligence, Signals Intelligence, Human Intelligence, Measurements and Signals Intelligence
107.115.41.1 (
talk)
107.115.41.1 (
talk)
17:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Non-notable group of scientists studying something that may or may not be there. Would be better if we waited until something is published by the group and they get discussed in reliable sources. Unlike Mufon which has somewhat more notable sources, this group hasn't been covered by any. We can revisit when they are.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- You say: "Unlike Mufon which has somewhat more notable sources, this group hasn't been covered by any..."
- Once again, you're talking absolute nonsense. Your claim that UAPx has not been covered by any "notable" sources is simply untrue - as has already been demonstrated by the references provided above.
- The question here is not whether there are any reliable sources to demonstrate notability; it's whether there are enough sources. Speaking to that, I refer you once again to my comments above, namely: "I feel I have established that UAPx is absolutely notable enough within its knowledge domain to warrant inclusion ... Whilst the subject of my article does not command the same broad public awareness of the latest Hollywood blockbuster, the organization is nevertheless notable in terms of the domain in which it operates and the contribution it is making to this field of study - a field which is of intense interest to the US military and, recently, politicians ... I feel I have provided references to good secondary sources to establish that UAPx is everything I am claiming them to be. Their position within a domain where the potential global impact of discoveries is unmatched by general public awareness of the process of discovery, merits this organization highly notable, in my opinion ...".
Cosmoid (
talk)
13:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- When CNET publishes an article with the title "The Upcoming Pentagon UFO Report Isn't The Place To Look For The Truth" and states "A new nonprofit dubbed UAPx is taking a scientific approach, using technology like satellites and artificial intelligence to monitor the area off the California coast where UAP have been sighted in the past." - that signifies a tremendous affect of the UAPx organization and puts it on parity for actual information affecting the world with the entire military-industrial-political complex of the Pentagon - I'd say that UAPx is quite notable in terms of the per-capita of the population who is interested in this topic.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not it signifies nothing because it isn't coverage of UAPX. I'll ntoe that there are more bytes of text here than there is in the article and still 0 sources that support inclusion.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps the disparity between what is considered "notable" per Wikipedia standards and what is notable for an emerging topic should signify the willingness of Wikipedia editors and admins to take a step back and re-evaluate the criteria so that measurements can be made for organizations with small footprints and large undertakings.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is wikipedia. Notability is required in a Wikipedia sense. We aren't a directory of things that exist, if we were, we'd be a search engine. It simply isn't notable.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- no·ta·ble
- /ˈnōdəb(ə)l/
- adjective
- worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.
- "the gardens are notable for their collection of magnolias and camellias"
- The key term here is "worthy" - worthy of attention. The idea of UAPx is, by definition, worthy of attention in and of itself. The fact that it hasn't made a tremendous footprint in the news does not detract from the fact that it is a notable company, "worthy of attention." The nature, type, and approach to their research and methodology is "worthy of attention" just the same as an ethereal idea is worthy of attention, and notable, due to the effect it has on those who read it. I contend that UAPx is, in fact, a notable company, worthy of attention, and Wikipedia should take into consideration the idea that the "worth" of an organization is not restricted to writing and output of others, but by the effect it has on a group, community, or subsection of the population. The inspiration which UAPx has given to those who have been denied a full understanding of what is happening in our skies (be it domestic tech or something else) is remarkable in the fact that for the first time in more than 80 years, humanity has an organization dedicated to finding the truth of the matter without reliance on any government.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
-
WP:NOTABLE is the relevant policy you're looking for. We require coverage in independent reliable sources. Not passing mentions. Not an entire fandom/brigading by groups affiliated with subjects to determine notability.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.
- A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
- It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
- It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
- Based on exact wording from Wikipedia, "Article and lists topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice" Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Imagine if you put this much effort into finding actual sources that discuss this in depth. We wouldn't need to have this conversation, but they don't exist, so here we are. And as I said, unless anyone here can provide actual sources that would show it meets GNG, your claims that it does are irrelevant.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- What is wrong with these two sources, please, which are specifically about UAPx:
- https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost
Cosmoid (
talk)
22:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well for one, the Vice article isn't written by staff, it's a contributor piece.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
22:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why is that significant? The reference is not being used to support a statement of fact; it is being used to demonstrate notability.
- As Wikipedia's guidelines state, notability is evaluated with reference to the "reliable source guidelines". Regarding the "outside authors", the Reliable Sources guidelines state "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
- Therefore, that would appear to support my submission that the Vice article should be considered a "reliable secondary source" for the purpose of establishing notability.
Cosmoid (
talk)
22:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are incorrect - contributor submissions are not acceptable and would you please for the love of whatever you believe in stop
WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion?! You have made the same comment with the same sources at least 6 times. It's beyond disruptive.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
22:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please show me exactly where the guidelines state, in so many words, that contributor articles to reliable secondary sources are not acceptable to demonstrate notability. I must have missed that and would like to see a reference. Thanks.
Cosmoid (
talk)
23:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well you can read the discussion surrounding Forbes to start WP:FORBESCON, which discusses at length why contributor pieces in general aren't RS nor notability establishing. But seriously, stop bludgeoning this AFD. You've made it impossible to parse for anyone and made completely redundant illogical arguments. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please show me exactly where the guidelines state, in so many words, that contributor articles to reliable secondary sources are not acceptable to demonstrate notability. I must have missed that and would like to see a reference. Thanks.
Cosmoid (
talk)
23:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are incorrect - contributor submissions are not acceptable and would you please for the love of whatever you believe in stop
WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion?! You have made the same comment with the same sources at least 6 times. It's beyond disruptive.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
22:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- KEEP. Reliable links were provided as were requested. "Praxidicae" needs to take their own advice & stop "bludgeoning" the discussion. Claiming the points made were "completely redundant illogical arguments" is blatantly absurd. They were evidently addressing the issues raised and absolutely on point.
90.255.83.43 (
talk)
00:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: This ip user 90.255.83.43 seems related to
Cosmoid as they said
"Praxidicae" needs to take their own advice & stop "bludgeoning" the discussion. Claiming the points made were "completely redundant illogical arguments" is blatantly absurd
which is directly related to this. I smell SPI issue here. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 08:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)- Address the substance of the issue - i.e., that Praxidicae was entirely unjustified in the accusation of "bludgeoning". They stated "unless anyone here can provide actual sources that would show it meets GNG". I responded with 2 links and asked what was wrong with them. I received an ambiguous response about one of those references and no response about the other. If an editor is to criticise an article and then ask for information, they had better be prepared for a response. Cosmoid ( talk) 10:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
NeverTry4Me: I suspect this is continued canvassing rather than outright sockpuppetry, but I have filed a second SPI. —
Compassionate727 (
T·
C)
17:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Suspect what you will & file what you want Jack, I really don't care. At all.
- I'm simply not interested in engaging in what appears to be petty Wikipedia 'run to tell mummy' games about some bizarre 'rule infringement', imagined conspiracy or whatever else that you or anyone else has dreamt up. It's quite frankly pathetic - I certainly don't have time for it & some appear to have way too much time on their hands. I am interested only in dialogue about the substantive issue: defending my article's eligibility for inclusion in Wikipedia as notable, and have simply responded to any criticisms as I am fully entitled to do - and will continue to do. I am also working to source additional references to improve what I consider is already a perfectly Wikipedia-worthy article about a clearly notable organization. Cosmoid ( talk) 20:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: This ip user 90.255.83.43 seems related to
Cosmoid as they said
- Well for one, the Vice article isn't written by staff, it's a contributor piece.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
22:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Imagine if you put this much effort into finding actual sources that discuss this in depth. We wouldn't need to have this conversation, but they don't exist, so here we are. And as I said, unless anyone here can provide actual sources that would show it meets GNG, your claims that it does are irrelevant.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
-
WP:NOTABLE is the relevant policy you're looking for. We require coverage in independent reliable sources. Not passing mentions. Not an entire fandom/brigading by groups affiliated with subjects to determine notability.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is wikipedia. Notability is required in a Wikipedia sense. We aren't a directory of things that exist, if we were, we'd be a search engine. It simply isn't notable.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps the disparity between what is considered "notable" per Wikipedia standards and what is notable for an emerging topic should signify the willingness of Wikipedia editors and admins to take a step back and re-evaluate the criteria so that measurements can be made for organizations with small footprints and large undertakings.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not it signifies nothing because it isn't coverage of UAPX. I'll ntoe that there are more bytes of text here than there is in the article and still 0 sources that support inclusion.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- When CNET publishes an article with the title "The Upcoming Pentagon UFO Report Isn't The Place To Look For The Truth" and states "A new nonprofit dubbed UAPx is taking a scientific approach, using technology like satellites and artificial intelligence to monitor the area off the California coast where UAP have been sighted in the past." - that signifies a tremendous affect of the UAPx organization and puts it on parity for actual information affecting the world with the entire military-industrial-political complex of the Pentagon - I'd say that UAPx is quite notable in terms of the per-capita of the population who is interested in this topic.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Non-notable group of scientists studying something that may or may not be there. Would be better if we waited until something is published by the group and they get discussed in reliable sources. Unlike Mufon which has somewhat more notable sources, this group hasn't been covered by any. We can revisit when they are.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete mostly per the source analysis of Tweedledumb2. Current coverage doesn't show this non-profit meeting the relevant notability guidelines (
GNG or
NONPROFIT). If people UAPx themselves can't find significant coverage, I doubt anyone else will.
~Styyx
Talk?
15:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- In terms of GNG & NONPROFIT, here is significant coverage, from reputable sources, of a non-profit that operates nationally:
- https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost Cosmoid ( talk) 22:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Tweedledumb2 — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 15:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Quickly becoming SNOW. Nothing further had been added or taken away, we seem to be going in circles at this point.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have asked for the BADNAC/BADRELIST to be overturned on their talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per reasons outlined by Tweedledumb2, i.e. insufficient in-depth coverage by WP:FRIND sources to justify a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 14:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Timote Moleni
- Timote Moleni ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep? Outside of the stats websites you have [29], [30], [31], [32], some interviews over Tonga 0–22 Australia, google doesn't pick everything up. Govvy ( talk) 09:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment An unreliable blog and three match reports/previews do not provide significant coverage. Dougal18 ( talk) 09:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply @ Dougal18: At what level do you feel that a persons name and a person talked about across multiple different websites significant? Significant doesn't have to be one solid article, that can also be a build of multiple articles, there is a level of interpretation on GNG you know. Govvy ( talk) 10:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply @ Govvy: Any football person is going to be "mentioned" in lots of articles, it is significant coverage that is required. I don't regard brief quotes or post match interviews as significant coverage. Dougal18 ( talk) 11:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 05:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Besides the sources @ Govvy: found, I found 5, 6, and 7. In addition, almost all of Tonga's newspapers are not available online, and he probably has articles about him on there. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 18:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability met. Weakly, but it just gets over the line. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 23:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Article has sufficient sources, and can always be improved if more are required. -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 06:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Vorwerk (company). Seems to be a consensus that some of the information is worth keeping, and some of the products have been reviewed numerous times, but the brand itself is not passing WP:GNG. I will leave it to editors to kindly merge and convert the current article to a redirect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Neato Robotics
- Neato Robotics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In-depth coverage is non-existent about this non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. Amon Stutzman ( talk) 23:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood ( talk) 23:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 00:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This company is an early pioneer and actively selling products in the area of robot vacuum cleaners, one of the very few consumer level robotics products. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Selective Merge to Vorwerk (company), its parent company. Significant coverage exists in the form of reviews of the company's various products, such as CNET, PC Magazine, Engadget, PC Magazine, Engadget, Mashable, etc., but the sources don't say much about the company itself. North America 1000 11:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a bit weak on company coverage, but the product line is notable, and as Oleg pointed out, they are considered a pioneer in the consumer robotics industry. I thought about flipping it around and renaming it Neato robotic vacuums, with a small section for the company, but that would be a bit clunky, and I'm not sure that's an obvious search term. I also thought about a merge to Vorwerk (company), but that article's company overview section is a bit of a mess with unsourced bulleted text, and any merge of product info would make it unbalanced. Keeping it, but with maybe a bit less product detail, seems to be the best option. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The product review seems like a type of advertisement and product placement, refers to WP:PRODUCTREV. And the sources just don't show notability for the subject. -- Mestrossino ( talk) 08:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- The company has been around for more than 10 years, and theirs is one of the earliest and most innovative current robot vacuum designs. The things you find excessive can be trimmed. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 18:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 05:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep without prejudice toward a Merge per NorthAmerica. Andrevan @ 22:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- A merge may be a pain as the parent company has a very different product line and unrelated history. It may be clearer for the reader if these are kept separate, but current article may need to be slimmed down perhaps. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to the target suggested by Northamerica1000. Lightburst ( talk) 01:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Avalanche the Band
- Avalanche the Band ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced advert for a band with one EP and three singles. No evidence that the recordings are notable either. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Undoubtedly not notable. — VersaceSpace 🌃 20:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I see references were added upon nomination, yet they are the band's own and blogs. No Reliable Sources. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 10:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - See also User talk:Grucz, in which the creator of the article appears to be making a good-faith effort to describe this band. That is okay, and welcome aboard, but in Wikipedia people/things must qualify for inclusion by satisfying notability guidelines. This band does not qualify because they have received no significant and reliable media coverage, and are only visible in their own social media promotions and occasional brief gig announcements. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Scott Presler
AfDs for this article:
- Scott Presler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposed deletion for lack of notability. Citations in the article are covering a trash cleanups he organized in Baltimore. This article was deleted in 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Presler Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 23:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can expand the article, I just got it started as a jumping off point. I was not aware that there was a previous version of this article that was deleted, so my apologies for not taking note of that! I do think the trash cleanups were a very significant event that generated enough headlines to warrant notability. I've seen Presler pop up over the past couple of years in Fox, The Daily Beast, The Baltimore Sun, The New York Post, and the Washington Post. I will be adding more to the article, but I do believe that when all is said and done, the article will meet the standards of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
GeorgeBailey (
talk)
00:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying to this @ GeorgeBailey. Here are some of the notability guidelines used for articles about people, these are what I used when establishing if the article was notable. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Before I nominated this article I looked at a couple articles in the American political activists category and compared the types of sources cited in those articles to the ones I found covering Presler and I didn't think it passed the requirements for notability. I tried to look into his work with Rise PAC but couldn't find much of their website or by searching Google News. I gave it a good try when I was looking but it's completely possible that I missed something. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 01:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can expand the article, I just got it started as a jumping off point. I was not aware that there was a previous version of this article that was deleted, so my apologies for not taking note of that! I do think the trash cleanups were a very significant event that generated enough headlines to warrant notability. I've seen Presler pop up over the past couple of years in Fox, The Daily Beast, The Baltimore Sun, The New York Post, and the Washington Post. I will be adding more to the article, but I do believe that when all is said and done, the article will meet the standards of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
GeorgeBailey (
talk)
00:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Maryland. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a Baltimorian, I can say he is a nobody who showed up to get his 15 minutes of fame. As a Wikipedian, he's also a nobody and isn't notable. There is no in depth coverage, nothing sustained and he fails GNG (and whatever niche n criteria you want to throw in there. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- F it, delete. Started to edit and expand but got a revert from the above user. The language above seems like there would be no negotiation that would lead to anything. It's not a battle that I feel like fighting. Dr vulpes, you can blank it.
GeorgeBailey (
talk)
22:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- You can expand it and work on it while it's at AFD, but without removing the notice. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the "F it, delete" !vote and notions therein such as "started to edit and expand but got a revert", "seems like there would be no negotiation that would lead to anything" and "It's not a battle that I feel like fighting" are not based upon Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)- @ Northamerica1000 when I looked at the revert I felt it was mostly appropriate then inappropriate, they were putting the AfD notice back as it had been removed. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 04:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable fails GNG. Henriklars ( talk) 08:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: I'm very much not a fan of his politics, but he's a pretty notable Trump supporter to the extent multiple publications have written about his rallies (or cancelled rallies) and consulting. If you search "The Persistence", you'll get a bit more to push him over
WP:GNG. Alternatively, there could be an article called
Influencer support for Donald Trump where this could be merged as a section, but seeing as that article is yet to exist, keep per passing
WP:GNG. (Here's my sources to attest to GNG of some sort:
Lightning-rod Trump supporter Scott Presler's rally canceled in Wilton – Times-Union,
Scott Presler appearance cancelled for third time – Times-Union,
Newest House GOP Star Teams Up With Nutty MAGA Conspiracy Theorist – Daily Beast,
Grassroots and global players: The crowded campaign to oust Cheney – Wyoming Tribune Eagle). I think the article could benefit from adding his work with
Elise Stefanik but if possible from a source other than the Daily Beast per
WP:DAILYBEAST.
Tartar
Torte
19:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue that those are mostly just passing mentions at best.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
19:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that three of the four (the one about the third cancelled rally being excluded) are all articles that provide
WP:SIGCOV. In the case of the first Times–Union article, the article talks about both him and officials reaction to him. In the case of the Daily Beast article, the article highlights his involvement with Rep. Stefanik and his extremism/rejection of reality (re: "Stop the Steal"). The third article covers a rally from Cheyenne in which he was the main speaker. I will say; I find that none of the articles provide that much different information on him, but they all seem to pass
WP:SIGCOV in my eyes.
Tartar
Torte
19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah that was my problem when looking for sources. There are a lot out there but they just say he's at a rally or something kind of minor. I was really hopeful that Rise PAC would have more information about him so I could tie that into the article but I got stuck there as well. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 20:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that three of the four (the one about the third cancelled rally being excluded) are all articles that provide
WP:SIGCOV. In the case of the first Times–Union article, the article talks about both him and officials reaction to him. In the case of the Daily Beast article, the article highlights his involvement with Rep. Stefanik and his extremism/rejection of reality (re: "Stop the Steal"). The third article covers a rally from Cheyenne in which he was the main speaker. I will say; I find that none of the articles provide that much different information on him, but they all seem to pass
WP:SIGCOV in my eyes.
Tartar
Torte
19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue that those are mostly just passing mentions at best.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
19:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unsure if the references are more than passing mentions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Nadahan wedding bombing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Nagahan
- Nagahan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This village is not notable on its own. The only coverages are about the Nadahan wedding bombing, so it should be redirected there. Furthermore, the name could be wrong. Is it Nagahan or Nadahan? Neocorelight ( Talk) 23:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Neocorelight ( Talk) 23:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge I think that this article is not notable enough for it's own article with its lack of references... but it should be merged and redirect to
Nadahan wedding bombing until more references are found or the notability is established (See
WP:TNT).
𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (
𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔)
00:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing to merge since all the information came from the bombing article. Neocorelight ( Talk) 00:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect Agree on lack of content to support a merge. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect viable search term. Djflem ( talk) 20:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Robin Radhakrishnan
- Robin Radhakrishnan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NACTOR because there are no significant roles in multiple notable productions. The subject also lacks significant coverage. Apparently one of the contestant of Bigg Boss which is alone not sufficient for notability per WP:BIGBROTHER. TheWikiholic ( talk) 01:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood ( talk) 08:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: In addition to the reasons mentioned by the nominator, this article is full of BLP verification issues and lacks reliable sources. –– FormalDude talk 04:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are objections to deletion on article talk page so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV - SUN EYE 1 06:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Vinay Virmani
- Vinay Virmani ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons mentioned above. George Custer's Sabre ( talk) 03:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental ( talk) 01:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 20:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Severino Tchivinda
- Severino Tchivinda ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. Generic. scope_creep Talk 19:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Africa. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Angola-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Congrats! this is the first AfD in a new delsort! – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Serial killer. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Hardly "generic". -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Somebody killing five folk is so common, that is it mediocre. There is nothing unique or special about it. On top of that you addressed the references.
scope_creep
Talk
14:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sad that anyone would think that a serial killer of five people is "so common, that is it mediocre". In most places, serial killers are very rare. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Its not the fact the person killed five people, that is inconsequential, its the fact the serial killers kill multiple poeple on average, and there is so many of them and they so common, that they are barely spoken about, except on true crime series on tv and the odd crime series like "Dexter", and many many cop shows the rotate around plot. The whole experience of stating, x killled 5 people is completly mediocre and generic, as that what they do. Perhaps you don't understand how many there actually are. I can't understand about why folk think these crimes are somehow special and unique. Its the reverse. Its a daily occurence, somewhere in the world right now.
scope_creep
Talk
16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you might watch too many TV cop shows about serial killers where they have on a different one each week. That's not real life.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that I wouldn't call a serial killer "common" and certainly not a daily occurrence. That being said, List of serial killers in the United States is not a small list, and that's just in the US, and per their inclusion criteria is only the serial killers that have a Wikipedia article. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think you might watch too many TV cop shows about serial killers where they have on a different one each week. That's not real life.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Its not the fact the person killed five people, that is inconsequential, its the fact the serial killers kill multiple poeple on average, and there is so many of them and they so common, that they are barely spoken about, except on true crime series on tv and the odd crime series like "Dexter", and many many cop shows the rotate around plot. The whole experience of stating, x killled 5 people is completly mediocre and generic, as that what they do. Perhaps you don't understand how many there actually are. I can't understand about why folk think these crimes are somehow special and unique. Its the reverse. Its a daily occurence, somewhere in the world right now.
scope_creep
Talk
16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sad that anyone would think that a serial killer of five people is "so common, that is it mediocre". In most places, serial killers are very rare. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Somebody killing five folk is so common, that is it mediocre. There is nothing unique or special about it. On top of that you addressed the references.
scope_creep
Talk
14:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Being a serial killer would fall under the purview of WP:CRIME. This article's subject does not meet any of the criteria listed there, and simply being a serial killer is not a consideration for notability under any notability guideline that I am aware of. The coverage that does exist both in the article and online is limited; the sources in the article are by far the best sources I could personally find online, and they're focused on the crime itself, not necessarily the person. Outside of the details of the crime itself, when focusing on the person (which is of course this article's subject), there's really no significant coverage in the articles. There's certainly not enough to warrant an entire article about him. The only other notability guideline that I can think would apply is WP:ANYBIO, and this article's subject fails that too. Of the three applicable notability guidelines, the article's subject fails to meet each and every one of them. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment For info. I came across another two news sources of ones that recently occurred, one in Russian and one Angola or Algeria something like that but they were so dreadful that couldn't repeat them on here. Then I found another guy, an American in the 60's, on an article that came up. That was the blackest evil, it was beyond belief really, the most senseless thing, even reading about it now. So I'll pass on that assertion. scope_creep Talk
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —ScottyWong— 02:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Regretfully. I love true-crime, and created Lloyd Clark Fletcher and am the major contributor to Mark Valera. Fletcher does not meet WP:CRIME, however meets WP:GNG. Valera meets both. This subject meets neither. He did not murder a renowned public figure. I did have a laugh at Liz comment. I respect you scope_creep, and it is rare for me to !vote against one of your noms. However Liz has a point, to say killing five people is "mediocre" is a furphy - I must have listened to hundreds of true crime podcasts and I actually cannot recall someone murdering this many people off hand, except Bundy. Though, my disagreement ends there. The issue here is that while I do consider the crime noteworthy, it is not a well documented historic event evidenced through sustained coverage of the event. Proquest only showing one source and not much elsewhere. I gave serious consideration to invoking WP:IAR for the first time in an AFD discussion, but I cannot do it. As there is not sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability or create a properly sourced, complete article, I must support deletion. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 23:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
MaxnaCarta: it's almost weird isn't it? The whole thing seems like there should be coverage for it and thus notability, but it's just...weirdly absent in this case. -
Aoidh (
talk)
23:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed mate, it just felt wrong to vote delete but ultimately there just is not enough to get it over the line. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 00:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
MaxnaCarta: it's almost weird isn't it? The whole thing seems like there should be coverage for it and thus notability, but it's just...weirdly absent in this case. -
Aoidh (
talk)
23:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus to delete. Sources have been provided to justify keep, but upon reviewing them I have to concur with Aoidh's description of each one and the fact that they do not provide WP:SIGCOV. TigerShark ( talk) 03:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Joel Engardio
- Joel Engardio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:PROMO. The article is written like a resume with mostly primary sources, whether from personal blog posts or columns that he has written in larger publications. ( WP:JOURNALIST)
One film doesn't qualify him for WP:CREATIVE (I still need to evaluate its coverage as the page was created by the same author of this page) Unsuccessful runs for local elections doesn't qualify him for WP:POLITCIAN. BriefEdits ( talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Journalism, Religion, and California. BriefEdits ( talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep -
WP:GNG met by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources cited in the article:
[33],
[34],[35], [36]. Article improvements, not deletion can address the other complaints ( WP:NOTCLEANUP). ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Of the sources Kvng lists above, This is an opinion piece about a local level political race, it would be weird not to find that kind of coverage for a local race, and the scope of coverage must be considered. Overall it would contribute towards notability, but it certainly doesn't do much on its own. This is written by the article's subject. Not independent, doesn't contribute to notability in any way. This isn't trivial coverage, but it's an article about his documentary, not about him. Doesn't contribute to notability. This is another local-level opinion piece about a political race, but this one has even less substance than the first one. Doesn't contribute to notability. If this is the best coverage that we can find for the article's subject, then the article's subject just doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia. Maybe it's a matter of WP:TOOSOON, maybe not, but there's just not enough there. - Aoidh ( talk) 05:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're right to exclude the NPR piece. The Newsweek piece is about the documentary but also has significant coverage of the subject so does contribute to establishing notability. I'm not aware of "scope of coverage" requirements associated with biographies. The endorsements are local news but local to one the largest metropolitan areas in the US. ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Scope of coverage is similar to depth; we're just looking for the amount of attention that reliable third parties have given to a particular subject (e.g. sentence vs. full article) While coverage from a major publication would definitely be more convincing of notability, I wouldn't say that coverage alone is enough for notability. The point I wanted to emphasize WP:POLITICIAN and WP:CREATIVE was that while the subject's name may pop up in relation to the coverage of the political races that he has ran in or the one film that he has made, it's difficult to ascertain his notability outside of those articles proper. BriefEdits ( talk) 09:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're right to exclude the NPR piece. The Newsweek piece is about the documentary but also has significant coverage of the subject so does contribute to establishing notability. I'm not aware of "scope of coverage" requirements associated with biographies. The endorsements are local news but local to one the largest metropolitan areas in the US. ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —ScottyWong— 02:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Barstow Rock (Massachusetts)
- Barstow Rock (Massachusetts) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. There are no sources online beyond basic location information. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 02:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Rock is so small it's not even visible on Google Maps, apparently. Utterly baffling why this was created. Template:Islands and Peninsulas of Massachusetts has quite a few more perma-microstubs like this that should be deleted. Reywas92 Talk 20:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- delete The reason why you cannot see it is because, apparently, it is underwater. I've looked at a bunch of nautical charts of the area, and they all show it a shallow underwater bump marked by a buoy. And while GNIS claims this was collected from the usual first phase sources, no topo map shows it until after GNIS was initiated, so I have to think the charts were the source. No way this is notable. Mangoe ( talk) 04:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete it is not even above the water level. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. North America 1000 03:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Cormorant Rock (Plymouth County, Massachusetts)
- Cormorant Rock (Plymouth County, Massachusetts) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. There are no sources in the article, and no sources online beyond basic location information. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 02:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It's a rock. I'm utterly baffled why this was created. Reywas92 Talk 20:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: no notability whatsoever. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete that this article went almost 12 years with a tag mentioning it had no sources is an indication that the system in Wikipedia is not good enough. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Justin Smith (footballer)
- Justin Smith (footballer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Jake Forbes (footballer)
- Jake Forbes (footballer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Denvin Jones
- Denvin Jones ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Carlos Septus
- Carlos Septus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and Haiti. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental ( talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Luca Reich
- Luca Reich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Miguel Marshall
- Miguel Marshall ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
T'Sharne Gallimore
- T'Sharne Gallimore ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Giovanni Grant
- Giovanni Grant ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental ( talk) 01:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Liam Blok
- Liam Blok ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - only trivial mentions found in searches Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
William Butler (footballer, born 2004)
- William Butler (footballer, born 2004) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Phillip Graham (footballer)
- Phillip Graham (footballer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Charles Medway
- Charles Medway ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental ( talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Leo Forte
- Leo Forte ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Rahul Arora
- Rahul Arora ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unable to find any evidence of notability for Arora. Coverage is limited to routine announcements, but nothing significant Star Mississippi 01:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Star Mississippi 01:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental ( talk) 13:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
|
|
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the
dashboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Bass Rock (Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts)
- Bass Rock (Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. There are no sources online beyond basic location information. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 23:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Concur that it does not meet GEOLAND. If someone wants to reference it in the Lynn main article, I wouldn't oppose it, but I am indifferent to a merge, there's not much else that can be said about this rock and it definitely is not worthy of its own article. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 12:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete we do not even have an article on the harbor it is located in, there is no reason to have an article on it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Mazraeh-ye Baqr Sheybani
- Mazraeh-ye Baqr Sheybani ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only AFD'ing this because somehow this was prodded and deprodded before. This is a farm, and not a village as the article claims. -- VersaceSpace 🌃 16:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- VersaceSpace 🌃 16:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment -- Also please take a look at Mazraeh-ye Moruji. Thanks. -- VersaceSpace 🌃 16:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete both just because a gazeteer somewhere lists every farm and well in a country does not mean we need articles on all of them.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete both - The name Mazraeh-ye Baqr Sheybani literally means "Baghershibani farm", and the other name also literally just means "Meroji Farm". It is not a legally-recognised populated place, simply being listed as an abadi on the Iranian census is not evidence of being such since the Iranian census is not a listing of legally-recognised populated places but instead a listing of local features around which the population has been counted. Explicit (or whoever closes this) please review the consensuses around Carlossuarez46's mass-created articles here (and also in the links on the same page): Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46. This whole thing has been discussed many times, with ultimately clear consensuses against, so it is not clear to me why this could not have been closed as delete based on the first vote. FOARP ( talk) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Debiganj Upazila. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Debiganj Girls High School
- Debiganj Girls High School ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE returns mainly listings and wp-clones. Even the local name does not give much useful. The Banner talk 18:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Debiganj Upazila, the geographic unit where the school is located, and where it is briefly mentioned. Panchagarh.info is a self-published Wordpress blog, so not a reliable source. New Age is a reputable newspaper, but it contains just one sentence about the school. Searches in English and Bengali found no independent reliable sources containing significant coverage of the school, so it doesn't satisfy WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 01:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Bass Rock (Ipswich, Essex County, Massachusetts)
- Bass Rock (Ipswich, Essex County, Massachusetts) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. There are no sources online beyond basic location information. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 23:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a comprehensive guide to every place that might be needed to be known in water navigation. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Md Tareq Miah
- Md Tareq Miah ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable footballer. No WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 19:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG. Avilich ( talk) 14:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus, slightly leaning keep - This is held in between the biannual World Championships, so it is certainly not as large as the world championships, but it is a regular event and plausible as a notable event. The problem is sufficiency in WP:RS, making the argument of Notability a weak one, but plausible. What I find in the consensus is uncertainty more than anything, which isn't strong enough to delete the article. I considered relisting, but I don't feel that it would be likely to add more to the discussion.. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Underwater Hockey European Championships
- Underwater Hockey European Championships ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can’t see that this topic has in depth coverage in multiple RIS. A redirect to Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques might be possible but I’d appreciate knowing what consensus is. Mccapra ( talk) 21:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Europe. Mccapra ( talk) 21:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't pass
WP:GNG. Not mentioned at target article, and adding this continental competition would be undue when no other continental competitions are mentioned there.
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
07:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are there other continental competitions? It wouldn't be undue if they don't exist, or are so obscure we can't find them. This article suggests there are national competitions, a world competition, and a European competition only. Spinning Spark 15:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Notability for this is very weak, but I am going to say keep anyway because I think Wikipedia should cover the top competitions in all sports. It is discussed on this page and this book notes it as one of the major sporting events in San Marino when it was held there. The latter is just a passing mention, but the author's opinion that this was a major event that contributed to sport's tourism must count for something. Spinning Spark 15:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Surely the top competition in underwater hockey is not this, but the
Underwater Hockey World Championships?
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
15:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes but I said "top competitions" (plural), not the top competition. Spinning Spark 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Surely the top competition in underwater hockey is not this, but the
Underwater Hockey World Championships?
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
15:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep A fair split from Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques given that article is already quite bulky. Plus the ability to cover more obscure topics like this is what makes Wikipedia special, IMO. NemesisAT ( talk) 10:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's only a valid split if it meets WP:GNG, something that no-one at this discussion has tried to prove it does. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I tried, but I couldn't. Mccapra ( talk) 14:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 07:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Memphis Sound Drum and Bugle Corps
- Memphis Sound Drum and Bugle Corps ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very minor and short-lived drum corps; lacks notability; their one championship win was in Division III, not World Class. Bgsu98 ( talk) 17:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Arts, and Tennessee. Bgsu98 ( talk) 17:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
*Could also consider merging what little content there is to
List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps.
Bgsu98 (
talk)
18:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete do not merge. We do not have enough to show notability. A list of unnotable organizations is not justified either, so I am pretty sure we should scap that list. Lists articles are not meant to be a way to avoid showing the contents actually meet notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I just took another look at the article and there is nothing there worth merging. The history section is almost nonexistent. Bgsu98 ( talk) 22:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Dilsha Prasannan
- Dilsha Prasannan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, references depends upon the television reality show. Onmyway22 talk 17:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, India, and Kerala. Onmyway22 talk 17:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- My opinion: She is the winner of Big Boss season 4. If winning a famous reality show is considered as an eligible criteria towards notability, I oppose deletion. If not I support deletion. Kapeeshmon ( talk) 13:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: See
Wikipedia:Notability_(Reality_Television_participants).
Kpddg
(talk)
15:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is that a failed proposal?
Onmyway22
talk
15:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, very sorry, I did not see that. Apologies. Kpddg (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is that a failed proposal?
Onmyway22
talk
15:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I strongly support the deletation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:2116:F8E2:5AC5:A0BB:E387:CD07 ( talk) 19:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Sierra Riders Band
- Sierra Riders Band ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any significant coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. – Ploni ( talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Ploni ( talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. TigerShark ( talk) 20:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Alafia Samuels
- Alafia Samuels ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Having previously declined this as a draft I feel like it doesn't belong in mainspace as there is no visible pass of WP:NPROF. Now I usually try to be very accommodating to the fact that academics rarely receive coverage and am very flexible on what I believe is a pass as per their h-index, but this subject falls quite below that standard. I might be missing something here so an extra pair of eyes would be helpful. As it stands, I don't think this passes notability SNG requirements. nearlyevil 665 15:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 15:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. nearlyevil 665 21:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Citations are not nearly high enough to meet NPROF in this high-citation field (diabetes).
JoelleJay (
talk)
00:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- To expand: These are the Scopus citation metrics for her 76 coauthors with 10+ papers:
- Total citations: average: 9072, median: 2513, Samuels: 529.
- Total papers: 139, 72, 37.
- h-index: 31, 22, 15.
- Top 5 papers: 1st: 1177, 399, 47. 2nd: 823, 208, 44. 3rd: 520, 154, 43. 4th: 397, 111, 38. 5th: 277, 91, 33. JoelleJay ( talk) 07:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- To expand: These are the Scopus citation metrics for her 76 coauthors with 10+ papers:
- Delete: They are only 3rd author on their most cited paper with 319 citations and their next paper has only 79 citations which makes their h-index weaker than it appears at first glance so I don't think that they would qualify under WP:NPROF. Gusfriend ( talk) 04:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: There are other criteria which apply here, other than the citation metrics. She has received a regional award and chairs a global consortium, which show her impact and recognition of that impact outside of academia.
MurielMary (
talk)
10:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, it should be demonstrated that the award received or position chaired was “highly prestigious” or “highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association”, respectively. I'm not convinced either criteria was demonstrated and no regional award or chair position is notable by default.
nearlyevil
665
12:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dr. Samuels is a Lancet One Health Commissioner and received full-page coverage in The Lancet, which is commonly regarded as one of the world's top-3 medical publications.
BigYellowDuckie (
talk)
14:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did see that, however it's not clear when she became affiliated with The Lancet (not just as a OHC); that coverage would not be independent if she was already affiliated with it. And anyway, GNG needs multiple sources of SIGCOV.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Lancet article was 2017 before any affiliation. Appointment as a Lancet OHC was in 2018
- This submission is not only based on academic output, but on a composite professional profile, which includes being a leading NCD researcher and advocate in the Caribbean. Advising Ministers of Health of the Caribbean annually, designing and administering NCD process indicators frorm 20 countries annually since 2008, leading the evaluation of the POS declaration from the first ever meeting of Heads of State on NCDs.
- Competitive regional awards from the Caribbean Public Health Agency
- Chair of NCD Child - for global advocacy
96.43.179.185 (
talk)
14:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, the Lancet article would be SIGCOV then, but again we need multiple sources for GNG. None of the affiliations or awards listed would contribute to NPROF even in aggregate, so GNG would be the route to notability (unless we can find many instances of her being quoted/discussed as an expert in multiple different independent publications (so, not from the same newspapers). JoelleJay ( talk) 20:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did see that, however it's not clear when she became affiliated with The Lancet (not just as a OHC); that coverage would not be independent if she was already affiliated with it. And anyway, GNG needs multiple sources of SIGCOV.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dr. Samuels is a Lancet One Health Commissioner and received full-page coverage in The Lancet, which is commonly regarded as one of the world's top-3 medical publications.
BigYellowDuckie (
talk)
14:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, it should be demonstrated that the award received or position chaired was “highly prestigious” or “highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association”, respectively. I'm not convinced either criteria was demonstrated and no regional award or chair position is notable by default.
nearlyevil
665
12:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment would being on the peer-review committee of a medical journal count?
[1]
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- No. WP:NPROF requires them to be the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal. Gusfriend ( talk) 06:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. ✗ plicit 23:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hermann Neuling
- Hermann Neuling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been tagged as unsourced since 2008, so for about 14 years. I did searching for sources in all the links with the article and in a few other google searches. The German article does have a source, but it looks to just be a catalog entry without substance. I can find a few name drops on one of his works, but nothing in a reliable source about him. I found one blog where someone was asking if others had information on Neuling, and another blog that did say a little about him. The first 2 works on Google scholar are works by a different Hermann Neuling, since one predates his birth and the other was published when he was 5, this person was not publishing academic works on German history at age 5 (I use publishing instead of writing not because I think there are 5 year olds writing academic level works on history period, but because academic publishing especially usually takes a while, so a book that comes out of an academic press in 2021 will often have been fully written by mid-2018 or earlier. As far as I can tell there are not sources out there that give indepth coverage of Neuling at the level we would need to have a biography that says anything of substance. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood ( talk) 14:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, I don't think we can find much more than what's here, I've tried. Nothing found.
Oaktree b (
talk)
16:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did find what I consider to be significant coverage, in case it changes your perspective. Note: both by the same author in the same journal, but in different years. CT55555 ( talk) 17:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. A google books search of his name produces pages of results. None significant coverage, but does confirm he created a large body of work. The significant coverage that proves notability can be found as follows:
- 12 mentions here (search inside by surname only) STONESTREET, R. Pedagogical Works for Low Horn. Horn Call: Journal of the International Horn Society, [s. l.], v. 45, n. 2, p. 53–57, 2015. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=100276801&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 28 jun. 2022.
- 11 mentions here: STONESTREET, R. Twentieth-Century Solos for Low Horn. Horn Call: Journal of the International Horn Society, [s. l.], v. 47, n. 1, p. 52–56, 2016. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=119061452&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 28 jun. 2022. CT55555 ( talk) 17:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
YugaTech
- YugaTech ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet
WP:GNG. (Proposed deletion reason was: Multiple issues: The notability of the site or its founder has not been demonstrated (
Abe Olandres redirects here); tone may be a bit promotional; almost all sources are primary sources citing itself, if there are any sources to begin with.
)
84.250.14.116 (
talk)
12:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Philippines. Shellwood ( talk) 13:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also noted earlier at Talk:YugaTech both this article and the redirect were created by authors who have both been banned for sockpuppetry. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 15:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Question is this Tatt award enough for notability. I've seen several news articles about it but I'm not sure about its relevance in their industry. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: lacks wp:gng, wp:rs, no significant coverage. no contribution to the filed as per the content. looks promotional to me QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 05:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's fair that I gave people that could've voted Keep to justify the notability of the Tatt Awards. Delete as non-notable. -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Aghbolagh-e Khaled
- Aghbolagh-e Khaled ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mass-created by Passportguy ( talk · contribs) in 2009 based on an unreliable database https://tageo.com. There is something at the specified coordinates, but the fact that this was not overwritten or redirected by Carlossuarez46 ( talk · contribs) when he mass-created Iranian village stubs is suspect. Search engine results for fa:آق بلاغ خالد returned only mirrors of the Farsi translation of this article. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence this is a place that meets our extremely broad inclusion guidelines for populated places. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. There is https://www.geonames.org/14183 but a better source is needed. Possibly no longer inhabited, or too small to be a village, or has another name; could even be at the wrong location. Peter James ( talk) 18:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The Straitjacket Lottery
- The Straitjacket Lottery ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another non-notable film article created by Matzonyc. Editor created the Doug Karr article in 2008, and articles for some Karr-produced films, all non-notable - and the account created nothing else. Purely self-promotional. Argles Barkley ( talk) 22:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Argles Barkley ( talk) 22:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete IMDB, Google, News, Scholar, and Books create no results, this is so obscure that it doesn't have an RT article. VickKiang ( talk) 08:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per the nominator and VickKiang. Nowhere close to passing WP:SIGCOV. No indication of notability whatsoever. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 00:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — the notability test for films requires some evidence of significance, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis by professional film critics in media. But there's none of that here, and even on a ProQuest search for 18-year-old coverage that might not have googled I still only get a couple of glancing namechecks of its existence in event calendar listings, which isn't enough. His BLP generically claims this won "multiple awards", but both it and this fail to state or source which awards so that we could establish whether they were notable ones or not — we're only interested in awards that can be shown to get media coverage to establish their notability, and not just every single film award that exists on earth — and even the film's IMDb profile just lists a couple of minor non-notability-making awards as "trivia" (like a script development award) rather than in a standard awards section, which means those awards aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have sourcing. Bearcat ( talk) 12:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Lifecycles: A Story of AIDS in Malawi
- Lifecycles: A Story of AIDS in Malawi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another non-notable film article created by Matzonyc. Editor created the Doug Karr article in 2008, and articles for some Karr-produced films, all non-notable - and the account created nothing else. Purely self-promotional. Argles Barkley ( talk) 22:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Argles Barkley ( talk) 22:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I did all the recommended searched and found nothing to suggest notability. CT55555 ( talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Very obscure film with no RT entry (surprisingly), can find two refs in Books, but all are trivial mentions ( 1, 2). Also found a niche PDF on Google Scholar, but is it an RS? IMO it's probably marginally reliable and doesn't count towards GNG. But still, these sources don't provide multiple, reliable, indepedent refs to meet GNG or the first criteria of Notability (film), and I couldn't see this being re-released five years after or winning a notable award, so I support deletion. Ping me if there is more refs. VickKiang ( talk) 22:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Africa. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — the notability test for films requires some evidence of significance, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis by professional film critics in media. But the only review here is not from a reliable or WP:GNG-worthy source, and on a ProQuest search for 20-year-old coverage that might not have googled turned up absolutely nothing. Bearcat ( talk) 12:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
List of fiction books about Montana
- List of fiction books about Montana ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A completely unsourced list, with vague inclusion criteria. While there may be sources out there discussing the depiction of Montana in fiction, the specific topic of "fiction books related to the state of Montana" fails WP:LISTN. Almost every book listed here is non-notable itself, with only a few of them actually having their own articles on Wikipedia, and the list has not been maintained since its creation in 2009. I initially WP:PRODed it, before realizing that it had already had a contested PROD shortly after its creation, so I am bringing it to AFD. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Lists, and Montana. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Other than the authors' names, it doesn't do anything better than Category:Novels set in Montana, which is also much more complete. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The list could have a use but right now it does not meet our WP:LISTN guideline. Lightburst ( talk) 01:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Category:Novels set in Montana includes books which are clearly fictional such as Jurassic Park (novel). But the list article doesn't have any of these 42 books in it. It instead list books without their own Wikipedia articles. Unless someone wants to redo the article properly, it has no reason to exist. Having everything in that category in a list format with columns to list additional information about each book would make a valid list if anyone wanted to do it. Dream Focus 06:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It is time to rid ourselves of unsourced lists. I think there also needs to be a realization that "set in" and "about" are not the same thing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but there's a large overlap. Few novels about Montana wouldn't also be set there. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Geetika Mehandru
AfDs for this article:
- Geetika Mehandru ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It does not satisfy the WP:CSD G4 C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂) 03:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂) 03:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't believe that things have drastically changed since the last AfD, 8 months back. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Administrator note Despite talking to C1K off-wiki about this, I remain very confused why he un-tagged this despite not being able to know whether it was a G4, then AfD'd it with G4 as the rationale, and then again un-tagged it for CSD... But, for what it's worth, I would have declined the G4. The new film and Hindustan Times coverage make this ineligible. No comment on suitability for deletion more generally. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
04:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, also: @ C1K98V, if you want this article deleted, it qualifies for G7 speedy deletion. Is that what you want? I'm having trouble parsing. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 04:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Ten for Grandpa
- Ten for Grandpa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable 8-minute short film. All of the coverage online is essentially the director promoting his own short film. No reliable secondary sources that are unconnected to the director's submissions. Argles Barkley ( talk) 21:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Argles Barkley ( talk) 21:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete nothing even close to showing that this is a notable film. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — the notability test for films requires some evidence of significance, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis by professional film critics in media. But there's none of that here, and even on a ProQuest search for 13-year-old coverage that might not have googled I still only get a couple of glancing namechecks of its existence in event calendar listings, which isn't enough. Bearcat ( talk) 12:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to SW postcode area#SW19. Star Mississippi 01:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
SW19
- SW19 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary disambiguation page. None of the articles has a title "SW19". The given source - incorrect on a disambiguation page - refers to the location, not to the tournament. The Banner talk 21:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Nominator probably unaware that tennis competition is sometimes called SW19:
- https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/1147243/Where-is-Wimbledon-why-is-it-called-SW19-reason-explained
- https://www.chaseyoursport.com/Tennis/Why-is-Wimbledon-Championships-Also-Known-as-SW19/1027
- https://www.essentiallysports.com/why-is-wimbledon-championships-called-sw19/
Anticipating objections, indeed these sources are not good enough for notability, but please note that is not the test for a disambig page. CT55555 ( talk) 22:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Source from BBC referring to it as "SW19"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/tennis/40545727 from
Talk:SW19.
𓃦LunaEatsTuna (
💬)
23:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The BBC source does not directly confirm that SW19 is a synonym for the Wimbledon championships. Spinning Spark 17:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment instead of deletion, it should be redirected to SW postcode area as it was originally. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna ( 💬) 23:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep; as per CT5555, SW19 is commonly used through metonymy for Wimbledon, much like Flushing Meadows is for the U.S. Open and Roland Garros for the French. Iseult Δx parlez moi 00:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment But Flushing Meadow doesn't lead to a tennis tournament. ( Roland Garros is a dab page). Pam D 18:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep; I changed the article from a redirect to a dab page, since most readers will probably be looking for the tennis tournament.
Vpab15 (
talk)
07:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- And that is why you are removing all links to the postal code out of articles about the tournament?
The Banner
talk
09:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Those links used to redirect to SW postcode area, which doesn't seem very relevant for a tennis article. That's why I removed them. Vpab15 ( talk) 09:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Vpab15: Those links should have been changed to continue to point to the postcode area, when you created a dab page over the redirect at
SW19. If it was relevant to link from the address previously (and picking 1952 as a random example, that address with linked SW19 was
added 10 years ago), it is still relevant. If you create a dab page over a redirect, it is your responsibility to clean up after yourself by fixing the links which were previously specific and now point to that new dab page, and unlinking them is not a good solution.
Pam
D
12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think a list of London postcodes is not a particularly useful link for a tennis article. There is already a link to Wimbledon, which is more relevant. Having said that, feel free to re-add the links. Vpab15 ( talk) 12:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Vpab15: Those links should have been changed to continue to point to the postcode area, when you created a dab page over the redirect at
SW19. If it was relevant to link from the address previously (and picking 1952 as a random example, that address with linked SW19 was
added 10 years ago), it is still relevant. If you create a dab page over a redirect, it is your responsibility to clean up after yourself by fixing the links which were previously specific and now point to that new dab page, and unlinking them is not a good solution.
Pam
D
12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- And that is why you are removing all links to the postal code out of articles about the tournament?
The Banner
talk
09:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep, Revert to redirect. If kept, modify to meet WP:MOSDAB. I suggest:
- SW19 may refer to:
- A postcode in London's SW postcode area, including Wimbledon
- Wimbledon Championships, a Grand Slam tennis tournament that takes place in SW19 <!-- See note on talk page -->
- SW19 may refer to:
- (ie We include a comment which will be seen by editors but not readers, referring them to a note on the talk page which gives the reference cited, possibly others, and refers to this discussion/decision. Too much time has been wasted over the years on this helpful small dab page.
Pam
D 08:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Changed,
Pam
D
18:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ PamD: To make this dab compliant, "SW19" needs to be mentioned in the target article (which it currently isn't for the tennis) and the reference should be at that mention, not on a dab talk page. Dab pages do not have references for the reason that they should not be saying anything that is not in the articles. Slightly off topic, the ref given makes a huge meal of a very simple explanation and probably isn't RS. Spinning Spark 17:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was proposing a slightly WP:IAR solution, having had the mistaken impression that this redirect/dab had been the subject of discussion off and on for ages - but I now see it's only a very recent conversion to a dab page by one editor. Quite happy for it to revert to the redirect to the postal area, and for the many links (one in address of every champsionship) which have been removed to all be reinstated. Pam D 18:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
To make this dab compliant, "SW19" needs to be mentioned in the target article
. Is that so? There is a list of cities at Big Smoke, and their pages don't mention that nickname as far as I could see. Vpab15 ( talk) 20:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Revert to redirect. The meaning of SW19 is a postcode. The SW19 metonymy for the championship also refers to the postcode (and I'm not so sure that it doesn't mean the AELTCC generally). The tennis meaning can be added to the SW19 entry at SW postcode area or else dealt with by a hatnote. Spinning Spark 17:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Revert to redirect to "SW postcode area". And SW postcode area now has a sentence explaining this.
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
20:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the section at
SW postcode area#SW19. I am ok with redirecting to that section. It gives the reader the info and link to the tennis tournament.
Vpab15 (
talk)
21:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is an elegant solution. I did vote to keep, but won't lose sleep if this is the outcome. CT55555 ( talk) 21:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the section at
SW postcode area#SW19. I am ok with redirecting to that section. It gives the reader the info and link to the tennis tournament.
Vpab15 (
talk)
21:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Khoda Kandi
- Khoda Kandi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable village, possibly even a hoax. The name appears on Google Maps (possibly based on this article), alongside an alleged village called Khonda Kandi. Satellite View does not place the names at the nearest settlements.
If it’s a hoax, then it would be one of the longest-lasted by far. 00sClassicGamerFan ( talk) 21:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 00sClassicGamerFan ( talk) 21:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete One of many pages mass-created by
Passportguy (
talk ·
contribs) based on an unreliable database,
tageo.com. The claim "mystical and often forgotten" was apparently
added by an IP vandal about four months later. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
22:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I have done some further digging, and it seems that when Carlossuarez46 ( talk · contribs) did his infamous mass-creation of Iranian village stubs in 2013, he overwrote previous articles created by Passportguy, e.g. Ahaq. That means that any articles created by Passsportguy which have not been overwritten are most likely either fake or duplicates of Carlossuarez articles. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. It was originally https://www.geonames.org/13232 (probably based on an entry in GEOnet Names Server). That ID is now Mesdaraq (formerly 13521) but "Khodā Kandī" is still there under "alternate names". If it is the same place, a better source is needed to confirm, but it means there is (or was) a (possibly populated) place with this name (or a similar name) at that location (or somewhere else), which is enough to say it is not a hoax, but not enough for an article. Peter James ( talk) 18:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. TigerShark ( talk) 03:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hunter Biden iCloud leak
- Hunter Biden iCloud leak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article, created hours ago, contains lots of allegedly and supposedly and anonymous and claimed stuff about everyone's favorite conspiracy theory target and I suggest it be promptly removed. At most it might warrant a mention in the man's BLP, if even that. soibangla ( talk) 20:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep — The events surrounding this topic are still developing and, assuming it is legitimate, deserves an article.
Hunter Biden laptop controversy still remains despite its controversial nature.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)
20:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- assuming it is legitimate is not solid grounds for creating an entire article. soibangla ( talk) 21:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would not assume that anything from 4chan is "legitimate" without outside corroboration. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep You didn't present valid grounds for deletion. If you believe the article is not presenting facts properly or otherwise, fix it yourself, or tag the article accordingly / write on the talk page. The article is comprised of citations to reliable sources. Yes, it's alleged, but reliable sources have reported on it. —
PerfectSoundWhatever (
t;
c)
21:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Simply because reliable sources report something doesn't make it worthy of its own article. It doesn't even necessarily make it worthy of inclusion in an existing article. Everything about this remains nothing but allegations from anonymous people at this point. No one knows if the dump is real or has reported on any of its contents. It's hard to remember a flimsier excuse for a new article. Just absolutely absurd. soibangla ( talk) 21:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Just because something is in the news does not mean it becomes a Wikipedia article. Details are scant. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral comment: While the topic of the article is not a true "breaking news topic" (4 days old), the article was created about an hour prior to AfD nomination, so
WP:RAPID does apply to a degree. I would recommend no one else give an !vote for 24 hours to let the article have a chance to expand, then do an assessment at that point in time. In 24 hours, I will ping everyone who has voted (no matter what was !voted) in this AfD prior to this message to allow for a 2nd look. !votes may or may not change, but since
the article hasn't had a chance to show notability within an hour, it might after a 24 hour time to do improvements or have talk page discussions. (Member of WP:Current events)
Elijahandskip (
talk)
22:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- BLP concerns outweigh RAPID. I won't be changing my mind in 24 hours time, barring some serious developments. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- As stated/promised, I am pinging the editors who gave their opinion/!vote before the
WP:RAPID comment. You can (and are recommended) to reassess the article. Your !votes may or may not change, but I would be satisfied that
WP:RAPID would have been followed for any further comments/!votes.@
Soibangla:,
ElijahPepe,
Muboshgu, &
PerfectSoundWhatever.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
20:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- And as I expected, nothing has happened in the last 24 hours to change the need to delete this article. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- As stated/promised, I am pinging the editors who gave their opinion/!vote before the
WP:RAPID comment. You can (and are recommended) to reassess the article. Your !votes may or may not change, but I would be satisfied that
WP:RAPID would have been followed for any further comments/!votes.@
Soibangla:,
ElijahPepe,
Muboshgu, &
PerfectSoundWhatever.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
20:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Muboshgu's exact points. Argles Barkley ( talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The article itself makes clear it's not even clear if the even happened. WP:BLP requires verifiability. In the context of this alleging criminality (drug use), we need to have a high standard on the encyclopaedia for this. CT55555 ( talk) 22:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge with Hunter Biden: I don't think that at the moment this is in and of itself notable enough to warrant its own article and should stay under the subheading, alongside the aforementioned point regarding WP:NOTNEWS. When and if more things come to light, I wouldn't oppose the article being recreated then, but in its current state, I think a dedicated article is unnecessary. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 00:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Hunter Biden is a public figure and the coverage of his tribulations has been lasting. The hack of the account is notable and the material may also be of some notability. I think this is more than gossip and I imagine opinions vary based on political leanings. Lightburst ( talk) 01:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just wanted to clarify two things, first is that it is an alleged hack. No reliable sources have said that the event described in this article even happened; this is an article about an event whose very veracity is in question. Second, when you say that this is not gossip, I have to point to the dictionary definition of gossip: "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true." This article is by definition gossip. - Aoidh ( talk) 02:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Right now, this is
WP:TOOSOON. There isn't enough to say about the leak that can't be briefly summarised in
Hunter Biden's article. The problem though is that in two weeks, once more information is verified/there is more fallout to speak of/etc., it seems reasonably likely that there probably will be enough to talk about for a standalone article on this topic to make sense, but I guess we'll deal with that when the time comes.
Endwise (
talk)
02:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Will "enough to talk about" include stuff like
a picture of a shirtless man lying on a couch while surrounded by five underage girls and two dogs did not show Hunter Biden, nor did it come from the alleged July 2022 hacking of his iCloud account?
soibangla (
talk)
10:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- If it's not from the iCloud leak, I don't understand the point of bringing it up.
Endwise (
talk)
10:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's represented as such. If history is any guide, there will be lots of similar representations and we'll see lots of "why aren't you guys talking about that picture?!" on the Talk page for years.
soibangla (
talk)
11:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I still don't understand how that has any relevance to this deletion discussion.
Endwise (
talk)
13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unless this story is about anything other than fake/real salacious images, this article makes Wikipedia look like TMZ. We should err on the conservative until the story proves to be anything other than that, at least until after the initial frenzy of speculation and lies fades. It should be deleted immediately. It can always be restored if anything comes of it. soibangla ( talk) 14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I still don't understand how that has any relevance to this deletion discussion.
Endwise (
talk)
13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's represented as such. If history is any guide, there will be lots of similar representations and we'll see lots of "why aren't you guys talking about that picture?!" on the Talk page for years.
soibangla (
talk)
11:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- If it's not from the iCloud leak, I don't understand the point of bringing it up.
Endwise (
talk)
10:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Will "enough to talk about" include stuff like
a picture of a shirtless man lying on a couch while surrounded by five underage girls and two dogs did not show Hunter Biden, nor did it come from the alleged July 2022 hacking of his iCloud account?
soibangla (
talk)
10:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Due to WP:TOOSOON and, more importantly, failing WP:BLP (by being a contentious biographical article that isn't supported by reliable sources). 4chan is far from a reliable source, and all other sources are just discussion about 4chan's allegations. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Poorly sourced BLP-sensitive content. If it's notable, there will soon be mainstream RS instead of marginal sources and gossip dumps. SPECIFICO talk 11:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment:
We have major outlets covering the story - Newsweek, National Review also Fox News, NBC. Lightburst ( talk) 13:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- Reply/comment The first story is about how Google is not showing images due to a lack of reliable sources. The second one is about how the secret service has heard an unconfirmed rumour. Fox News is not a reliable source. #4 is the same as #2. If there was a newspaper article saying that the CIA is aware of a rumour of an alien abduction, it doesn't mean aliens abducted someone. We still seem very far away from any confirmation that the subject of the article is anything more than a hoax. Of course it might be true. And therefore we can just wait until that is confirmed. Until then, we need to be careful to avoid using wikipedia to perpetuate a rumour and we need to be mindful of the
WP:BLP rules, which are generally considered to be at the high end of the importance spectrum, I think.
CT55555 (
talk)
13:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, all that.
soibangla (
talk)
14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also
WP:NEWSWEEK post-2013 has become a gossip rag. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Although, heartfelt. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also
WP:NEWSWEEK post-2013 has become a gossip rag. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, all that.
soibangla (
talk)
14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply — The latter is the only RS here, which is why I've chosen to ignore the other sources in this article. This topic has a very right-wing bias and anything less than generally reliable is a risky source. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Snopes, The Verge and Vice, which are all RS, have covered the leak. Your decision to remove the content from Hunter Biden's article is ridiculous. X-Editor ( talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- Please put all personal attacks on my user talk page. This is the AfD.
SPECIFICO
talk
20:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- From your Snopes link: "At this stage, we advise readers to take individual rumors and memes that appear to be blooming out of this alleged hack with a grain of salt. This is not to say that this material should automatically be presumed to be false (or true). Rather, it’s simply the case that the 4chan message board has a long history of delivering up questionable content"
- From your Verge link: "Exact details are hard to confirm"
- From your Vice link: "Motherboard has been unable to independently verify..."
- It seems that even he sources you are suggestion are exhibiting caution. CT55555 ( talk) 20:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please put all personal attacks on my user talk page. This is the AfD.
SPECIFICO
talk
20:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply/comment The first story is about how Google is not showing images due to a lack of reliable sources. The second one is about how the secret service has heard an unconfirmed rumour. Fox News is not a reliable source. #4 is the same as #2. If there was a newspaper article saying that the CIA is aware of a rumour of an alien abduction, it doesn't mean aliens abducted someone. We still seem very far away from any confirmation that the subject of the article is anything more than a hoax. Of course it might be true. And therefore we can just wait until that is confirmed. Until then, we need to be careful to avoid using wikipedia to perpetuate a rumour and we need to be mindful of the
WP:BLP rules, which are generally considered to be at the high end of the importance spectrum, I think.
CT55555 (
talk)
13:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete An alleged hack of an alleged online storage account allegedly owned by Hunter Biden? Delete per guidelines on the Wikipedia not being a haven of gossipy tabloid material. The creation of such drivel shows remarkably poor judgement on the article creator's part. 4chan is a haven for malcontents and degenerates, not everything they claim is true, and not everything they do that's true is noteworthy. Zaathras ( talk) 20:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Delete WP:TOOSOON to have its own article. X-Editor ( talk) 20:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, I posted a neutral notification to WT:BLPN talk page inviting others to comment. CT55555 ( talk) 21:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Pretty close to G10 but regardless he is not a public figure and WP:NOTGOSSIP applies as well as general WP:BLP policy and failing WP:V. Slywriter ( talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to
Hunter Biden's laptop. Scope up modestly if needed.
Hyperbolick (
talk)
23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Abso-frikkin-lutely not, we are not making a catch-all Hunter Biden controversies, leaks, and conspiracies type of article. Zaathras ( talk) 23:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- We are if it is supported by sources. Hyperbolick ( talk) 03:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted, primarily on the grounds of WP:NOTGOSSIP. Hey man im josh ( talk) 01:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as this will not develop into anything bigger than a breaking news report. — VersaceSpace 🌃 02:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge with the option of creating again. Alternatively this could be merged into some new article that covers this as well as the laptop story. I think the AfD jumped the gun a bit and outside parties might view this as trying to suppress negative information. This concern can be addressed by keeping the content as a subsection of a proper parent article since length isn't an issue. Springee ( talk) 11:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I don't see any material updates to this story since the article was created, but now we're seeing the inevitable consequence of creating the article. Seeing as there appears to be a consensus for it, I suggest the article be swiftly nuked. soibangla ( talk) 10:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well it won’t be “swiftly nuked” because of the
WP:RAPID you did by starting an AfD before a PROD/Speedy deletion, so at least until the 7 days are up and the AfD concludes, the article will for sure be in mainspace since there is too much controversy for any
WP:SNOW closures. After that, it is up to what the AfD concludes. Technically, you caused the article to be up longer that it should be in my opinion.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
14:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply — Yes, every article is going to get someone who posts that kind of information, intentionally or not. Nothing extended protection can't fix.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)
14:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Every article will attract people calling the subject a pedophile? soibangla ( talk) 14:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply — Yes, every article is going to get someone who posts that kind of information, intentionally or not. Nothing extended protection can't fix.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)
14:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Almost certainly a hoax. I don't think anything should be merged to the main article at all, as this would violate
WP:BLP. Just
gossip.
Curbon7 (
talk)
13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Curbon7:
"some of the images shared on 4Chan haven’t previously appeared anywhere else online".
Almost certainly a hoax
is almost certainly false. Endwise ( talk) 14:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)- Images being new ≠ images being what a 4Chan user says they are
- A lack of verifiability + a person often the target of conspiracy theories = a reasonable situation to say something is likely a hoax. But a great way to destroy that concern is to share confirmation from a reliable source. I assume many of us are noting the lack of that so far.
CT55555 (
talk)
14:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean by "being what a 4Chan user says they are". It was just a dump of files. They weren't individually labelled by the person who posted them on 4chan or something. Endwise ( talk) 15:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Authenticated images? On a site infested with hoaxers? I can't believe we're even discussing this anymore.
soibangla (
talk)
14:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, deepfake technology has definitely progressed to some extent in recent years, but I don't think I've seen anyone seriously assert that those videos of him are deepfaked or whatever, if that's what you're suggesting.
Endwise (
talk)
15:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Have you personally examined the purported videos, as opposed to images? Are you aware of a reliable source vouching for any purported videos? Can this discussion descend any deeper into absurdity? Please don't make me walk away from this thinking lesser of you.
soibangla (
talk)
15:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the next paragraph of that same article it discusses the videos, as well
Some videos appear to show Hunter Biden smoking crack cocaine or in sexual encounters with women believed to be escorts.
Here's another random article that discusses them (alleged photos and videos hacked from his phone that show drug use and sexual encounters
). To be clear, I too think this article should be deleted. But, again, either this is a massive, highly sophisticated, state-of-the-art deepfake operation undertaken by a 4chan user, or it's not a hoax in its entirety. "Almost certainly a hoax" is, as I said, almost certainly false, so you shouldn't cite it as your reason to delete an article, particularly when there are other good reasons on hand. Endwise ( talk) 15:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- In the next paragraph of that same article it discusses the videos, as well
- Have you personally examined the purported videos, as opposed to images? Are you aware of a reliable source vouching for any purported videos? Can this discussion descend any deeper into absurdity? Please don't make me walk away from this thinking lesser of you.
soibangla (
talk)
15:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, deepfake technology has definitely progressed to some extent in recent years, but I don't think I've seen anyone seriously assert that those videos of him are deepfaked or whatever, if that's what you're suggesting.
Endwise (
talk)
15:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- As of right now, this is completely unverifiable, as the only stem source is a 4chan post. There is nothing here; as these are extraordinary BLP-claims tied to a single post that has a high chance of being a fabrication/exaggeration/whatever-other-word-you-want-to-use, we should not be posting it in Wikivoice as if it were fact. Curbon7 ( talk) 15:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Curbon7:
"some of the images shared on 4Chan haven’t previously appeared anywhere else online".
- Reply — I agree with Endwise's assessment here, and it is most certainly real, but what matters more is reliable sources saying that, not us. Once more information comes out about it, this article will have much better ground.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)
14:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are reporting "it is most certainly real?" Um...a great big nope on that. soibangla ( talk) 15:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply — I agree with Endwise's assessment here, and it is most certainly real, but what matters more is reliable sources saying that, not us. Once more information comes out about it, this article will have much better ground.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)
14:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, I was persuaded by the possible BLP concerns Curbon7 and others have outlined above and the I also considered the gossip arguments. If hard news emerges the article can be recreated or a section in another article. Lightburst ( talk) 15:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like straight WP:NOTNEWS. ValarianB ( talk) 16:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing any updates on this, by sources reliable or otherwise. Just sayin. soibangla ( talk) 18:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm honestly surprised by the fact that not a single source has given any updates on the leak. You'd think that at least one source would further investigate this and find something. But instead, we get radio silence. X-Editor ( talk) 00:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Of course it's being considered to be deleted. Gotta suppress the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:A000:A60A:6524:7877:D3A3:733E ( talk) 14:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence that it is authentic? X-Editor ( talk) 00:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The most surprising element of this story is that 4chan, yes 4chan, removed this post. It didn't meet 4chan's standards which, frankly, I didn't know they even had. How can Wikipedia include this information which is unverified? The only story here is how the media is covering this story which seems to have blown up and then died. A media blip like so many in our current political atmosphere. If this has lasting coverage or if this leads to charges or futher events, maybe then an article can be considered. As far as I can see, there is no "there" there. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - He's the US President's son & that makes its quite notable. I'd choose keep, if it were any of Trump's children.
GoodDay (
talk)
01:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Would you consider framing your keep recommendation in terms of our notability policies rather than the subject's lineage? We already a) know who he is, and b) have an article about his biography. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- This Afd's result, will be decided by the closer. I'll accept whatever the closer's decision is. GoodDay ( talk) 02:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus and the discussion about whether to merge it can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 01:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Ryan Wiik
- Ryan Wiik ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If not for WR Entertainment, this nomination would be a slam dunk: He was voted out of the first round of a talent show, and he played a minor role in a film.
What's generated all the press coverage has been the company. He co-founded it. They acquired rights to make films of a book series. He was announced to play the lead in the films but failed his audition. Everybody in the company sued everybody else. Lurid details came out in the process.
I am not convinced, even if WP:GNG is met, that he has met the notability criteria to have a biography on Wikipedia. I am also not convinced that he is a public figure, so a lot of the details about the litigation should be removed from the article—and again, we're left to wonder where the notability is.
Full disclosure: I made this nomination after Gryanwiik attempted to reprod the article. I declined the prod, but I made an independent review of the article. This nomination is based on my years of experience on Wikipedia and my understanding of our policies, especially related to notability, biographies of living people, and presumption in favor of privacy; it is not a knee-jerk reaction to his request for deletion. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Norway. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I think the various allegations towards him are well covered in the VG documentary article to which Mr. Wiik gave limited answers to defend his stature (which is his right of course). Overall, I think Mr. Wiik is a man of such limited notability that his article can be deleted. Future references to him in WR Entertainment articles will not be excluded, as can outcome of future legislation / settlement details. T929212 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by T929212 ( talk • contribs)
- Keep - after reviewing the Variety article and the wikipedia articles on those Norwegian news sources to gauge their reliablity, I believe he passes the GNG. The Variety article focuses on him and suggests that he is the founder of WR Entertainment. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it meets GNG. So I'm not clear as to why nom think that even if it meets GNG here, it is not notable.
2603:7000:2143:8500:E5D0:F89A:4BF9:D281 (
talk)
20:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Would it be better suited as a stand-alone article on WR entertainment and that saga? Allegedly it's bankrupt now.
T929212 (
talk)
11:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- To the IP: The phrases "is presumed to be" and "is" are not equivalent. Or, if GNG is a rule, this is an exception. Further, if the coverage about the subject delves into areas that other policies say we shouldn't cover in the article but we let that coverage count for GNG metrics, then we'd in a catch-22 of saying the subject is notable, but we can't/won't tell the reader why. @ T929212: I wondered that as well, but I"m not sure that the company is specifically notable either.
- This is an edge case. If I were obsessed about AfD metrics and only nominating articles that I felt would probably be deleted, I wouldn't have nominated. IMO, this nomination isn't probable but is more-likely-than-not (or at least a toss-up). I looked at the article, then sat back for a while and thought, and decided that the best and most transparent thing to do would be to nominate this article for AfD and let the community discuss it. (Expanded commentary on talk page.) —
C.Fred (
talk)
13:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
C.Fred: Maybe we can add it to film adaptation paragraph for Morgan Kane rather? That is notable in my view.
T929212 (
talk)
14:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
T929212: Now that's a possibility I hadn't thought about: distill this article down to one paragraph, two at the most, about the company, particularly as it relates to the potential Morgan Kane movies. If the community decides this content should be merged into that article, then I am on board with preserving the history of this article for attribution purposes and turning
Ryan Wiik into a redirect to
Morgan Kane. —
C.Fred (
talk)
13:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm on board with that. The drama surrounding WR entertainment and Mr Wiik can also be included there then. I'm not sure who holds the movie rights currently. T929212 ( talk) 20:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
T929212: Now that's a possibility I hadn't thought about: distill this article down to one paragraph, two at the most, about the company, particularly as it relates to the potential Morgan Kane movies. If the community decides this content should be merged into that article, then I am on board with preserving the history of this article for attribution purposes and turning
Ryan Wiik into a redirect to
Morgan Kane. —
C.Fred (
talk)
13:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
C.Fred: Maybe we can add it to film adaptation paragraph for Morgan Kane rather? That is notable in my view.
T929212 (
talk)
14:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Would it be better suited as a stand-alone article on WR entertainment and that saga? Allegedly it's bankrupt now.
T929212 (
talk)
11:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet, but further scope for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark ( talk) 02:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 20:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to 7de Laan as sourcing appears insufficient per current consensus. This preserves the history should that change with further work. Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Francois Lensley
- Francois Lensley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NACTOR. Barely acted. scope_creep Talk 19:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to their main role, 7de Laan. I was unable to find coverage that would add up to GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to 7de Laan, does not meet WP:NACTOR and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Martial arts, and South Africa. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
CommentKeep 7de Laan is/was immensely popular, and someone with a regular role is likely to have received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The popular press, especially the Afrikaans popular press (Huisgenoot and the like) may have coverage. It would be useful to look for sources there. Park3r ( talk) 11:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- UPDATE. Huisgenoot does indeed have a celebrity profile
[2]. Here’s a profile in another wide circulation Afrikaans magazine
WP:RS Sarie
[3]. I’ll look for more, but this is enough to make me change to keep
Park3r (
talk)
11:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Both are interviews.
scope_creep
Talk
12:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- ’Here’s a trailer for a 2019 episode of the Afrikaans prime time TV magazine show Pasella (again on the national broadcaster and widely watched) where he takes a viewer on a road trip.
[4]. Here’s a 2007 article that describes him as a star that covers a robbery at his home.
[5] He also attracts “screaming crowds” when he makes appearances in public
[6]
Park3r (
talk)
13:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is a PR. Visiting a school. Normally having started in 92 episodes of a series with other work and other coverage would be sufficient, but there is no other coverage and no other work. Its a case of
WP:TOOSOON. He fails
WP:NACTOR.
scope_creep
Talk
10:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like the IMDB entry stating 92 episodes is out of date. 7de Laan has had over 5300 episodes (it runs 5 days a week), and according to TVSA he’s been on the show since 2003. As a main cast member he’s going to have appeared in a lot more than 92 episodes, and Google has numerous episode synopses indicating his appearances. Is this is case of WP:TOOSOON or a case where we fail to account for WP:WORLDWIDE? FWIW this Sarie article in Afrikaans was published in 2017 and said that he had been playing the role since 2003. Incidentally the same article states that he was “one of a handful of men who appeared on the magazine cover”. [7] Sarie is a wide circulation and well established Afrikaans magazine that’s published by Naspers since 1949 Park3r ( talk) 12:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is a PR. Visiting a school. Normally having started in 92 episodes of a series with other work and other coverage would be sufficient, but there is no other coverage and no other work. Its a case of
WP:TOOSOON. He fails
WP:NACTOR.
scope_creep
Talk
10:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- ’Here’s a trailer for a 2019 episode of the Afrikaans prime time TV magazine show Pasella (again on the national broadcaster and widely watched) where he takes a viewer on a road trip.
[4]. Here’s a 2007 article that describes him as a star that covers a robbery at his home.
[5] He also attracts “screaming crowds” when he makes appearances in public
[6]
Park3r (
talk)
13:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Both are interviews.
scope_creep
Talk
12:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- UPDATE. Huisgenoot does indeed have a celebrity profile
[2]. Here’s a profile in another wide circulation Afrikaans magazine
WP:RS Sarie
[3]. I’ll look for more, but this is enough to make me change to keep
Park3r (
talk)
11:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark ( talk) 02:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 20:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment He may have done 5300 episodes which would make him a household name, but the references do not support WP:NACTOR. They are junk, making it no more than a brochure article. I would suggest passing up WP:THREE references to prove the person is notable, and that includes, for example, reviews of work in a national newspaper or magazine. Otherwise it will need to redirected as there is no evidence from the WP:BEFORE that the subject is notable. scope_creep Talk 21:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment agree with above, zillions of hits on his name, but most are gossip magazine stuff. I'd likely vote keep if we can find the quality references about him.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sarie is a national magazine dating back to 1949 and published by one of South Africa's largest media groups. He's been covered on national television. He meets
WP:GNG, I'm not sure why we need
WP:NACTOR as an additional hurdle.
Park3r (
talk)
05:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Park3r: The article states he is an actor. There must sources, there must be sources, that is confirmed by conensus on Wikipedia recently. Please submit three sources that confirm he is notable.
scope_creep
Talk
07:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I included a number of sources above including: the Pasella prime time TV show that featured him. The News24 article that covered the attack on him at his home (home invasions are depressingly routine in South Africa and not generally newsworthy: the fact that his was covered is a sign of notability). The Sarie articles, including the one that stated he was only one of a handful of men to feature on its cover since it was founded (in 1949). Park3r ( talk) 08:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Park3r: The article states he is an actor. There must sources, there must be sources, that is confirmed by conensus on Wikipedia recently. Please submit three sources that confirm he is notable.
scope_creep
Talk
07:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sarie is a national magazine dating back to 1949 and published by one of South Africa's largest media groups. He's been covered on national television. He meets
WP:GNG, I'm not sure why we need
WP:NACTOR as an additional hurdle.
Park3r (
talk)
05:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Tosi List for Veneto. TigerShark ( talk) 21:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Venetian Centre-Right
- Venetian Centre-Right ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First of all, I premise that "Venetian Centre-Right" was not a party ( WP:Original Research by the author of the page) but a mere local assembly group. The page has not any utility, and this is evident from its reading: the page merely states that the group (erroneously defined as a party) existed, then it only describes the previous and subsequent political career of its members. In practice, there is not the slightest relevance from reading this page. Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 08:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. It does not really matter what a political party is or is not (see note below) or whether a political grouping is active only in a local assembly: also parliamentary-only parties are encyclopedic, indeed. In our case, the subject is notable, is sourced (additional sources might be found) and deserves an article of its own. The Venetian Centre-Right was a relevant split of the Tosi List for Veneto, the sixth largest party in the 2015 Venetian regional election. For fully three years was active in the Regional Council, at the local level (especially in Verona) and played a distinctive role in Venetian politics. A minor party in a polity like Veneto, counting 5 million people, is definitely more relevant than minor extra-parliamentary parties from small countries, of which Wikipedia is full (and, as an inclusionist, I happy of that too). Wikipedia is great especially when it gathers and organises information difficult to find elsewhere. If, regretfully, there is no consensus on keeping this article, I hope it will be possible at least to merge with another article, like Tosi List for Veneto, in order to keep the article's history. Note. It may be disputable what a political party is. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a political party is a "group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power" (like the Venetian Centre-Right!). Several political scientists have given different definitions and categorisations of political parties, e.g. cadre, mass, catch-all and cartel ones. Especially, at their origins, a role is also played by parliamentary parties, that, according to our own definition in Wikipedia, are groups "consisting of members of the same political party or electoral fusion of parties in a legislative assembly such as a parliament or a city council". -- Checco ( talk) 10:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- It was not a political party but a local assembly's group, personal interpretations of the nature of an organization are
Original researches. Its distinctive role must also be fully demonstrated. Furthermore it is not relevant where this group has operated, but if it meets the criteria of general notability, and in my opinion this group does not meet them. However, as a compromise solution, I could agree to merge it to the
Tosi List for Veneto.--
Scia Della Cometa (
talk)
10:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever its nature, the subject is encyclopedic, but I appreciate your openness to compromise. I know that Italian politicians and journalists make distinctions between political parties, political "movements", political associations, parliamentary groups, etc., but these have nothing to do with political science and its international standards. --
Checco (
talk)
10:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I re-affirm it even here: it is not the Italian politicians or journalists who distinguish between parties and parliamentary groups, which are objectively and juridically different entities.-- Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 11:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever its nature, the subject is encyclopedic, but I appreciate your openness to compromise. I know that Italian politicians and journalists make distinctions between political parties, political "movements", political associations, parliamentary groups, etc., but these have nothing to do with political science and its international standards. --
Checco (
talk)
10:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- It was not a political party but a local assembly's group, personal interpretations of the nature of an organization are
Original researches. Its distinctive role must also be fully demonstrated. Furthermore it is not relevant where this group has operated, but if it meets the criteria of general notability, and in my opinion this group does not meet them. However, as a compromise solution, I could agree to merge it to the
Tosi List for Veneto.--
Scia Della Cometa (
talk)
10:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - 1) it is not a party, but a regional parliamentary group; 2) as regional parliamentary group, it had local notability only at most; 3) no inherent notability: the fact that a party exists/existed doesn't mean it deserves an article in Wikipedia; 4) the first two paragraphs of the article, which are focused on the "party" itself, are without sources; 5) the remaining paragraphs are related to politicians who may or may not have been part of this "party" (no source directly pins them to this specific "party"); 6) finally, almost all the sources don't even contain the name of the article's "party", so I'm asking if it ever existed at all... -- P1221 ( talk) 14:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, given the length of the article and its number of sources; also agree with
SDC's compromise to merge the content with the
Tosi List for Veneto article to preserve it, if we cannot agree on maintaining it as a standalone article.--
Autospark (
talk)
10:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let me point out however that, of all the sources in the article,
only one spells out the name of the party... The other ones are valid sources, but they appear to be totally unrelated with the party called "Centrodestra Veneto".
P1221 (
talk)
09:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The party (or whatever we would like to call it) was represented by three regional councillors out of 51 for three years in the Regional Council of Veneto, a region of 5-million people. There are thus official sources regarding the party's presence in the legislative body. This alone should convince anyone on the party's relevance and the opportunity of continuing to have an article on it in Wikipedia. -- Checco ( talk) 08:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let me point out however that, of all the sources in the article,
only one spells out the name of the party... The other ones are valid sources, but they appear to be totally unrelated with the party called "Centrodestra Veneto".
P1221 (
talk)
09:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- You refer to this subject as a political party, but in reality it was just a regional assembly group, it does not appear that this group has ever undertaken initiatives that have ever given it general notability: indeed, it is almost impossible to find mere news/sources about this group.-- Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 20:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Checco Neither a party nor a parliamentary group are notable for the simple fact that they exist: as per
WP:ORGCRITE, a political party
is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject
. - In my opinion,
official sources regarding the party's presence in the legislative body
are not valid secondary sources (at most they confirm the presence of this group in Veneto's parliament). The party's relevance might be confirmed only if the sources point to the fact that Centrodestra Veneto was able to influence the legislature to pass laws in accordance to Centrodestra Veneto's political objectives. If this happened, however, I'm expecting newspapers would have covered it. As said above, I'm simply struggling to find sources citing Centrodestra Veneto by name... - I don't doubt that Centrodestra Veneto existed as parliamentary group (but not as political party), I simply doubt that it was the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, so that it was notable enough to deserve its own article in Wikipedia.
P1221 (
talk)
08:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- As final comment, there is an objective difference between " political party" and " parliamentary group". A political party is usually open to general public, not only to members elected in parliament; a parliamentary group is formed only by politicians elected in parliament. The main aim of a political party is to contest elections and possibly elect somebody; the main aim of a parliamentary group is to regroup politicians who share common political goals.
- A political party might not have a parliamentary group with the same name (for instance, because the number of persons elected is too small to form a political group - example: Azione); a parliamentary group might not represent a political party with the same name (because it represents different parties, which usually do not run under the same coalition - example: Per le Autonomie -, or because a corresponding party hasn't been established - example: Insieme per il Futuro as of today).
- I think it is wrong to consider a political party and a parliamentary group as the same thing and I think that an encyclopedia shall be very precise on the terminology used in its articles. P1221 ( talk) 08:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per User:P1221's comments which are actually based on WP policies. Another option would be to merge, i.e. mention its existence in some other article of a more relevant party, if multiple sources certify that such a party Centrodestra Veneto existed. Yakme ( talk) 07:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 20:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I think that a good compromise could be the merger with Tosi List for Veneto, since at least 3/4 of the page concerns the Tosi List and not this group.-- Scia Della Cometa ( talk) 21:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Whether other articles should exist or not, it appears this one meets GEOLAND Star Mississippi 20:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Bagh-e Latifan
- Bagh-e Latifan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deletion proposed by VersaceSpace because "It's a garden". Looking at the coordinates on Google Maps' satellite view, it doesn't look like a garden to me. Seems like a small town. According to Google Maps, there's a mosque. There's also the "چشمه الیا" ("Elia Fountain") nearby which Google says is a "tourist attraction". @ 4nn1l2: any comment? — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 13:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely not a garden now! If Liverpool is a swimming pool, then Bagh-e Latifan may be a garden too ;-) Statistical code: 216806, population: 257 persons in 66 families, including 127 men and 130 women, according to the latest census in 2016. Use Ctrl+F: 216806 to find its entry. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 13:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to be a genuine village, so passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Looking at these many prods, VersaceSpace seems to think just because the co-ordinates given point specifically to a garden this is all the article is referring to! No, the article refers to the whole village. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- There have been dozens, no hundreds, of these locations that have been PROD'd over the past two years (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography/Article alerts for some recent examples), not just by VersaceSpace but by quite a few editors who are trying to clean up some mass produced stub articles. There was even an AN discussion and an Arbitration case about thousands of articles that all had the same questionable source used to justify that they were an actual occupied settlement. You can debate the fate of this one article but, speaking as an admin who reviews PRODs each day, this deletion tagging has been a movement on the part of several editors to clean up "village" and unincorporated settlement articles (places in Azerbaijan, Iran, Africa, California, Virginia, etc.) that could not clearly be confirmed to have been occupied settlements meeting GEOLAND requirements.
- And that doesn't even touch on the successful effort a while back to PROD the New York state "pond" articles which weren't about lakes and large bodies of water but about larger puddles in someone's back field or the articles on numerous local streams that couldn't ever be considered to be notable except for the people who lived next to them and weren't well documented. Years ago, Wikipedia had many mass produced articles from editors who are now long gone who seem to have had some free time and a local map or atlas and who created articles on every geographic feature for a location. It was a big problem a decade ago that some editors are trying to clean up these days.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
18:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. But that is all irrelevant to this particular article, which is very clearly a village and therefore meets our notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was one of those users who helped cleaning up the mess Carlossuarez46 had created. I only PRODed abadis with no population, but here we see that abadis with a sizable population are getting tagged and PRODed too. We should be more careful about these abadis. I suggest we wait until the Iranian government publishes an official list of villages in Iran. 4nn1l2 ( talk) 10:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 20:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus to delete per WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. Almost all Keep arguments based upon NBC and Vice sources. No convincing argument that the NBC is sufficiently about the subject to satisfy GNG, or that the Vice article can be considered a sufficiently reliable source. High likelihood of comments from questionable account, but does not change the consensus.
TigerShark (
talk)
00:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturned to No Consensus. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 24. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Patrick Lancaster
- Patrick Lancaster ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This video-blogger does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NJOURNALIST. It had been previously deleted. Netherzone ( talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. There are hardly any sources on this person. Not notable.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 18:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep sources listed in article. 666hopedieslast ( talk) 22:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- note to reviewer: this account was started on May 29 2022 with one innocuous edit. Went into overdrive on June 19 (no edits in between) displaying an astonishing amount of knowledge of Wikipedia editing techniques. Probably worth considering, as another "keep" vote comes from IntrepidContributor, an account created 5 days ago and also well-versed in Wikipedia immediately. Wes sideman ( talk) 12:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- note to reviewer: many votes were cast before I added several Dutch sources. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 14:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete lacks enough coverage to justify a standalone article IMO. Maybe merge any relevant information to Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis?- KH-1 ( talk) 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Netherzone ( talk) 04:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. See sources I posted in talk page which can be added. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 04:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable propagandist youtuber. -- IgorTurzh ( talk) 10:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- CommentThe article includes two sources at present (only one of which discusses Lancaster at length) and formerly also included The Daily Mirror which mentioned Lancaster in passing. That hardly speaks to notability. Bobfrombrockley has listed one source by Task and Purpose and one article in Polish in the talk page of the article that discuss Lancaster in depth and also four that mention him in passing as "the most popular pro-Russian influencer" on YouTube or some such. That gives exactly three sources that talk about Lancaster beyond the bare minimum and several brief mentions. None of this satisfies WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete no sources found, passing mentions. Might be notable later, not at this time. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I added a few more references. The Wired article alone is enough to establish notability in my opinion. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 21:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)— IntrepidContributor ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- note to reviewer this account was started 6 days after this deletion discussion was created, and immediately knew how to do everything on Wikipedia correctly. I believe the vote should be disregarded.
Wes sideman (
talk)
12:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The sources you've added are passing mentions. They do not help the article or its notability.--
Ermenrich (
talk)
21:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- What is wrong with passing mentions? I am trying to help keep the article. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 21:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)— IntrepidContributor ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I added now a full article by Zaborona which is not just passing mention.
IntrepidContributor (
talk)
21:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)—
IntrepidContributor (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The Zabrorona "full article" is a work of
native advertising, it even says on their about page that they are
"We are open for native advertisements"
. It does not count towards WP:GNG because it is paid advertising mascarading ad an article. Netherzone ( talk) 02:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)- The Zabrorona article is a work of
journalism. Many publishers offer native advertising and
Advertorials, but they usually provide advertising disclosure. The Financial Times offers
"engaging and impactful multimedia storytelling" to advertisers, but that doesn't mean they aren't also capable of producing journalism. Wikipedia cites the Financial Times 463,714 times.
IntrepidContributor (
talk)
15:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are incorrect,
IntrepidContributor, this is
native advertising and is a primary source from his family - the article title starts with
From the Lancaster Family
- it is a placed advertorial not a work of journalism. Primary sources or placed advertorial content do not count towards notability. Netherzone ( talk) 03:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)From the Lancaster Family
in the title is not advertising disclosure. Please provide evidence that this is native advertising, and not journalism, like Zaborona itself claims. The lead of the article saysZaborona investigated the life and work of one of Russia’s most popular propagandists and sought to find out who could fund Lancaster and why he supported the war
. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 09:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are incorrect,
IntrepidContributor, this is
native advertising and is a primary source from his family - the article title starts with
- The Zabrorona article is a work of
journalism. Many publishers offer native advertising and
Advertorials, but they usually provide advertising disclosure. The Financial Times offers
"engaging and impactful multimedia storytelling" to advertisers, but that doesn't mean they aren't also capable of producing journalism. Wikipedia cites the Financial Times 463,714 times.
IntrepidContributor (
talk)
15:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Zabrorona "full article" is a work of
native advertising, it even says on their about page that they are
- I hope you are addressing the community, because people that put up AFDs rarely ever ever change their mind, no matter how many sources are provided.
666hopedieslast (
talk)
12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't expect some people to change their mind here. I do expect the administrator closing this discussion to make a good judgement on whether the Zaborona article is an advertorial or not. I also posted for community input on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Zaborona and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Geographic sourcing bias on Wikipedia. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 14:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I hope you are addressing the community, because people that put up AFDs rarely ever ever change their mind, no matter how many sources are provided.
666hopedieslast (
talk)
12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have that Zaborona got paid money for that article?? And let's pretend for a second that you're right... and they got paid money for what you're calling is an "advertorial", well the article basically reads as a slanderous hit piece against Patrick Lancaster! If your theory is true and he paid for it, then that's got to be one of the biggest waste of money ever. Mathmo Talk 16:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The sources you've added are passing mentions. They do not help the article or its notability.--
Ermenrich (
talk)
21:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 20:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is a difficult one, most of the sources you find are his "disinformation" on fishy looking websites. His name seems to come up with Gonzalo Lira, who was up for AfD here a few months ago. More than enough passing mentions of this fellow; could probably be a brief mention in an article about propaganda. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete One in-depth independent source (the Vice article) is not sufficient to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: it's not clear to me that the Zaborona article is an advert funded by the Lancaster family – it takes a remarkably critical stance on Lancaster if that's the case! It calls him a "propogandist", strongly implies that he has lied about his credentials and experiences, quotes Bellingcat's description of him as a "useful idiot", talks about his "fake report", and discusses his connections with the FSB. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 11:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Passing mentions are sometimes fine for substantiating some claims but they do not add up to notability even if there is a plethora of them. Reliable sources are ones such as quality mainstream press that discuss the subject as its major treatment. Zaborona is not mainstream press. There is a big difference between Zabrona and the FT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep – In fact, the more I look into it the more convinced I am that the Zaborona source is neither advertising nor a primary source; that and the Vice article seem to be the significant coverage in sources independent of the subject that
WP:GNG asks for. The question becomes whether Zaborona is reliable. I am not familiar with it, but the founders do seem to be journalists who have published in certainly-reliable sources (Katerina Sergatskova has
published a couple of articles in The Guardian; Roman Stepanovych produced a
Peabody Award-winning documentary for PBS). Zaborona doesn't seem to have been discussed on e.g.
the reliable sources noticeboard previously, but unless there's something I'm missing I'm inclined to think that they are reliable. They are no FT, but the FT is not our minimum standard for a reliable source – if it were, we'd delete a lot of articles which presently survive deletion discussions
Caeciliusinhorto-public (
talk)
11:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no chance that the Zaborona source is advertising paid for by Lancaster, as for what logical reason could he possibly have to do that?? Quite the opposite... it might be argued the Zaborona goes "too far" and violates WP:LIBEL but that's a discussion for another day. Mathmo Talk 17:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note User:Ermenrich who edit wars against Gonzalo Lira with staunch POV, has been actively in a bad faith edit war today with me about this article, he continues to remove well sourced articles, including the BBC. Earlier source removals: [8], [9] Latest removals. 666hopedieslast ( talk) 12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for drawing attention to your attempts at white washing the subject. I was considering posting about it here myself.—- Ermenrich ( talk) 12:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Kto wierzy Lancasterowi? Nachalna ustawka rosyjskich służb". Wiadomości z Polski i ze świata (in Polish). 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-06-27.
- ""Information Dumps": From the Kremlin to Your Screen". bywire news. 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-06-27.
- Rabiega, Hubert (2022-06-12). "Głos Rosji w internecie. Wpływowi youtuberzy szerzą na Zachodzie propagandę Putina". Polska Times (in Polish). Retrieved 2022-06-27.
- "Putin-Propaganda: Wie deutsche und internationale Influencer die Blockade russischer Medien unterlaufen". stern.de (in German). 2022-06-09. Retrieved 2022-06-27.
- Bright, Sam (2017-07-24). "The communist soldier using charity sites to fund his war". BBC News. Retrieved 2022-06-27.
- Schogol, Jeff (2022-04-19). "How a former US Navy sailor became a Putin propagandist". Task & Purpose. Retrieved 2022-06-27.
- As Ermenrich deleted in the article in an edit war to remove well sourced documents, the BBC states, "Lancaster's videos have been featured by mainstream media outlets and has contributed to The Telegraph and Sky News" and also RT.com. 666hopedieslast ( talk) 12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to complain about my reverting your attempt to call Lancaster a journalist and removing the fact that he’s a pro Russian propagandist, something not supported by the sources you’ve provided, please do so in the appropriate forum. This is not the place.—-
Ermenrich (
talk)
12:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did not remove the statement that "he’s a pro Russian propagandist".
Look at the last edit I posted. This lie needs to be retracted.
666hopedieslast (
talk)
12:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- My friend... You can not begin with a collection of personal attacks, half truths, and innuendo and then demand that "This lie needs to be retracted." Retract your own and then you can get back on that high horse. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did not remove the statement that "he’s a pro Russian propagandist".
Look at the last edit I posted. This lie needs to be retracted.
666hopedieslast (
talk)
12:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep (weak) - per talk page and sources there - GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - is one of the very very few western journalists reporting from within DPR/LPR itself, and has been doing so for eight years! Longer track record with a deeper knowledge than anybody else like him. Easily passes notability criteria without breaking a sweat.
Mathmo
Talk
14:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any credible sources actually calling him a journalist. Vice calls him a journalist with apostrophes and NBC calls him an influencer.
IntrepidContributor (
talk)
15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- He's a
War Journalist going in to report in places where none of them dare to go. No surprises the opinions they have about him.
Mathmo
Talk
15:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you think that Russia or the DLNR allow "western journalists" to go to territory they control?--
Ermenrich (
talk)
15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Of course they'll let in western journalists if they want to come, as Russia/LDR/DPR doesn't seem have a blanket ban against them like Ukrainian has a blanket ban against Russian news sources. For instance French24 journalists reported from within a so called "liberated" city: https://twitter.com/ivan_8848/status/1544426255260459009 And here is another different example, Sky News TV also reporting from within a former Ukrainian city: https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/status/1543258956537143298
- The issue is that western journalist seem to only very rarely report from the other side, and spend almost no time on it (aside from a few very very rare exceptions, such as Patrick Lancaster). We can only speculate as to why they wish to ignore reporting from the other side?
Mathmo
Talk
16:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for barging in, but I think that France 24 reported from Lysychansk when it was still under the Ukrainian control. The locals accuse the Ukrainian soldiers of trying to 'deport' them. Alaexis ¿question? 06:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you think that Russia or the DLNR allow "western journalists" to go to territory they control?--
Ermenrich (
talk)
15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- He's a
War Journalist going in to report in places where none of them dare to go. No surprises the opinions they have about him.
Mathmo
Talk
15:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any credible sources actually calling him a journalist. Vice calls him a journalist with apostrophes and NBC calls him an influencer.
IntrepidContributor (
talk)
15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep coverage in sources such as Vice & NBC is sufficient for WP:GNG. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- NOTE - I have reduced the content of the article to remedy BLP violations. Those here may wish to review those changes. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete There's only one reliable source in that article (NBCNews) which only mentions him in passing (and not in very positive light - so if we do keep this article this will be what it's based on) but other than that there's no indication of notability. Reason this was created is because the guy is popular on the fringe parts of social media (youtube, twitter) among fanatic pro-Putin supporters. This is just an attempt to amplify his non-notability. Volunteer Marek 02:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, the Vice article is specifically about him and he's
notable enough to be a subject of a report by Institute for Strategic Dialogue (mentioned in the NBC article. Alaexis ¿question? 06:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)- You might want to read the discussions about Vice in the archives of
WP:RSP, as it's reliability as a source is questionable. It's not a high quality source, and some consider it
gonzo journalism, certainly not a good source for politics but may be OK for music reviews. The only decent source in the Lancaster article is NBC, and that is not in-depth significant coverage as mentioned above.
Netherzone (
talk)
06:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is literally no consensus about it, there was no RfC that established that it's not a high quality source.
Alaexis
¿question?
07:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Alaexis, there is no such report by the IDS on their website, try searching "Patrick Lancaster" there yourself
[10]. The IDS just spoke to NBC about him.--
Ermenrich (
talk)
13:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ermenrich, you're right, thanks for checking it. I've amended my comment accordingly. This doesn't change my vote in view of the coverage by Vice, NBC and Dutch media mentioned by User:Alexis Jazz. Alaexis ¿question? 14:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Alaexis, there is no such report by the IDS on their website, try searching "Patrick Lancaster" there yourself
[10]. The IDS just spoke to NBC about him.--
Ermenrich (
talk)
13:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is literally no consensus about it, there was no RfC that established that it's not a high quality source.
Alaexis
¿question?
07:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- You might want to read the discussions about Vice in the archives of
WP:RSP, as it's reliability as a source is questionable. It's not a high quality source, and some consider it
gonzo journalism, certainly not a good source for politics but may be OK for music reviews. The only decent source in the Lancaster article is NBC, and that is not in-depth significant coverage as mentioned above.
Netherzone (
talk)
06:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I actually recognized this name because his name has been mentioned in Dutch media more than once in relation to
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 being shot down. This article in
NRC (newspaper) (definitely a reliable source) for example mentions "Lancaster" 7 times:
[11].
[12] by
De Telegraaf about Russian media is also clearly more than a passing mention. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me)
17:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- These Dutch media are useful references for the article. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 06:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. Most of the references are fluff - self-published, or paid advertising. Additionally, I notice that two of the major contributors to this article started their accounts a month ago, and 5 days ago. They both displayed an astonishing knowledge of Wikipedia editing right from the get-go.
Something is rotten in Denmark.
Wes sideman (
talk)
12:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Wes sideman, how much coverage would be enough? Did you also count the Dutch sources I added? (some are paywalled, but that doesn't affect notability) Also note I just added a few more. None of those are self-published or paid advertising.
Edit: in case anyone would wonder, the reason I'm here is because User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång pinged me for template help on Talk:Patrick Lancaster, which was appropriate due to my contributions to {{ Infobox YouTube personality}}. Noticed the RfD tag and here I am. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 13:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC) - Can't say I agree with you on delete, but I second your nose... There is something off here.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk)
16:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I contributed to the Russian, Ukrainian and English Wikipedias when I was in university in England (5 years ago). I can't access my old account because it is connected to my old email which I also can't access (because I can't access my Ukrainian cell). The Zaborona article is not "paid advertising," as claimed by Wes sideman, so their "Additional" point is ad hominem. I have no connection to any of the other accounts Wes refers to. IntrepidContributor ( talk) 17:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Wes sideman, how much coverage would be enough? Did you also count the Dutch sources I added? (some are paywalled, but that doesn't affect notability) Also note I just added a few more. None of those are self-published or paid advertising.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. TigerShark ( talk) 20:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
DeHorizon
- DeHorizon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is very run-of-the-mill game studio working on a crypto game that might one day be released. It's received only the run-of-the-mill coverage that it exists and has created a token. No different from all the other crypto game startups, with one exception : Its one point of interest is that Richard Garriott seems to be involved, so if there was any content to speak of, I'd say it should be merged to his article. But there isn't. ApLundell ( talk) 20:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Richard Garriott per rationale. Cat's Tuxedo ( talk) 16:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ApLundell ( talk) 20:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Routine coverage of the puffed-up type that vaporware crypto projects always generate. Maybe when something actually comes out we'll revisit. Axem Titanium ( talk) 22:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Mary Starrett
- Mary Starrett ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Being a staff member of a minor political party, or a local broadcaster, or a local officeholder, or an unelected candidate for a major office is insufficient for presumption of notability. All of the sources currently cited in the article are either WP:PRIMARY, non- WP:RS-compliant, or merely routine campaign coverage. A WP:BEFORE search on multiple search engines produced no more than a (very) small handful of local news items about the subject, not nearly enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sourcing to satisfy the standard notability criteria. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, News media, Conservatism, Women, and Oregon. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete. It looks like the subject has been elected to the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners in 2014 and 2018. She's gotten coverage for that in The Newberg Graphic, a small local paper with a circulation of less thank 5k (articles here and here). She got coverage from The Oregonian for her stance on vaccines and masks during the coronavirus ( here). The News-Register also covered that (although the article doesn't have a byline), and they have a circulation of about 10k (article here); so did the Oregon Capital Chronicle (article here). Other local affiliates do as well, but I think it turns into churnalism at that point. Besides that, there's not much else out there. NPOL states local politicians can be notable under the following description: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." I do not think, at this time, the subject meets the "major" and "significant" bar part of that description. The coverage seems to mostly be from very local papers, about a local politician, without sustained and lasting coverage. I am not married to my assessment, however, and anyone wanting to discuss can ping me and I'll be happy to discuss. -- Kbabej ( talk) 20:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure) NemesisAT ( talk) 14:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Marissa Lingen
- Marissa Lingen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I may very well be missing something major here but I can't find any meaningful coverage of her or her work - just that "hey she was published in xyz" and most of the publications are self published/fansites/blogs. I don't see coverage in any of the normal, major critical outlets and aside from the Asimov award, which I'm not sure if on it's own confers notability, there simply isn't much to substantiate an article. There are plenty of hits for her name as publisher but not much or any in the way of reliable coverage of her. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Science fiction and fantasy, and Illinois. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This article should never have been brought up for an AfD (although, yes, the article needs a major cleanup but that's a topic outside the scope of an AfD). Marissa Lingen hasn't merely been published in "self published/fansites/blogs" as stated above. Instead, more than a hundred of her short stories have been published in all of the SF/F genre's top magazines, including Analog Science Fiction and Fact, Tor.com, Lightspeed, Nature, Apex Magazine, Uncanny Magazine, Beneath Ceaseless Skies, Clarkesworld Magazine, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and many many more, along with being reprinted in various Year's Best Stories anthologies. Her fiction has also been reviewed in Locus Magazine countless times ( one example here but there are many more), SFF Reviews, Analog Science Fiction and Fact (can't link to reviews b/c not online), Amazing Stories ( see this one review but there are others, Tangent Online ( see this one review, there are many others), and a number of other places. There are also a number of interviews with the subject in genre magazines and mentions of her work in other media such as Book Riot and Locus. As stated at Wikipedia:Notability (people), "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." That is certainly the case here, with the large number of reviews and coverage of this author proving notability.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 22:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I agree with southernnights, "This article should never have been brought up for an AfD". Multiple independent reviews, multiple magazines, etc. The bibliography section is a bit bloated, but I think an edit or two is much preferred to article deletion. Twopower332.1938 ( talk) 23:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I agree with southernnights. and others Well-known and clearly notable young author. Yes, the article could be improved.... -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 00:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep finding biographical articles on the person is not easy - I found none in books and newspapers etc. It is however easy to find reference in newsprint for her work or interviews about her work. But this is a biography, and we cannot base a biography of the person on interviews, we need fact checking. Lightburst ( talk) 02:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - this article (Marissa Lingen) should stay, but with the bibliography in a separate article at Marissa Lingen bibliography, as per guidelines at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies Sunwin1960 ( talk) 04:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: clearly notable author. No strong view as to whether the bibliography should be in this article or split off (it is currently duplicated, with an AfD for
Marissa Lingen bibliography): the bibliography should remain in the encyclopedia, somewhere, but should not be duplicated.
Pam
D
08:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. I moved the bibliography into its own article, but another editor has copied it back into the main author article, presumably pending the outcome of the AfD process for both articles. Sunwin1960 ( talk) 08:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Reviews establish that WP:NAUTHOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as meets WP:NAUTHOR. The article certainly needs significant cleanup, but WP:DINC. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 20:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - While the article needs improving, the subject's notability has nonetheless been shown through sources in the article. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 04:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Camilo Aretxabala
- Camilo Aretxabala ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about former footballer who appeared in a handful of Chilean Primera A matches during his career. There is no SIGCOV available in online English- or Spanish-language sources (just routine/trivial coverage like database entries, match reports and transfer announcements), and the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Jogurney ( talk) 19:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Chile. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete not even close to enough sourcing to meet GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental ( talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. TigerShark ( talk) 03:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Cory Spotts
- Cory Spotts ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:NMG, all self referential or primary sources. FrederalBacon ( talk) 18:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FrederalBacon ( talk) 18:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note This appears to be an article that has sat abandoned for a long time without much update. The notability when it was created was from one article and the subjects own website. Looking, it appears there is nothing but that, even after 15 years. FrederalBacon ( talk) 18:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I believe the reasoning for deletion is erroneous. The cited sources (Phoenix New Times and Allmusic.com) are established and are not primary sources. I did remove the primary sources previously listed under "further reading." Thank you. IakaNoctra ( talk) 18:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The noted "All Music" is just a discography list. Same with the Discogs link. Only link that infers notability is the one article in Pheonix New Times from 2005. Googling him give me nothing but primary sources or lists of his discography. None of that confers notability. FrederalBacon ( talk) 18:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Lack of in-depth independent coverage. I searched Newspapers.com and found only a handful of minor hits [13]. This biggest was an interview. MB 21:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete passing mentions in connection with bands in Phoenix, nothing much about the fellow himself. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Alcidio Fleitas
- Alcidio Fleitas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about former footballer who made a handful of appearances in professional leagues, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in several pro leagues, but participation is no longer sufficient to establish notability at WP:NSPORTS. I've searched online English- and Spanish-language sources and can only locate routine/trivial coverage such as database entries and match reports. There is no SIGCOV available. Jogurney ( talk) 17:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Paraguay. Shellwood ( talk) 17:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete not even close to enough sourcing to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental ( talk) 13:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hardeep Singh Dimpy Dhillon
- Hardeep Singh Dimpy Dhillon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Not held office. Perpetual candidate. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Punjab. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails NPOL and GNG - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, article creator most likely has COI and paid editing issues, not notable to warrant inclusion. MxYamato ( talk) 18:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Daisy Whitney
AfDs for this article:
- Daisy Whitney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG ~ T P W 15:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete we need indepedent sources about here, this is too heavily based on her own website. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep USA Today piece about one of her books [14], Common Sense Media [15]. One here in a journal [16]. Teeny Kirkus Reviews piece [17] Not much but I think it's AUTHOR. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep there are more reviews than ones that
Oaktree b was able to find and so I've added them in. Indeed they give her a clear pass at
WP:AUTHOR
CT55555 (
talk)
16:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- ohhh nice one, good finds! Oaktree b ( talk) 18:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:AUTHOR#3, she has created a collective body of work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Per WP:HEY and with an assist from the WP Library, the article has continued to be expanded to incorporate reviews and additional content about her writing. She has four Kirkus Reviews reviews, for The Mockingbirds, the sequel The Rivals, Starry Nights, and The Fire Artist. Her work has also been reviewed in School Library Journal, Booklist, The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, and Publishers Weekly, e.g. The Mockingbirds, When You Were Here, Starry Nights. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As per above, evidence of meeting WP:NAUTHOR. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 21:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Helmut Schlegel. czar 07:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Jesus Christus, Menschensohn
- Jesus Christus, Menschensohn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability: while this short text has been included in some religious song books, it doesn't seem to have received any actual attention from reliable, independent sources. Sources in article are databases, or lists of contents: only source with some further text is the "Werkhilfe zum Singheft", which is more of an educational/technical guide on how to perform it.
Trying to find actual sources about the song turns out to be fruitless. Nothing in GNews [18] or GBooks [19] (the one source is by Schlegel so doesn't count), and the 25 regular hits [20] produce nothing useful not already in the article. A redirect to Helmut Schlegel may be a good alternative for deletion. Fram ( talk) 14:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Religion, Christianity, and Germany. Fram ( talk) 14:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I think it is well-enough sourced, and is of education value. -- evrik ( talk) 18:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I'd defer to Gerda on this since she's the one who speaks German and has access to the sources. But I'd presume that there might be more coverage of the song in offline sources? I imagine the topic has wider coverage offline than online. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 00:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's review the sources in the article (current as of
Special:Permalink/1095357779):
- 1 is a "hymn portrait", published in the Diocese of Limburg's semi-annual church music journal. Authors are a priest and the diocese of Limburg's head of church music, who also edits the journal.
- 2 is a database of hymns that mentions which hymnals contain the song
- 3 is a list of songs in the Limburg version of the Gotteslob (might be better to cite the Limburg Gotteslob directly)
- 4 is a primary source sales listing for 5
- 5 is the table of contents of a songbook that contains the hymn
- 6 is an excerpt from a songbook containing the hymn
- 7 is a booklet accompanying this collection of choral settings (published annually). Author is "Bundessingwart und Kantor im Christlichen Sängerbund", an evangelical choir organisation.
- Of these sources, only 1 and 7 are worth considering, the rest is trivial database entries or sales material. Source 1 is from the time the new Gotteslob was introduced and contains several portraits of the new songs that were included for the Diocese of Limburg's version of the hymnal (the first part of the hymnal is identical for all German-speaking Catholic dioceses, but most dioceses have their own songs in the other part). I wouldn't be surprised if the authors were involved in the decision to include this song in the Limburg hymnal, but I haven't researched this further. Anyway, this is a good source. Source 7 is not Catholic and shows reception of the song outside the diocese and denomination of its origin. It is fairly short but a reasonable description of the song, written for people who want to use it in church service or for choirs.
- Without source 1, this would be a clear "redirect to author" for lack of independent secondary sourcing. As it stands, we don't really have "multiple" independent sources doing an in-depth treatment. While the songs of the main (common) part of the Gotteslob have all been subject to in-depth critical commentary (see
[21] for a list of some literature) there does not seem to be much about the Limburg hymns so far. Probably merging to the author is still the best solution until there is another in-depth discussion of the song. —
Kusma (
talk)
09:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. To clarify: Gotteslob is one book, with a regional section for numbers 700 and up, the regional section a collection of hymns traditionally sung in the region and new songs fro the region, like this one.
- I think the guidelines for songs are mostly made for recorded songs with a broad publication. It seems a bit unfair to expect the same kind of reception for a regional hymn. What I see:
- This is a song that is actually sung. There are many in Gotteslob which get practically never sung, but this one fits many occasions (as could be expanded based on ref 1 which I found only yesterday).
- This is a hymn that has not yet made it to other regions of Gotteslob but to several other collections.
- This is a text that inspired two composers.
- This is a text written by a prolific and thoughtful author, and worth knowing about - I think - even if no second in-depth discussion pops up. We have IAR, no? Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glauben können wie du. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- These are not particularly good arguments. "People sing this", well, we need them to write about this. "This is only a regional hymn, so we should expect sources to be bad" sound more like a reason not to write individual articles about regional hymns, not to accept lower quality sourcing... and I do not think invoking IAR works particularly well to have four songs by this author as individual articles. Remember, we are not here to promote them, no matter whether they deserve that or not (and many texts are "worth knowing about" and we exclude them to prevent people from promoting their causes). Der Herr wird dich mit seiner Güte segnen in the main part of the Gotteslob is probably easiest to source; there seems to be far more written about it, even if the article doesn't reflect that. (I find the sources for Glauben können wie du slightly worse than the ones presented here, and am surprised it got so many "keep" comments). All of these articles btw suffer badly from broken links. — Kusma ( talk) 10:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider the possibility of a merger and to welcome other viewpoints to this discussion and examination of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge without prejudice against recreation if more sources emerge - With deepest regrets, I think I have to side with Kusma's arguments here. It appears that there's really only one source that gives the hymn any decent coverage, with the rest being passing mentions at best. It's not because of the material because other hymns from the same collection appear to have had more coverage. This is not a !vote I take lightly: in fact, I was originally leaning a weak keep when I first saw that the article had been nominated, until I made my own search and found very little of use. I appreciate that the hymn helped inspire other musicians, but that isn't a claim to notability in and of itself.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions)
00:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see no reason why new sources should cover this song. It began regional and was successful beyond that region, that makes it notable for me even if not formally for Wikipedia. It will likely appear in the common section of Gotteslob in the next edition in a few decades. I could name a few in the same category (regional but beloved) but fear that I'd just provoke new deletion discussions. So just one example: Das Weizenkorn muss sterben. Big difference: the author is dead. I wish Brother Helmut a long life. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Helmut Schlegel. Fails WP:NSONG per Kusma's analysis. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Phillips Academy. Needs a redirect target in the target article. czar 07:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The Phillips Academy Poll
- The Phillips Academy Poll ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
completely and utterly non notable poll created by students in a high school with no meaningful in depth coverage. It's only sourced to their student papers, local papers with interviews and not otherwise meaningful in depth coverage (also worth noting, this appears to have been created and tags removed by obvious socks of the previous creator(s).) PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Massachusetts. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- While the poll has been run by high schoolers, I would argue that the national coverage it has received lends itself to the credibility of the poll. Furthermore, the continual growth of the poll would suggest the wikipedia page is a necessary resource for information on the subject matter.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
20:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It hasn't received national coverage from major media outlets or significant in-depth coverage - Newsweek isn't reliable.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
20:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Saying that "Newsweek isn't reliable" does not discount it being a major publication... What's more, being cited by
FiveThirtyEight and the
National Republican Congressional Committee lend a significant amount of credibility to this organization. Moreover, it is supported by the
Abbot Academy's fund and grant organization.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
21:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Read
WP:RSP and
WP:OSE while you're at it. Your arguments don't hold up.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
21:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have looked at both of those pages, actually, and my arguments fit in well with what has already been codified. Newsweek was previously classified as highly reliable, and now it is considered ambiguous (not unreliable, as you have claimed. SEE:
Wikipedia:RSP). And my citing of other articles is not simply claiming that they exist, but rather that major national institutions and publications have relied upon data gathered by this poll to form their own opinions and create publications.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
21:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. In retrospect, maybe the Concord Monitor, 7News Boston, and a school newspaper aren't the most nationally notable publications for this argument-- I certainly don't dispute you there. However, NHPR is no small source: in 2017, they reported over 190k weekly page listeners and 450k website views. [22] And, as Nicholas pointed out earlier, the argument here is about notability, and NHPR supports notability. FiveThirtyEight is also highly-respected, especially in the polling world. In 2015, they published an article reporting they had nearly 8 million unique visitors per month. [23] This poll certainly meets notability criteria. Vergilreader ( talk) 22:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)— Vergilreader ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I have looked at both of those pages, actually, and my arguments fit in well with what has already been codified. Newsweek was previously classified as highly reliable, and now it is considered ambiguous (not unreliable, as you have claimed. SEE:
Wikipedia:RSP). And my citing of other articles is not simply claiming that they exist, but rather that major national institutions and publications have relied upon data gathered by this poll to form their own opinions and create publications.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
21:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Read
WP:RSP and
WP:OSE while you're at it. Your arguments don't hold up.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
21:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Saying that "Newsweek isn't reliable" does not discount it being a major publication... What's more, being cited by
FiveThirtyEight and the
National Republican Congressional Committee lend a significant amount of credibility to this organization. Moreover, it is supported by the
Abbot Academy's fund and grant organization.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
21:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It hasn't received national coverage from major media outlets or significant in-depth coverage - Newsweek isn't reliable.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
20:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: As someone who declined an earlier version of this page at AfC I am not going to !vote but when I considered it I felt that it was
WP:TOOSOON and references available would only improve through the current electoral cycle.
Gusfriend (
talk)
23:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the content would improve towards the election, but the necessity to have a page w/foundational information and the current popularity of the poll would make keeping the page up highly important.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
00:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- highly important to who?
PRAXIDICAE🌈
00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
Praxidicae The highly aggressive tone is not appreciated. The same question could be asked of any Wikipedia article, but in this case spe cifically the sudden rise in popularity of the poll makes the creation of a Wikipedia page important as it allows for information about the poll to be disseminated.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I asked a specific question. It's not an unreasonable one.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Seeing as this poll is credible, the current Wikipedia consensus seems to indicate that other polling organizations that have been covered to a similar degree ( Siena College Research Institute, Franklin & Marshall College Poll, or Monmouth University Polling Institute, to name a few) are notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Nicholas D. ( talk) 20:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I asked a specific question. It's not an unreasonable one.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @
Praxidicae The highly aggressive tone is not appreciated. The same question could be asked of any Wikipedia article, but in this case spe cifically the sudden rise in popularity of the poll makes the creation of a Wikipedia page important as it allows for information about the poll to be disseminated.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- highly important to who?
PRAXIDICAE🌈
00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the content would improve towards the election, but the necessity to have a page w/foundational information and the current popularity of the poll would make keeping the page up highly important.
Nicholas D. (
talk)
00:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect/Merge to Phillips Academy. Like Praxidicae, I don't think that the poll itself is independently notable. But I do think that the poll could be covered within the context of the institution that conducts it. If this is a WP:TOOSOON thing, like Gusfriend suggests, then merging some of the content into the article on the school and then creating a spinoff if/when the poll itself becomes notable seems like it's more than reasonable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 03:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I stumbled across an article covering this poll, and came to Wikipedia for more information but was appalled that it was in discussion for deletion. Allow me to apply the criteria for the NHPR and WHDH features under WP:SIRS.
- Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. (The NHPR article is focused on the group's methodology and motivations to create the poll, including opinion from others in the polling industry. The entirety of the WHDH video is dedicated to the group.)
- Be completely independent of the article subject. (Both these features are from independent journalists.)
- Meet the standard for being a reliable source. (NHPR is affiliated with NPR and therefore reliable, while WHDH is an ex-CBS and ex-NBC affiliate)
- Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability. (Both are secondary sources reporting on the poll's stated methodology and leadership).
- In WP:ORGCRITE, it states multiple independent and reliable sources must be provided, which the two sources I just analyzed have. In another way, Steve Kolceza's Twitter criticism also points toward notability, albeit not in the form of an article, but he represents WBUR, which is also backed by NPR. Sure, the one-line mention in Newsweek isn't in-depth, as Praxidicae noted above, but that doesn't discount the sources I mentioned above that points toward notability.
- In full disclosure, a friend of mine is a Phillips Academy alumnus, but I have not discussed this poll with him, and this should not in any way discount the points I made, as it is not a particularly small school and would not be uncommon to know someone from there. 50.75.166.40 ( talk) 00:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, as no convincing arguments have been made as to why the subject is not notable. The nominator's reasoning seems to have more to do with personal feelings than policy. The fact that the poll is run by high schoolers and has been covered by local news is completely irrelevant, as no policy states that this is grounds for the subject to be deemed "utterly non notable." Keepabortionlegal35 ( talk) 21:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
*:I would point to separate articles on
Siena College Research Institute vs.
Siena College, or
Franklin & Marshall College Poll vs.
Franklin & Marshall College. The polling apparatus and the school are usually considered distinct entities, since the school page will typically focus specifically on the academic institution. Also,
WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not a policy. At least in my view, the potential for greater future notability does not diminish the poll’s already-existent notability as a prominent source for political data.
ChristianATurk (
talk)
15:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Phillips Academy, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 27. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE ( talk) 17:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. For the reasons that I outlined above, I believe that this article and its subject matter have relevance and credibility at the national level. Nicholas D. ( talk) 17:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
:Keep. Being cited by national organizations such as
Newsweek,
FiveThirtyEight, and the
National Republican Congressional Committee is no trivial venture. I would imagine, given the wide audiences of these organizations, that their reliance on this poll’s data confers notability, due to the manner in which this poll influences the political landscape…whether you feel this is justified given the high school thing shouldn’t affect
WP:Notability. I also agree with Nicholas that Wikipedia consensus indicates other polls with similar levels of source material do meet notability guidelines.
ChristianATurk (
talk)
15:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note to closer: I have struck through the comments made by the CU-confirmed sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit (blether) 17:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss without sock disruption
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Phillips Academy. Here's why. We need multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Since this is an organization, the appropriate guideline is
WP:NCORP which includes
WP:ORGIND and
WP:ORGDEPTH. ORGIND requires "Independent content" which, 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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot *rely* only on regurgitating information provided by the organization/school so articles that rely only on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, etc all fail ORGIND. So when you remove this stuff from the article, whatever is left over must meet ORGDEPTH. Also, we don't "combine" references - each reference must meet all the criteria (see
WP:SIRS. Let's look at the references (omitting PRIMARY sources):
- This from NHPR relies entirely on information provided to the reporters by the org itself. The article contains sentences such as "have launched what they believe", "they view the survey as an alternative way", "the students launched what they argue is" - so the journalist is being very careful to ensure this is the students' opinion. The rest of the article discusses one of the polls that the students published - it doesn't discuss the topic organization in any depth (or at all). Fails WP:ORGIND because there's no "Independent Content" about the *organization* and fails WP:ORGDEPTH because there's no in-depth information about the org either.
- This from WHDH says nothing about the topic org, fails ORGDEPTH
- This Newsweek reference and this one mentions the topic organization in-passing, only as the name behind the *poll* (which isn't the topic here), nothing in-depth about the org, both fail ORGDEPTH
- Both this and this from FiveThirtyEight provide no in-depth info on the org, both fail ORGDEPTH
- This in nrcc.org simply regurgitates the results of one of the polls, no in-depth info about the org, fails ORGDEPTH
- This in the Phillipian and this also are good in-depth articles but both rely entirely on information provided by the school and the students. There is just no "Independent Content", therefore both fail ORGIND
- It appears to me that some !voters might assume that getting the name of the organization into a prestigious publication makes the organization notable, but that isn't the case. None of these references meets our criteria. Topic should be redirected. HighKing ++ 19:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT ( talk) 14:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Made in Timeland
- Made in Timeland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It appears there is only one source present in the article that is specifically about the album release, that being Live for Live Music which doesn't even have the album's name in it. Others cover the cancelled festival, aborted release plans, and other KG projects from around that time where the album is mentioned secondarily, but there is very little material about the album itself here. I've found zero reviews from major online publications (if someone has access to magazine archives to confirm there's nothing there either that'd help, but Album of the Year doesn't list any so I'm doubtful). QuietHere ( talk) 14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
QuietHere (
talk)
14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Worth noting that there have been notices for sourcing/notability issues on the article since March. Also worth noting that those notices were added by me (which I forgot about until just now after already making this), dunno if that affects anything though. QuietHere ( talk) 14:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I wouldn't ever agree to delete a top-40 album or an album that charted in Australia, whatever the chart position, and regardless of charting not guaranteeing notability, which is always brought up as a reply to any keep nomination pointing out charting. The sourcing could be better, yes, but perhaps no user has been bothered to find any better sources. Ss 112 05:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - The article is too dependent on tidbits from the band's social media, but those can be removed easily. As a charting album this article can be expanded and cleaned up rather than deleted. Here is a possibly useful review: [24]. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 02:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Multiple charts, though I'd prefer a couple more reviews. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 05:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Charting album. I've added a review of the album (thanks to Doomsayer520) and provided some clean-up/copy editing. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 07:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
List of number of Michelin restaurants in European countries
- List of number of Michelin restaurants in European countries ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn’t have encyclopedic purpose, more like trivia. Fails WP:LISTN (read linked section for criteria). Also doesn’t list all European countries (see https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/countries-in-europe/ for example). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Europe. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails
WP:NOTSTATS, plain and simple. I could also identify
Le Louis XV in
Monaco, but Monaco is not in the list. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
17:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have added Monaco Feuerstern2015 ( talk) 11:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete While the guides themselves group some countries, Michelin_Guide#Guides already has the main dataset, though this table could be split by country too. Reywas92 Talk 18:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This does not meet our requirements for lists. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Promotional catalog. Orientls ( talk) 13:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there, I am currently working on and improving this list. Please allow me a few days to finish these last details. Feuerstern2015 ( talk) 11:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Dragon Ball Z. As for concerns regarding disruptive edits by sockpuppets and IP users, anyone is free to request the redirect for protection. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Bruce Faulconer
- Bruce Faulconer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Faulconer has received some limited press for composing music for the American dub of Dragon Ball Z. At best, WP:BLP1E applies here, and his article should be reduced to a redirect to the DBZ article. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Anime and manga. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect and wow that's a lot of, well, not much, up there. He's known and almost exclusively cited for his Dragon Ball Z (DBZ) works. Redirect to DBZ.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe you will find an enormous number of works by Bruce Faulconer listed in BMI. It is quite substantial, being 276 titles. His television music alone includes more than merely DBZ, and yet he did 224 episodes of DBZ. Short of sending 224 VHS tapes to verify Faulconer's contribution (or the orange box DVD set available from FUNimation), I believe the IMDb has supporting relevance. Other television works were included in the original post. Here is an annotation for one of his many works for PBS.
- In a brief search, Faulconer has had multiple performances at universities around the US, some of these include: Bolling Green University, North Texas State University, Ohio State University, and the University of California at San Diego https://library.uta.edu/sci/sites/library.uta.edu.sci/files/nc_1979.pdf.
- Faulconer had the premiere of his Interface I at the International Gaudeamus Music Week in the Netherlands. His works were played during concerts in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Hilversum, and was also broadcasted over Radio Netherlands.
- Faulconer was a composer invited to the MacDowell Colony for a residency in the summer of 1982, where he worked on his Sonata for Flute and Piano, and Concerto for Trumpet and Orchestra.
- He was featured in DMagazine, and received the 1980 National Endowment for the Arts Award.
- In 1986, Faulconer's Washington on the Brazos was premiered by the Dallas Symphony Orchestra as cited in DMagazine.
- Bruce Faulconer made Fantasia for viola solo (1980), as well as Fantasia No. 2 for viola solo (1990) which was listed here.
- As far as coverage from anime and manga resources, he has been posted by numerous anime news websites, blogs, and forums.
- This is by no means an exhaustive list of the plethora of entries remaining on the internet concerning the compositional output of Bruce Faulconer. ````
Wikiherm (
talk)
19:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @ Wikiherm: Perhaps you have not read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of musicians. We require multiple instances of significant coverage, or achievements (such as major music awards) that would then presume the presence of significant coverage. None of the examples you list meet these criteria. Also, stating that Faulconer was "featured" in D Magazine is something of a stretch: in a page of over 7,000 words listing the notable events occurring in Dallas in March 1980, 31 words are dedicated to the announcement of a concert by Faulconer and 4 other artists at SMU, where he was teaching at the time. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect Basically no coverage from any anime and manga resources. I can't really establish notability with what's posted above, or the awards section from his website. Esw01407 ( talk) 16:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect I couldn't find a single usable source for a standalone article. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dragon Ball Z. AKK 700 00:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, do not redirect. Resoundingly non-notable, one passing mention of him on JSTOR, as an assistant professor in 1978. No mention of him in Grove Music Online, where we'd expect any notable composer to appear. Given the rate at which the sockpuppets are appearing, this page should be deleted and not redirected – but without prejudice to the subsequent creation of a "clean" redirect. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I don't believe that the bad intentions of the editors should weigh on the inherent notability of the subject. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Sarah Milne
- Sarah Milne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NBAD, no notable achievement at the senior level. zoglophie 12:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and England. zoglophie 12:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as it is no evidence of notability. -- Vaco98 ( talk) 13:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Johann Sithmann. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Sithmann
- Sithmann ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only one entry is an article, and I can't find any others, except maybe Seith Mann as a See also. Perhaps redirect to Johann Sithmann, as in German Wikipedia? Leschnei ( talk) 11:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Leschnei ( talk) 11:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect. Not even the German Wikipedia has any content about the other Sithmanns. – Uanfala ( talk) 11:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala ( talk) 11:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete the list does not disambiguate anything. It can be recreated if it ever does. Lightburst ( talk) 13:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect per Unafala. MB 14:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect as {{ R from surname}}; a surname page should be created if/when there is another nameholder on whom we have information. Pam D 08:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- This surely didn't really need to come to AfD: if I'd noticed it during my editing I'd have redirected it on the spot. It would be different if there was any sourced content about the name itself, but "is a German surname" isn't enough to be worth keeping. Pam D 08:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect as R from surname. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep as re-scoped during the course of this discussion Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
List of Manhattan Beach municipal parks
- List of Manhattan Beach municipal parks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not satisfy WP:NLIST. – Meena • 09:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and California. – Meena • 09:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Why not have this as part of a list including all the parks in LA county?
Category:Parks in Los Angeles County, California
Dream Focus
10:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- TY for your very good question. There are 88 incorporated cities in Los Angeles County (pop ~10 million), many operate their own parks. The county also operates parks. (There are also state parks within the city although those are already well covered.) The jurisdictional boundaries are moderately important, even if every single municipal city park is not. I was imagining that ultimately the larger cities in LA county (Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena, Torrance, Santa Clarita) would have similar lists. There are also various trails, bike paths and beaches which sometimes have multiple “stakeholders” or cross the territory of multiple cities.
- List of parks in Los Angeles - CITY - 21 have extant articles
- Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation - COUNTY - 183 parks mentioned, mix of cities and unincorporated areas, also manages Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area on behalf of the state etc.
- List of Santa Monica municipal parks
- List of Culver City municipal parks
- Beverly Hills, California#Landmarks - 5 mentioned are municipal parks, 1 county-operated park
- Which is to say that a single list might get unwieldy. This list is part of a nascent organizational attempt! jengod ( talk) 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- TY for your very good question. There are 88 incorporated cities in Los Angeles County (pop ~10 million), many operate their own parks. The county also operates parks. (There are also state parks within the city although those are already well covered.) The jurisdictional boundaries are moderately important, even if every single municipal city park is not. I was imagining that ultimately the larger cities in LA county (Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena, Torrance, Santa Clarita) would have similar lists. There are also various trails, bike paths and beaches which sometimes have multiple “stakeholders” or cross the territory of multiple cities.
- Keep, and expand. User:Jengod, as User:Dream Focus suggests, expanding the scope of this list would be helpful, and I suggest moving it to either List of municipal parks in Los Angeles County (and include upfront link to List of parks in Los Angeles and state that this one covers all but the ones in the City of Los Angeles) or to List of parks in Los Angeles County (in which case mention the state and national parks too). I prefer the latter. It would also address/avoid minor question of whether a sublist of just Manhattan Beach municipal parks are notable as a small group on their own. The main idea is that of course "parks" are notable, and we can have a list of parks, worldwide, and we can sensibly break out subsections for nations, U.S. states, etc. It is also okay to build up towards having a comprehensive list of parks in California or in the United States by building a list of Los Angeles County ones. Which, as you say, could possibly become unwieldy already at that scope. I suggest moving this to larger scope, which is obviously Wikipedia-notable IMHO, and adding some non-Huntington Beach ones. It doesn't have to be all-inclusive immediately, it will be marked "incomplete list" as the current one is, and it can be divided into sections with one for Huntington Beach. It doesn't need to include, at first, all of the logical sections of Los Angeles County, presumably one section for each municipality and one or more for unincorporated areas. And, if/when it does become unwieldy, it is obviously fine to split out sections such as the Huntington Beach one to a separate list-article. In Wikipedia we often work on very big lists, like I spend most of my Wikipedia time working on List of RHPs, a 90,000+ item list broken into sublists. So, briefly, think big or at least think bigger, and go ahead and expand the scope. Whether or not this is done immediately, the scope can be expanded and the list-topic of "parks" in some geographic area is fine, so this AFD should only be closed "Keep", although that can be with comment that this should be expanded. -- Doncram ( talk) 15:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, by the way, the general topic is so obviously notable that I rather think this AFD should not have been opened at all. The narrower topic of municipal parks in Huntington Beach can probably be proven to meet wp:GNG by rounding up sources on the collection of them and/or on each one of them, but that is not even necessary, we actually don't need sources unless something is challenged (and of course I do believe your assertions that these are parks in Huntington Beach). -- Doncram ( talk) 15:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Seeing no objection, I went ahead and moved the AFD target article to List of parks in Los Angeles County, California and developed that somewhat. It now includes sections on parks in Beverly Hills, Culver City, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood. It is somewhat unusual to move an article when it is under AFD discussion, but doing so is not prohibited, and in this case I think it moves us all along in a good way. I didn't add sources; I think there is no need to copy sources from the listed articles into the list itself; there is no real question whether these are parks where they are, and no real question whether parks can be listed in Wikipedia. IMHO this is ready to be closed "Keep". -- Doncram ( talk) 22:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thapaswini Poonacha
- Thapaswini Poonacha ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC. No significant coverage and 1 recorded role. – Meena • 10:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. – Meena • 10:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Bears ( talk) 11:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I found an entry on IMDB which ain't sufficient to keep the page. The cinemaexpress article does not do justice either. VV 11:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Faith in You without prejudice against recreation, albeit under a different artist. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Faith in You (song)
- Faith in You (song) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Song only barely charted. I found no reviews of the song in a WP:BEFORE involving Newspapers.com, World Radio History, Billboard, and Rolling Stone. Redirect and prod both declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Faith in You#Track listing: Does not meet criteria's for a stand alone article, it's better to redirect. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, not a likely search term due to disambiguation. Avilich ( talk) 18:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Faith in You, do not delete. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP ( talk) 23:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment A different song by Randy Travis comes up higher in my searches. It might be more deserving of the article than this song, making me question any redirect. Heck, ABBA's I Still Have Faith in You also comes up better the way I search. Jacona ( talk) 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more relist to consider on whether a different song of the same title is more notable than the other. Editors are encouraged to indicate sources about it. If neither of them are notable enough, then consider disambiguation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete nothing found beyond track listings or lyrics. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Graham Jones (English author)
AfDs for this article:
- Graham Jones (English author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources do not support notability. Associate lecturer, fails WP:PROF. cagliost ( talk) 09:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are using the wrong information. I have updated to show I am a Senior Lecturer at one university and an associate lecturer at another. To say associate lecturer fails the WP:PROF guideline misses out the Senior Lecturer role, and misunderstands perhaps, what being an Associate Lecturer means. These are both senior academic roles which together with the authorship of multiple books and documents means that deletion for not supporting notability is mistaken.
Graham Jones (
talk)
09:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Still fails
WP:PROF, also fails other criteria in
WP:BIO. Lack of Significant Coverage.
cagliost (
talk)
12:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Criteria 7 of WP:PROF is clearly satisfied.
- In WP:BIO the Creative Professionals requirement is satisfied
Graham Jones (
talk)
12:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Criterion 7 of WP:PROF not evidenced by the sources ("The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"). "Creative Professionals" in WP:BIO not evidenced by the sources.
cagliost (
talk)
13:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
- This page had references to media coverage and interventions that could be considered for meeting Criterion 7 - at least it should be debated.
JamesKH76 (
talk)
16:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Was the issue coming from the fact those references to media appearances are not the media appearences themselves? And I thought that's why @ Cagliost removed them. It seems that references to the Mirror, the BBC, and other where directly referenced in the previous version of the page. So those elements can count for criterium 7. JamesKH76 ( talk) 16:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Criterion 7 of WP:PROF not evidenced by the sources ("The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"). "Creative Professionals" in WP:BIO not evidenced by the sources.
cagliost (
talk)
13:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Still fails
WP:PROF, also fails other criteria in
WP:BIO. Lack of Significant Coverage.
cagliost (
talk)
12:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The state of the article just after I proposed it for deletion is here. I have since removed some sources but I will still consider them in the following analysis:
- Summary of talk given at the University of Buckingham. Primary source but could be used to argue for importance of subject.
- Mediafirst: Professional biography, commercial source from a business that employs Jones.
- Personal CV, primary source.
- University of Buckingham profile
- Society of Authors profile: commercial promotional material.
- PSA profile: commercial promotional material.
- espeakers profile: commercial promotional material.
- espeakers profile: commercial promotional material.
- Telegraph: article by Jones himself.
- Wired: article by Jones himself.
- Mirror: article by Jones himself.
- PSA president: statement of fact.
- Realbusiness: trivial mention.
- Business2Community: articles written by Jones himself.
- BBC - trivial mention.
- Mirror - brief article written by Jones himself.
- realwire - trivial mention.
- BBC - repeat of BBC source (trivial mention).
- CityAm - trivial mention.
- Wired - repeat of Wired source above
- HuffingtonPost - article by Jones himself.
- Mirror - trivial mention.
- Metro - trivial mention.
- JustStyle - paywalled, I can't read it.
- JonLloyd - review of a book by Jones.
- Link to a book by Jones.
- Link to a book by Jones.
- Link to a book by Jones.
- Amazon - list of Jones' books
I am not seeing the notability. He does not meet WP:PROF including 7 "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". No significant impact, no senior positions.
We have one book review, the presidency for 1 year of a professional association, and a bunch of brief quotes in the media.
If we ignore commercial promotional sources, we have zero sources *about* Jones, apart from statements of fact (PSA presidency and University of Buckingham profile). We have no sources analysing him, listing his accomplishments or asserting his notability. We have no facts that impart notability (e.g. senior academic positions (Senior Lecturer is not a senior position as per WP:PROF, we would need a named chair or something similar)).
I am also not seeing any of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE satisfied. cagliost ( talk) 16:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you @ Cagliost.
- I agree that criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals are not met.
- I think op-eds on wired, the mirror, huffington post, and other, even written by Jones count as media appearances as presented in Criterium 7 Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I guess it depends how many media appearances consist notability but there are certainly some there. Would be interested to know what other think.
- It is right that no other notability criteria are met.
JamesKH76 (
talk)
17:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Six trivial mentions in the media do not constitute substantial impact or significant coverage. cagliost ( talk) 22:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. Shellwood ( talk) 10:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I fail to see how this user even remotely meets the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, WP:SCHOLAR or WP:GNG (although considering he's in the conversation, I am certain I shall be shown the error of my ways before long). The PSA is not really a professional association ('public speaker' is not a profession – law is a profession, medicine is a profession, accountancy is a profession, public speaking is a thing people do), and "senior lecturers" in the UK are actually fairly junior. They certainly are not part of the professorial class and nowhere near named chairs. I do agree that when it comes to the UK, American-influenced notions of academia such as "named chairs" (which are much less frequent in the UK) do not necessarily apply without qualification, but a "senior lecturer" is far from sufficient to meet WP:SCHOLAR. In short: Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 22:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Spammy apparent autobiography, does not appear to have the independent published book reviews necessary for WP:AUTHOR. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete See nomination. So far in this discussion, the only support appears to be from Graham Jones himself. Wikipedia doesn’t work that way, and Wikipedia doesn’t publish autobiographies. Dolphin ( t) 22:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Rightly or wrongly, the involvement of the subject in this discussion makes me lean delete, and looking at the article akes me think WP:TNT even if the subject is notable. St Anselm ( talk) 04:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The subject writing articles/books is not sufficient for notability, significant independant reviews would be better for WP:NAUTHOR. There is some limited over coverage (e.g. quotes in the media), but not enough to meet WP:GNG. Don't see how would meet WP:NPROF. The obvious WP:COI issue doesn't help either. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Braindance (band)
- Braindance (band) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've declined a {{ db-band}} on this, as given how long it's been live and the number of different editors who've edited it I don't believe deletion would be wholly uncontroversial. However this is clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia; there's nothing even approaching a reliable source, and no indication that the band has any particular significance. ‑ Iridescent 08:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. ‑ Iridescent 08:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as CSD tagger; the article makes no assertion of notability and largely consists of a directory listing the band's members and albums, almost none of which have articles. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - They have been around for a long time with a lot of releases, but reliable and significant media attention has eluded them. All I can find are occasional fanzine/blog mentions (e.g. [25]), and minor directory entries (e.g. [26]). While searching you may find the residue of a fairly desperate type of amateur promotion in the early Internet era -- a few fans (or themselves) would namedrop the band in message board discussions about other people. That type of fan effort seems to be behind this WP article as well, given its reliance on red links and links that look blue but are actually to unreliable outside promotional sites. They're very underground, so much so that they don't have the notice required here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Spam from globally locked user who was probably socking. An established editor is welcome to create an article of this Association is in fact notable. Star Mississippi 17:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Association for the Defense of Animals and Nature
- Association for the Defense of Animals and Nature ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant WP:PROMO. As it is, fails WP:NCORP. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are plenty of external references. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete there may be "external references" but that does not mean that they are suitable for establishing notability and that is hte case here. This is nothing more than a paid for puff piece about a non notable org.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
13:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The creator has been globally locked for spamming. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete there is no sources, it should be deleted, it is not notable. Chip3004 ( talk) 14:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - The NPR source seems to be the only one offering the sort of coverage we need, the rest are minor coverage, interviews & a student-run blog. Source search is turning up the same items, likely injected as a refbomb to help save the article. I might have said draftify instead, but it seems that's already been attempted, and the article as it is written is promotional and does not meet our standards. (Note- there are sources available that mention the topic, they're just not sufficient) Note 2: Given the fast pace this is moving at, the global block and now a paid tag, I can see this heading into WP:SNOW territory. ASUKITE 14:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Just noting that the creator has also made multiple drafts & redirects of this material, some of which but not all have been removed. This really looks like a spamy attempt to create variations of the article with every possible title for SEO. Regardless of the decision here these need cleanup. These are the 3 actives I can find, there might be more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft:ADAN&redirect=no
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft:Association_for_the_Defense_of_Animals_and_Nature&redirect=no
/info/en/?search=Draft:Foundation_ADAN
JamesG5 (
talk)
17:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- tagged for CSD. This could also be an IAR speedy, but unclear if it's a G5.
Star
Mississippi
16:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Star Mississippi I'm pretty sure these are all socks of
this user anyway.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
17:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- You understand global locks, etc. better than almost anyone else. I will take out the trash. Thanks for flagging. Star Mississippi 17:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
Star Mississippi I'm pretty sure these are all socks of
this user anyway.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
17:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- tagged for CSD. This could also be an IAR speedy, but unclear if it's a G5.
Star
Mississippi
16:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Purrple Cat (musician)
- Purrple Cat (musician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Search finds only passing mentions. No significant independent reliable secondary coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 07:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable musician – I took a look at this earlier but couldn't find anything. Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 07:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Only currently cited source is self-published, notability is not established and doesn't appear to be claimed. PHANTOMTECH ( talk) 08:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Someone has adopted an interesting strategy of making music as an anonymous cartoon character, but the reliable media has not noticed. Only visible in self-uploaded sites and other typical directory/streaming services. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I looked around and I could only find one (not) source which was a list of artists on a blog post. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 23:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO Kazanstyle ( talk) 11:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per above. Also, this is barely an article. Just a single sentence about this musician's existence, then a discography listing. Like a database. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 19:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- You’re right, I probably should have requested speedy deletion. Guess I was dazzled by the infobox picture. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 08:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Princess Sura of Parthia
- Princess Sura of Parthia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sura of Parthia and List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. World History Encyclopedia seems to have been fooled by this hoax and I know question its reliability. The other sources don't mention a "Sura". Doug Weller talk 07:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Wow I remembered hearing about hoaxes during NPP school, but never thought I would see one pop up like this. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 07:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Middle East. Shellwood ( talk) 10:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete of course, and this title should presumably also be salted to prevent it popping up again. --
asilvering (
talk)
14:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ Asilvering definitely. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae ( talk) 16:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete -- Dio Cassius says little on the subject. Herodian records the diplomatic negotiations (including as to marriage), but without naming the daughter. The rest of the article is wholly unverified and could be a hoax. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete like last time. Srnec ( talk) 20:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Xiong Rui
- Xiong Rui ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NBAD zoglophie 06:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and China. zoglophie 06:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. In the absence of any policy based arguments, and no suggestions that WP:SIGCOV is met. Already relisted twice with no further discussion forthcoming. TigerShark ( talk) 03:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
14 Reels Entertainment
- 14 Reels Entertainment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (14 Reels Entertainment: Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (14 Reels Plus: Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article on a film production company, titled under its earlier of two names. An article under the later title (14 Reels Plus) was deleted at AfD in January 2022, and the current instance was created last month. I can't see the earlier article instance to assess whether it a repost, so opening this new AfD. Perhaps the company's involvement in Dookudu might be more than falling under WP:NOTINHERITED, but if so, explicit coverage would be needed. If not, this appears to be just a company going about its business, with passing mentions rather than coverage, and failing to demonstrate specific notability. AllyD ( talk) 10:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. AllyD ( talk) 10:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment the company has a long list of Telugu movies. Perhaps it's notable. -- Bash7oven ( talk) 12:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment: This company has a decent amount of films produced over a time span of 10 years and they are notable in the Telugu industry for producing bigger budget films so it seems like an article that could exist. SP013 ( talk) 16:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was clear consensus against outright deletion and no consensus as to whether to merge or keep. The merge issue does not need this AFD discussion to be extended any further.
Note that some countries, especially anglophone countries or western countries, the UK comes to mind, do have individual articles on all railway stations, and metro stations, in that country, and there may be issues of bias if other countries are not given that treatment. However, coverage in this article is indeed very basic. As such the issue is not settled.
But for purposes of whether or not to delete this article, that issue is settled against deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Pan'an South railway station
- Pan'an South railway station ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Merged to rail line during new page patrol and was reverted. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. No content other than it's existence. IMO would be an inevitable permastub limited to that. I moved the content and image to the line article which IMO is a good, appropriate and stable place for it and was reverted. North8000 ( talk) 16:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood ( talk) 17:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Not enough coverage to justify a standalone article per WP:NOPAGE. And before the inevitable "WE MUST KEEP THIS BECAUSE OF ADJACENT STATIONS!!!!" consider the adjacent station Xianju South railway station. That article has managed an impressive zero views over the past 30 days. Nobody is reading these. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 20:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There are multiple references that focus on the subject, it meets WP:GNG. Number of views is irrelevant. NemesisAT ( talk) 21:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Mere existence doesn't warrant a standalone article.
XtraJovial (
talk •
contribs)
22:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You haven't presented any reason for deleting the article.
NemesisAT (
talk)
22:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- A merge is not deletion. Surely you understand that. This permastub would convey all the same information as part of a larger article.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
22:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
A merge is not deletion.
The article is no longer visible, so it is effectively deletion. I've already gone over in various AfDs with multiple reasons why I feel separate station articles are beneficial to the project. There's no such thing as a permastub - for example, an event could happen at any station in the future warranting expansion to the relevant station article. NemesisAT ( talk) 22:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)- It's not a deletion - the page could still survive as a redirect. I don't think this article should be outright deleted. The content would still be there, but it would be part of a larger article, not as a standalone permastub. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- A merge is not deletion. Surely you understand that. This permastub would convey all the same information as part of a larger article.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
22:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You haven't presented any reason for deleting the article.
NemesisAT (
talk)
22:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:GNG:
- "磐安县融媒体中心：火车开进磐安 梦想照亮前方". m.thepaper.cn. Retrieved 2022-06-27. - Article about the station opening, has significant information about the station which could be added to the article
- "金台鐵路通車運營一周年：山海之路串聯幸福生活". zj.people.com.cn. Retrieved 2022-06-27. - Describes impact of the station after 1 year, shows WP:SUSTAINED coverage
- 中国蓝新闻. "金台铁路开通运营在即 磐安南站进入冲刺扫尾阶段_哔哩哔哩" (in Simplified Chinese). Retrieved 2022-06-27 – via www.bilibili.com. - A local news report about the construction progress of the station
- Jumpytoo Talk 07:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Longstanding consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment People keep talking about an imaginary "consensus that all rail stations are notable" which does not exist. First, the place such a thing that came out of an actual consensus process is at WP GNG and the SNG's. They aren't mentioned under any SNG's leaving it to GNG says that they have to meet GNG souring. Some folks point to WP:RAILOUTCOMES which:
- Is not even a guideline, it's an observation of common outcomes, and per other posts, it appears that even that observation may be wrong
- Conflicts with their blanket statement, stating a few types which are usually kept after which it says:"Other stations are usually kept or merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they are on.""
- North8000 (
talk)
13:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- All
WP:RAILOUTCOMES does is illustrate the consensus, which most assuredly exists and has been established over many AfDs. Nobody is claiming it is a guideline, but
WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- My post just said that that is not accurate, and gave many specific. You are just repeating your previous assertion. North8000 (
talk)
16:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD.
Is this is a heritage railway? No it isn't. And yes, it is accurate. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- My post just said that that is not accurate, and gave many specific. You are just repeating your previous assertion. North8000 (
talk)
16:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xingke Avenue station Here's consensus to merge a similar train station stub. Your tired, worn out, and mindless "Keep because I say so" argument is wrong, disruptive, and you would be best off dropping it. You're an experienced editor, you should understand that there is no policy that supports your argument. The consensus is determined right here and right now, not at some hypothetical mysterious past event you can never actually identify. Either you can start an RfC to try and support your claims, or you can drop them. You are not the AfD police, and the only reason many previous AfDs for train station stubs have been keeps is because you and your fellow travelers show up religiously at every such AfD to spam "Keep" without being able to point to ANY POLICY to support you, while most do not attract much attention from the broader community. You have repeatedly twisted the concept of consensus into a stick to beat other editors over the head with at AfD. "Keep because all train stations are notable" you cry. We ask you, where is this established? And you can provide nothing except "these other AfDs ended in keep, therefore this one must too, regardless of the differences between those articles and the one here and now." And even if we were to accept your claim that all train stations are inherently notable, that would not mean they all deserve standalone pages. See
WP:NOPAGE. It's interesting that your userpage contains a giant rant about notability policies, yet you appear to have little understanding of them. You say there "we don't have rules that must be inflexibly obeyed" yet that is EXACTLY what you do every time a train station appears at AfD. You inflexibly insist that every single article must be kept regardless of the merits or lack thereof.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
20:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I am an experienced editor. And I understand very well how Wikipedia works. So try to avoid teaching me how to suck eggs with your grand eleven months of editing experience. I say that station articles are notable because I believe they are and, I repeat, that consensus supports me. You may not like it, but it is the case. And be very careful before you accuse other editors of posting spam and being disruptive. A valid opinion is not spam and not disruptive. These attempts to shut down editors who don't agree with you are getting worrying. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Necrothesp, please read the first section from the essay that you have been quoting from and trying to mis-use
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Common outcomes#Citing this page in AfD and you will see that what you have been trying to do with it here conflicts with it in many ways and is invalid.North8000 (
talk)
13:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Specifically the sentence: "Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as "Notability is only an optional guideline" or "We always keep these articles"." Interesting how you're doing exactly what the very page you point to says not to do. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- A valid opinion is not disruptive, and as far as I'm aware no one is shutting you down for having a different opinion than them. It doesn't take over a decade of editing experience (or 11 months, even) to recognize that many of your arguments are unsound and weak. You can !vote keep at railway stations all you want, but if persistently citing RAILOUTCOMES the consensus that supports you without providing where it was established (aside from station AfDs) isn't disruptive, I'm not sure what is. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Necrothesp, please read the first section from the essay that you have been quoting from and trying to mis-use
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Common outcomes#Citing this page in AfD and you will see that what you have been trying to do with it here conflicts with it in many ways and is invalid.North8000 (
talk)
13:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I am an experienced editor. And I understand very well how Wikipedia works. So try to avoid teaching me how to suck eggs with your grand eleven months of editing experience. I say that station articles are notable because I believe they are and, I repeat, that consensus supports me. You may not like it, but it is the case. And be very careful before you accuse other editors of posting spam and being disruptive. A valid opinion is not spam and not disruptive. These attempts to shut down editors who don't agree with you are getting worrying. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- All
WP:RAILOUTCOMES does is illustrate the consensus, which most assuredly exists and has been established over many AfDs. Nobody is claiming it is a guideline, but
WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. For those editors who refuse to accept that a consensus exists that railway stations are notable, here it is very clearly illustrated. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus is a particular Wikipedia decision-making process. You trying to "interpret" something out of a list of articles (including ones that that are there due to "no consensus to delete") isn't it. North8000 (
talk)
19:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I do love it when editors try to poo-poo consensus because it conflicts with their own beliefs on what should be kept. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Having grown sick of your constant berating and attacking anyone who rightfully points out the inherent lack of any real argument you're making, I started
an RfC on the question. The overwhelming consensus there already is that your argument is full of shit, to put it mildly.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- It truly is laughable that you claim I'm "berating and attacking" you! Utterly hilarious, given your growing unpleasantness. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Having grown sick of your constant berating and attacking anyone who rightfully points out the inherent lack of any real argument you're making, I started
an RfC on the question. The overwhelming consensus there already is that your argument is full of shit, to put it mildly.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
14:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I do love it when editors try to poo-poo consensus because it conflicts with their own beliefs on what should be kept. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus is a particular Wikipedia decision-making process. You trying to "interpret" something out of a list of articles (including ones that that are there due to "no consensus to delete") isn't it. North8000 (
talk)
19:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep without prejudice to a merge discussion, as not even the nominator has advanced any rationale for deletion. If a bold merge is reverted, the correct next step is to discuss a merge, not AfD. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge, per nom; a standalone article is not justified here, but since the station is verifiable it is appropriate to merge the content.
- On using AfD to propose a merge; it is unorthodox, and perhaps not ideal given the concerns about the overloading of the AfD process, but since the merge process is in an even worse state I don't see it as a problem. BilledMammal ( talk) 15:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge, per nom. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge - fails
WP:GNG,
WP:NOTGUIDE, &
WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
Atsme
💬
📧
17:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sources have been provided above that show it passes GNG. Specifically which parts of NOTGUIDE and NOTDIRECTORY does this fall foul of? NemesisAT ( talk) 17:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment ( edit conflict) May any editors provide any input on the sources I provided above, which both show WP:GNG is met and show that this article can be expanded out of a stub? I also note the next station on this line was also nominated for deletion (likely prompted by a comment in this very AfD!), I presented similar sources, and the consensus was to keep. Is there a reason the sources would be sufficient for that station, but not this one? Jumpytoo Talk 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Long-standing consensus as demonstrated at User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for railway stations is that (a) railway stations and services as a concept are notable and covering them is not WP:UNDUE and (b) they're better covered at standalone articles instead of in lists. Calling other editors "full of shit", while perhaps satisfying in the moment, doesn't change that. Mackensen (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I'm of no fixed opinion; if I was creating the article from scratch, I'd try to find better sources than simply those proving it exists. If there are none, it can be deleted. Is there any indication of architectural details/historical context at the station? If yes, it could be kept. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Satisfies GNG per refs. Djflem ( talk) 21:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge. The sources presented contain insufficient significant coverage of the station from which to build an article so this fails GNG (see also WHYN); the substantive coverage in the sources is mostly of the line. As it stands, this stub is little more than a directory entry. If nothing substantial can be found, the merge is the best option. wjemather please leave a message... 16:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I have expanded the article with the sources provided above and one additional source which describes the planned development around the station:
- "山城磐安拥抱铁路新时代" [Mountain City Pan'an Embraces the New Era of Railway]. Jinhua Daily. Retrieved 2022-07-06 – via Eastday.
- Jumpytoo Talk 19:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- CommentThe article and sourcing has been beefed up. IMO still no GNG sources but IMO it upgrades it into an edge case. Sincerely,North8000 ( talk) 20:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- So that's "best covered as a section in a higher level article", "has moved up to an edge case regarding GNG" and "hell no" to the non-existent claimed "consensus". North8000 ( talk) 14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Article has been significantly expanded by Jumpytoo since all of the merge votes above. NemesisAT ( talk) 21:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a mainline rail station. It's impossible for such projects to be completed without extensive government reports and studies. Sources further demonstrating GNG have been added. Time to move on to more productive editing. Oakshade ( talk) 05:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Reaffirming my merge !vote; while the article has been expanded, I still don't believe a
standalone article is justifiable here, or more beneficial to the reader than a larger article giving the reader a broader picture than this stub does. I also note that I can't read Chinese to be able to determine whether GNG is met.
BilledMammal (
talk)
05:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- You can use Google Translate, it works well enough for evaluating if a source provides significant coverage. The first, second, and fourth sources I provided in this AfD provide significant coverage across several different topics regarding the station across 4 years, which is more than enough to show GNG is met and enough information is available to create a Start-class article or better. Merging the article to the line article would either cause the loss of encyclopedic information or cause WP:DUE issues (think about if every station on the line has the same amount of content as this one). Jumpytoo Talk 07:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep the rationale of Necrothesp. I know we can have a new
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at any time but as evidenced by this AfD, that time is not yet.
Lightburst (
talk)
13:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Necrothesp claimed a consensus that simply does not exist, as comprehensively demonstrated above and at WT:N.
wjemather
please leave a message...
14:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, he definitely didn't. Consensus very clearly exists at AfD. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, consensus at AFD does exist. The problem is, it just isn't what you claim it to be (or even close). Your claim that
"all railway stations are notable"
is demonstrably false – RAILOUTCOMES ("generally kept" is plainly not equivalent to "all are notable") and your own list of AFDs confirm this, as does the 2019 RFC. The current RFC also reaffirms this. wjemather please leave a message... 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- I think you need to reread the list of AfDs. The vast majority of actual railway stations have been kept at AfD.
Consensus does not have to be 100% to be consensus. And also reread the conclusion of the 2019 RfC. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- You didn't claim "vast majority"; you claimed "all". Perhaps you should learn the difference between the two before misrepresenting consensus again? wjemather please leave a message... 12:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- As for the RFC:
"No consensus exists... to presume all train station articles... are notable..."
(a sentiment repeated more than once in the closing statement, e.g."I do not see a consensus to presume all train stations are notable"
). How anyone could possibly read this as consensus for all stations being notable, I simply do not know. wjemather please leave a message... 12:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)- I don't think you quite understand the definition of consensus. Never mind. I'll let somebody else explain. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, what's clear is that you (an admin!) either do not understand the difference between verifiability and notability, or worse, are deliberately conflating them in order to gaslight the community. wjemather please leave a message... 10:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you keep being disruptive by deliberately ignoring the consensus clearly reached at the RfC, I will be seeking sanctions against you. Please don't let it get to that point. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you quite understand the definition of consensus. Never mind. I'll let somebody else explain. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think you need to reread the list of AfDs. The vast majority of actual railway stations have been kept at AfD.
Consensus does not have to be 100% to be consensus. And also reread the conclusion of the 2019 RfC. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, consensus at AFD does exist. The problem is, it just isn't what you claim it to be (or even close). Your claim that
- No, he definitely didn't. Consensus very clearly exists at AfD. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Necrothesp claimed a consensus that simply does not exist, as comprehensively demonstrated above and at WT:N.
wjemather
please leave a message...
14:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge
WP:RUNOFTHEMILL station, does not warrant a standalone article.
MrsSnoozyTurtle
09:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay, not policy or guideline, and certainly no basis for deleting an article.
NemesisAT (
talk)
10:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- No one has proposed deleting the article? BilledMammal ( talk) 10:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay, not policy or guideline, and certainly no basis for deleting an article.
NemesisAT (
talk)
10:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Meets GNG per sources provided by Jumpytoo. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 00:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge - Per the other merge votes which set out good reasons. The "all stations are notable" argument is a ghost zombie consensus - does not exist yet refuses to die.
MaxnaCarta (
talk)
23:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not only that, it has actively been refuted by a well-attended RfC; see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of train stations which found an active consensus against train stations being inherently notable. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe I just missed it, but for all the "merge" !votes here, I don't see any indication about what the merge target should be. Would someone please specify the target? --
MelanieN (
talk)
20:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ MelanieN: That would be Jinhua–Taizhou railway, the rail line the station is located on. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Apache AGE
- Apache AGE ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:TOOSOON. Announced 2 months ago. There is not enough coverage in reliable independent sources yet. MarioGom ( talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom ( talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi MarioGom,
- Before discuss about this deletion, I am really wondering this was announced 2 months ago about independent sources. I just tried to edit at 20 June. Does this mean anyone tried to edit earlier? Sellme4001 ( talk) 00:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT ( talk) 10:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Bernard Coyne (giant)
AfDs for this article:
- Bernard Coyne (giant) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not the Guness Book of World Records. Merely being the tallest person in the world at a given time is not enough to show notability, and the sourcing here I do not think is enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was able to find
this in a brief search.
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
15:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- This looks to be a source very local to where Coyne lived. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iowa. Shellwood ( talk) 15:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per the two existing sources in the article, the extra source from BeanieFan, and the lasting coverage from Guinness over at least a couple of decades (from the editions I've checked). At worst, a redirect to List of tallest people would be an other option rather than deletion, per WP:ATD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, being 8 feet tall is very rare and is surely a keep worthy thing as is being in the guinness book world records.
- Height records are not a sign of default notability, and merely being mentioned in the Guiness Book of World Records is not a substantial coverage incident, so it really does not add toward passing GNG, let alone on its own constitute enough to justify keeping an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, I do think that lasting coverage from Guinness over at least a couple of decades is grounds for keeping, and shouldn't warrant a delete, not by much though, but still worthy of a keep. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 02:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: The sources are authentic, worthy of a keep Proton Dental ( talk) 01:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Rainbow S.p.A.. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Colorado Film
- Colorado Film ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable subsidiary of Viacom Italia, fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP tagged for notability since Feb 2022 now here we are. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Business, and Italy. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Any further insights? The article was mainly created as an English-translation of the Italian studio. MegaSmike46 ( talk) 12:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- And the Italian article has issues and tags highlighting these. Different languages apply different standards, so this may be notable by Italian Wikipedia standards, but I believe this fails the EnWiki notability guideline. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It's hard to find anything on them due to Google returning unrelated results for "Colorado Film." However, based on the number of films that they have on Wikipedia, I would think it would be beneficial to keep this page, but I am not sure if there are any policies around this. i.e based on WP:NACTOR if an actor is in multiple well known roles then they qualify, so wouldn't a production company that has multiple well known movies also qualify??? Zeddedm ( talk) 03:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Rainbow S.p.A. as per ATD, on its own this studio fails NCORP criteria for notability of companies. HighKing ++ 16:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral comment As the name would make you think of filming in the state of Colorado rather than the name of a film company (here the "Colorado Office of Film, Television and Media'), I thought a natural disambiguation could be part of this page, but we do not have any plausible redirects for articles regarding the film industry in that state. Nate • ( chatter) 21:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing ++ 15:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Rainbow S.p.A.. No notability on its own. Very little coverage that I can see. Wes sideman ( talk) 12:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Josephus. The extent to which there is encyclopedic, non-redundant content can be determined during the merge process (and if there is none, this can be redirected outright). @ 333-blue: There was no need to relist this. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 15:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Flavius Justus
- Flavius Justus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also including:
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. None of the articles say anything notable about Josephus's sons that isn't either trivial (i.e. name etymologies), or simply relating to the life or ancestry of Josephus himself. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Israel. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Josephus, they are mentioned there.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) ( talk) 08:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge to Josephus without leaving redirects. Normally I would suggest leaving redirects, but it seems unlikely that anybody will search for the sons of Josephus without visiting that article. As far as I can tell, none of them seem to have done anything of historical significance, and according to these three articles virtually nothing is known of them except their existence and relationships to other persons—all of whom should be mentioned under Josephus. There is a little speculation about their names—but that could reasonably be included in the section about Josephus' family. The only incoming links, besides a redirect or two from alternative forms of their names and various user pages, are from each other, Josephus, and Flavia gens, so I see no particular reason to believe that users would expect to find articles about them. P Aculeius ( talk) 11:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per Aculeius, but I think keeping redirects would be fine. ★Trekker ( talk) 12:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Josephus (which will leave a redirect). He is not separately notable: WP:NOTINHERITED. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Josephus per the arguments above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 20:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect all to Josephus. For people who lived 2000 years ago, notability is often inherited. Here we know the names of three sons of Josephus and nothing else. Everything else is trivia or information on Josephus. The names of the sons can be listed in the target article. And since they are already listed there, a merge is unjustified. gidonb ( talk) 15:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Independent-Green Party US
- Independent-Green Party US ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable political party fails WP:NORG ( t · c) buidhe 04:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. ( t · c) buidhe 04:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The Independent-Green Party US is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Their state affiliates in Alaska, Geogia, Rhode Island, and Virginia already have a Wikipedia page. The 2008 Green presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney supports and is a member of the party. There has been no failure to meet notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackrobert007 ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ Jackrobert007: Comments in discussions are placed at the bottom, and notability is not inherited — you must provide at least two independent reliable, secondary sources about Independent-Green Party US. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ LaundryPizza03: with all due respect, notability inheritance was not the argument I justified this page’s creation with, a political party organization and it’s notability are the product of its membership (state party affiliates and notable individuals involved) and work. The Independent-Green Party US is a notable parent organization to the affiliated notable branches of this said parent organization. In addition, more than two sources proving the organization’s notability and notable work have been added. – <b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackrobert007 ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment An ANI report about this AfD has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious_AfD_closure. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- DeleteThere is an absence of significant, independent secondary coverage of this organization (see WP:NORG, WP:NEXIST, WP:ORGDEPTH; WP:BRANCH might also apply), indicative of, or at least consistent with, WP:TOOSOON. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 08:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. The relatively generic words in the name make is hard to search for without getting results about other parties, but I was not able to find significant independent coverage about this party, and the sources already provided in the article are definitely not enough to establish notability. -- RL0919 ( talk) 15:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Clemen Chiang
- Clemen Chiang ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. Puff article. Refs are profiles, blogs, dead links, dissertion, primary. No significant secondary coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep Talk 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Singapore. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Quick question: is there no hope for draftification? There's no draftification move in the edit history.
– robertsky (
talk)
14:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well that is the new rules, it can be drafted if that is the decision of the Afd, its certainly within the time frame for it. I sent it to Afd as I examined the first two blocks of references, and they were woeful. I suspect that they're all in there already but they're very very poor. The 15 day rules applies on new articles, but its well past that. If you think its needing drafted, please say so. scope_creep Talk 14:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I created the article and I was under impression it would easily fulfill the notability guidelines. Probably the nominator looked only into the initial blocks of references. There is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. There are a few sources directly related to him that I used to add some personal information about him. That information (like education, personal life) is obviously not the type that would give the idea of notability and not used with that intent. Most of the sources are with WP:SIGCOV in mind and there is plenty of them. To put it briefly, the notable coverage about him is related to co-founding CozyCot, founding Spiking and bringing Dîner en Blanc to Singapore/Asia. The coverage about the last thing was to some extent increased by some controversy about the way he handled the inclusion of local food, but it looked too trivial to me to mention it in the article. For example, the coverage in Wall Street Journal is focused on the other general aspects around this event. I searched online to see if there is new coverage about him and I added some articles from Forbes and Entrepreneur. Manzzoku ( talk) 16:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ Manzzoku: Post up some decent references, so we can examine them, to see if he is notable. Three per WP:THREE will do. scope_creep Talk 11:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- For example, Marissa Lee (2 April 2016).
"New app to track big players' share trades".
The Straits Times.
- Aaron Low (10 October 2016). "Helping retail investors gain an edge". The Business Times.
- Hoe Pei Shan (30 June 2014). "3,000 guests expected at Diner en Blanc picnic". The Straits Times.
- There is a more comprehensive article about the initial 2012 Diner en Blanc, with the controversies about the initial rejection of local hawker food (I am not sure if this would be too trivial to include in the article), but it is behind paywall:
- Shibani Mahtani (31 August 2012). "Diner en Blanc Takes Off in Singapore — With Chicken Rice". Wall Street Journal.
- Manzzoku ( talk) 11:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Omoba Central Model School
- Omoba Central Model School ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to draftify as Draft:Omoba Central Model School already exists. In my searches, I was unable to find any sources that meet the requirements of WP:ORGDEPTH, therefore school appears to fail WP:NORG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nigeria. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I have removed content that appears to have been a copyvio. Singularity42 ( talk) 16:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If the consensus is to Draftify this article, that can be done as the existing draft is a blank page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The draft and article were created by the same user, User:Harvey PearsonKing. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B ( talk) 20:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify: the article doesn’t appear to be ready yet. – 333 -blue at 06:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete both per NORG. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Clearly, the consensus is that this article does not adequately demonstrate that the topic fulfills the notability requirements that all standalone WP articles must satisfy. However, with that said, I am unilaterally and preemptively moving this article to Draft:UAPx for a few reasons:
- Judging from the number of new editors who joined WP only to participate in this deletion discussion, there is clearly a small set of editors that have an interest in covering this topic on WP. If we simply deleted the article, this (obviously determined) group of editors would probably just recreate it and cause disruption. Moving it to a draft page keeps it out of mainspace and Google searches, but preserves the content and allows this group (and other editors) to continue working on the article without being disrupted or causing disruption, if they're interested in doing so.
- This group of new editors seems interested enough to at least start learning about WP policies and guidelines, and slowly delving deeper into our strange world here. I'd like to encourage them to continue learning about how things work here, in the hopes that perhaps some of them will eventually join us more permanently as editors.
This long discussion should provide copious amounts of instruction on what you'd need to do to get this article to a state where it clearly satisfies our notability guidelines. Note that there is no guarantee that you'll ever get it to this state no matter how hard you work on it: if the sources simply don't exist, then it's not notable. But, please understand that all articles on Wikipedia must be supported by significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you decide to continue working on this article, please at least thoroughly read WP:GNG and WP:ORG to understand the bar that you're shooting for. And, once notability has been established, please understand that the article must be written from a neutral point of view, and cannot have a promotional tone. Good luck. —ScottyWong— 03:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
UAPx
|
| 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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- UAPx ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
complete vanity spam about a non notable, obscure UFO research group (seriously, the "doctors" are linked to...imdb?!) with no coverage in reliable academic/scientific journals and only brief passing mentions from random people in interviews. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- GNG: How is the above ad hominem deemed acceptable here?
seriously, the "doctors" are linked to...imdb?!
The author linked to IMDB when he/she should have linked to established university faculty pages at SUNY Albany. How is that in any way reflective of the qualifications of those linked? — Answer: Obviously, it is not. The aforementioned scientists are tenured physics professors at a US research university, each leading independent federally-funded research groups of their own. From Wikipedia guidelines:Editors are not expected to know everything. Anyone acting in good faith may contribute.
The organization is covered in multiple secondary sources, e.g. Ex-Military, NASA Veterans form UFO Research Group or This Silicon Valley Startup Is Dedicated to Detecting UFOs Off the California Coast. Did deletionist trolls take over all free reign precluding even a smattering of due diligence? WP:TOOSOON it may well be, but the above bias colours the entire debate in bad faith from the outset. Your Kangaroo court is now in session. 🤖 Not the droid you're looking for ( talk) 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)— Not the droid you're looking for ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.- i joined the social media of this UFO group to have a look and can confirm there is an effort to brigade this page for support. this comment is a very good example of this, as can be seen by the fact it shares many of the exact buzz words as the other menbers of UAPx below
Fafrotsky (
talk)
17:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC) —
Fafrotsky (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Doubling down on an ad hominem with yet another ad hominem? I've no part of any gossip group or effort to ‘brigade.’ It's the content that counts. Parent comment engaged in deliberate mischaracterization. Those big bad ‘buzzwords?’ Not so much, each being sourced from the references themselves.
WP:AGF. Not everyone whose perspective differs from your own is part of a conspiracy. 🤖
Not the droid you're looking for (
talk)
05:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Conspiracy, no, brigading is obvious from the above post. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Doubling down on an ad hominem with yet another ad hominem? I've no part of any gossip group or effort to ‘brigade.’ It's the content that counts. Parent comment engaged in deliberate mischaracterization. Those big bad ‘buzzwords?’ Not so much, each being sourced from the references themselves.
WP:AGF. Not everyone whose perspective differs from your own is part of a conspiracy. 🤖
Not the droid you're looking for (
talk)
05:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- i joined the social media of this UFO group to have a look and can confirm there is an effort to brigade this page for support. this comment is a very good example of this, as can be seen by the fact it shares many of the exact buzz words as the other menbers of UAPx below
Fafrotsky (
talk)
17:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC) —
Fafrotsky (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- GNG: How is the above ad hominem deemed acceptable here?
- One issue that plagues UFology is “instant gratification” - historically, a video comes out, a slew of folks make comments on it and arguments happen with zero final determination as to its legitimacy. I can assure you that UAPx is not an "obscure UFO research group."
- They aren’t playing that game, and people mistake thier silence for a lack of work. I can assure you this isn’t happening with UAPx.
- Almost a year ago, their team signed an agreement with a producer. The abbreviated version of the agreement was this: In exchange for the producer covering all of their expenses and giving them access to the UAPx team and activities, UAPx would do an expedition. The location was selected as Catalina Island. The budget wasn’t large. They were only given 5 days, 4 of them were used for actual research.
- They honestly never expected to capture anything given the time constraints and the working conditions - but They did. They STILL DO NOT KNOW what it is they captured. In figuring that out they are/have:
- written, created and tested custom artificial intelligence neural nets which are now analyzing 600 hours of FLIR video. This took almost a year to create - it never existed before. Now that they have this neural net, future analysis doesn’t need to wait for a year to begin.
- created custom machine learning applications that analyze images to output probability percentages of the size and shape of objects seen in the video. This needed (and needs) trained. They have to input every basic geometric shape along with all known aircraft, drone, missile and targeting pod the civilian world and military world uses - then run the system for millions of iterations on each shape to get the machine learning system to output an accurate probability index of a match/no match.
- They are STIll fighting the United States Government to obtain satellite imagery - you can see their denied and delayed FOIAs on their Twitter and discord.
- They did obtain a mountain of data from 3rd party agencies such as CalTech’s “LIGO” and the USGs NOAA - they are still in the process of parsing that data to find any correlations between statistical anomalies which may be buried in that data with the times of their captures. This requires a 60 hour a week position by a computational astrophysicist- which they just onboarded a week ago. (Welcome Dr. Ben Placek, Ph.D.) and please thank the continuing and tireless efforts of Dr. Matthew Szydagis, Ph.D.)
- As a startup company, their administration team is constantly responding to threads of complaint, social media issues, website maintenance, fund raising and new onboarding and evaluations. This is their contribution as they aren’t physicists.
- The peer review process, after submission, is not under their control. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to write a peer-review article in a respected journal that suffers from stigma caused by 80 years of pseudo-science? Once the papers are finalized (which they are not because the data is still being analyzed) then the process takes weeks at best and many months as expected. Their writing and findings must be reviewed by whichever Ph.Ds the journal selects (a blind process to them) and all questions, comments, and concerns must be addressed by UAPx with a re-submission. This is what guarantees that the final output has withstood the scrutiny of peer-review science, not just knee-jerk social media wanting bias confirmation.
- I’m sorry that people have been programmed for this idea of instant gratification - but this just goes to show how little ACTUAL science has occurred in this field. When you do it right, these things take a LOT of time.
- But an "obscure ufo research group" UAPx is not - having a full length feature-film about UAPx as well as an episode of History's "The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch" depicting their approach to research does not make an "obscure UFP research group"
- FOR THE PEER REVIEW PUBLISHED PAPERS, please see:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514271/ by Dr. Kevin Knuth of UAPx as well as
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14667302/
OSIRIS UAP (
talk)
22:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)—
OSIRIS UAP (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Furthermore, UAPx is even referenced in other scientific publications - for example (and already included in the article is:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.04438.pdf "Multistatic radar measurements of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena by cell and open access radio networks" by Karl Svozil∗ Institute for Theoretical Physics, TU Wien, Wiedner Hauptstrasse 8-10/136, 1040 Vienna, Austria (Dated: March 17, 2022)which directly references UAPx on page 2 and in the publication's citations.
OSIRIS UAP (
talk)
22:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can you please be more concise and stop diatribe bombing this AFD? Also read WP:RS and wP:NOT. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Skinwalker Ranch is on History TV, which insn't a reliable source. The other sources are published by a member of the group, not about the group. None of these are usable. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- OSIRIS UAP - The two journal articles that you listed above ( here and here) do not provide coverage of any kind in regards to the article subject. The first article is a journal that documents the mathematics involved with the estimation of flight characteristics of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) - nothing about the article subject itself. The second article is just an abstract involving the use of computational techniques to solve difficult and complex problems and equations. The other reference you provided, which was a link to this document here also fails to provide any kind of coverage regarding the organization. I still fail to be shown or provided with any kind of references or sources that comply with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Do you have any? ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Furthermore, UAPx is even referenced in other scientific publications - for example (and already included in the article is:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.04438.pdf "Multistatic radar measurements of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena by cell and open access radio networks" by Karl Svozil∗ Institute for Theoretical Physics, TU Wien, Wiedner Hauptstrasse 8-10/136, 1040 Vienna, Austria (Dated: March 17, 2022)which directly references UAPx on page 2 and in the publication's citations.
OSIRIS UAP (
talk)
22:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete all sources are from their website.The Arxiv pre-print server isn't a reliable source and the two papers cited above don't help either. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)- There are plenty of sources that are not from the UAPx website, ergo your assertion that "all sources are from their website" is manifestly incorrect.
- Regarding Dr Knuth's paper; he is the VP of UAPx. Therefore, the published paper is not only directly relevant to my article about UAPx, but his position with the organisation also informs regarding its nature as a scientifically grounded research group. That was the point of that reference. The criticism has been raised that UAPx is somehow "not scientific". The core team consists of 4 professional physicists - amongst them, Associate Professor in the Department of Physics at the University at Albany, Dr Knuth. He has a published article in a respected peer reviewed journal pertaining to UAP. As UAPx vice president, I would argue that this demonstrates the organisation is a science focused research group.
- This is Wikipedia - which is supposed to contain factual information about notable organisations. My article did precisely that - it claimed to do no more and no less. Cosmoid ( talk) 00:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Cosmoid - The only references cited in the article are from the organization's website. This constitutes a primary source and cannot be used to determine the
notability of an article subject. If there are other references that are
reliable,
secondary, and
independent of the article subject that cover the subject primarily (not in passing mention or while covering a different subject or topic), please by all means, list them here so that I can take a look at them. I'll be more than happy to assist you should you have any questions, or have these other sources that you can provide. :-)
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
02:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- This source, for example, speaks to the notability of the organisation. It also quotes UAPx VP Dr Kevin Knuth. Granted it is not *entirely* about UAPx, however this is more than just a name-check.
-
https://www.space.com/2022-turning-point-study-ufos-uap
Cosmoid (
talk)
02:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Cosmoid - Thank you for the link. Looking at the information provided in the reference you linked me to, it does make some passing mention of UAPx, but does not cover this organization as the jounral's primary topic or story. While this certainly can be used to cite a very small amount of content that might be added to the Wikipedia article, this reference alone doesn't meet Wikipedia's
general notability guidelines. To quote an important statement on that page, an article subject or topic can be presumed to be
notable if it has "received significant coverage in
reliable sources that are
independent of the subject." To explain, there must exist enough significant coverage of this article subject in secondary reliable sources to where a full and complete article can be written that where all content is either
attributable to reliable sources, or directly attributed to them (meaning that all content is
verifiable and able to be referenced by reliable sources). I'm afraid that I don't see that this necessary level of coverage exists...
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
02:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for considering the points I have raised. Whilst I maintain that I believe the tone, nature and intent of this article merits notability - being that UAPx is a reasonably well known UAP scientific research group with a host of highly credentialed professional scientists - I acknowledge that in terms of the 'letter of the Wikipedia law', one might make the case that additional secondary sources would certainly enhance my article's notability. I will endeavour to seek these out, and am also looking forward to the publication of the group's scientific papers later this year, which I hope would lend even greater weight to my case for UAPx's inclusion in Wikipedia. Cosmoid ( talk) 03:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oshwah - I have another reference. This is *about* UAPx as its primary subject matter:
- https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group/ Cosmoid ( talk) 12:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- And, another link specifically about UAPx, Oshwah:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost
Cosmoid (
talk)
12:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK these are seemingly better sources (which is good that you have found some articles which discuss the subject specifically, thanks for that). I would just comment on Vice as I can't comment on PopularMechanics.com for the moment, It is considered to on WP:RS to have 'no consensus on the reliability' of the publication, while this doesn't immediately rule out it does not lead very well as one of your main sources for establishing notability (but is better then anything currently anyway).
Tweedle (
talk)
14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your positive engagement Oshwah, I appreciate that. I'll continue to seek additional reference sources.
Cosmoid (
talk)
14:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh no this is me Tweedle, apologies, I should have responded under your comment underneath mine!
Tweedle (
talk)
14:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah I didn't notice it was your name at the end there - either way thank you for the feedback! Cosmoid ( talk) 19:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh no this is me Tweedle, apologies, I should have responded under your comment underneath mine!
Tweedle (
talk)
14:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your positive engagement Oshwah, I appreciate that. I'll continue to seek additional reference sources.
Cosmoid (
talk)
14:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK these are seemingly better sources (which is good that you have found some articles which discuss the subject specifically, thanks for that). I would just comment on Vice as I can't comment on PopularMechanics.com for the moment, It is considered to on WP:RS to have 'no consensus on the reliability' of the publication, while this doesn't immediately rule out it does not lead very well as one of your main sources for establishing notability (but is better then anything currently anyway).
Tweedle (
talk)
14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Cosmoid - Thank you for the link. Looking at the information provided in the reference you linked me to, it does make some passing mention of UAPx, but does not cover this organization as the jounral's primary topic or story. While this certainly can be used to cite a very small amount of content that might be added to the Wikipedia article, this reference alone doesn't meet Wikipedia's
general notability guidelines. To quote an important statement on that page, an article subject or topic can be presumed to be
notable if it has "received significant coverage in
reliable sources that are
independent of the subject." To explain, there must exist enough significant coverage of this article subject in secondary reliable sources to where a full and complete article can be written that where all content is either
attributable to reliable sources, or directly attributed to them (meaning that all content is
verifiable and able to be referenced by reliable sources). I'm afraid that I don't see that this necessary level of coverage exists...
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
02:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Cosmoid - The only references cited in the article are from the organization's website. This constitutes a primary source and cannot be used to determine the
notability of an article subject. If there are other references that are
reliable,
secondary, and
independent of the article subject that cover the subject primarily (not in passing mention or while covering a different subject or topic), please by all means, list them here so that I can take a look at them. I'll be more than happy to assist you should you have any questions, or have these other sources that you can provide. :-)
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
02:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please reinstate this very useful and relevant Wikipedia page. UAPx is comprised of reputable former NASA and PhD level scientists, reputable military veterans who are devoted to the scientific process, and UAPx has been strongly endorsed by world renown physicist Michio Kaku and other celebrities. Mungermentalmodel ( talk) 01:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC) — Mungermentalmodel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Saying two peer reviewed articles from government websites "don't help" hardly constitutes a sound argument for dismissing them as relevant.
Mungermentalmodel (
talk)
01:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- They don't help as explained above. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I find this to be a very subjective argument. How do you define notable? How do you define what is a passing mention vs a more substantial mention? Praxidicae is putting the word doctors in quotes, implying that UAPx isn't comprised of people with doctorate degrees, which it is. Here you can see Michio Kaku and William Shatner participating in a documentary about UAPx and talking at length about them: (search youtube for "A Tear in the Sky Trailer") I'd hardly call this a non notable group with only passing mentions by people. Please reinstate this useful page that has been taken down by someone who I would say is trolling.
Mungermentalmodel (
talk)
01:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- ok now you have to be kidding. this account is obviously a sock puppet that is unabashedly shilling for this UFO group, its specially obvious in the language you use Fafrotsky ( talk) 01:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Mungermentalmodel - Wikipedia's notability guidelines are available to be reviewed by navigating to
this policy page. A helpful section within this policy page is
here, which explains Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Best -
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
01:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. It would seem to me the UAPx group meets this burden by being mentioned in a peer reviewed article written by a former NASA AMES research scientist who has a PhD in physics. This is not a group of people looking to make money, these are scientists who brave ridicule and are doing the good work of promoting the scientific process in a field that's hotly debated and filled with quacks. They're using scientific instruments and just want a platform to support the honest effort to bring the unbiased truth to this topic. I'm sure they'll be happy to make any improvements to their page to satisfy requirements. I see them as being taken seriously by the scientific community which is a rare and welcome occurrence when it comes to UAPs.
Mungermentalmodel (
talk)
02:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Key here is being "mentioned", the article isn't about them directly, only in passing. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. It would seem to me the UAPx group meets this burden by being mentioned in a peer reviewed article written by a former NASA AMES research scientist who has a PhD in physics. This is not a group of people looking to make money, these are scientists who brave ridicule and are doing the good work of promoting the scientific process in a field that's hotly debated and filled with quacks. They're using scientific instruments and just want a platform to support the honest effort to bring the unbiased truth to this topic. I'm sure they'll be happy to make any improvements to their page to satisfy requirements. I see them as being taken seriously by the scientific community which is a rare and welcome occurrence when it comes to UAPs.
Mungermentalmodel (
talk)
02:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- speedy delete Bad and dishonest sourcing, obvious AD language ("popular movie tear in the sky"), little notability, lack of scientific rigor and likely sockpuppeting from one of the menbers of the organization
Fafrotsky (
talk)
01:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Fafrotsky - Which
speedy deletion criterion do you believe that this article meets?
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
01:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:G11
Fafrotsky (
talk)
01:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Fafrotsky - The article is not worded in a manner that constitutes blatant advertising or promotion, and is not eligible for
G11.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
02:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- thank you, i am new here and open to criticisms
Fafrotsky (
talk)
17:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fafrotsky - No problem! Assisting new Wikipedia editors and users is part of the duties and responsibilities that I regularly carry out on Wikipedia. If you run into any more questions, please don't hesitate to contact me by messaging me on my user talk page. I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you. :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- thank you, i am new here and open to criticisms
Fafrotsky (
talk)
17:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Fafrotsky - The article is not worded in a manner that constitutes blatant advertising or promotion, and is not eligible for
G11.
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
02:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:G11
Fafrotsky (
talk)
01:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I have already explained - and as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the comments - "popular" was in reference to being made for a popular audience - as opposed to niche demographic, like for example a video presentation at a scientific conference.
- What, exactly, lacks "scientific rigour"? The article was not about a scientific theory. It was about a research group.
Cosmoid (
talk)
02:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then say 'mainstream'? Come on everyone knows the connotation of the word 'popular' in the phrase; 'The popular movie included commentary by well known physicist (...)'. Look I can even re-word it for you 'The movie was released with the intended market of a mainstream auidence and featured physicist (...).'
Tweedle (
talk)
12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be more than happy to replace the word "popular" with "mainstream". For what it's worth: the use of "popular" was not used with the *intention* to convey a subjective or objective measurement of the movie's audience size or ratings, and it is commonly used in the way in which I did intend it in British English (where I live) - i.e., to denote its appeal to a popular, as opposed to a niche audience.
- In any case, given that I pledge to change that word to "mainstream" once I am able to edit the page (it is locked, ergo I cannot make changes at the moment), I'd request that you reconsider the aspect of your objection that is based on this phrase. Cosmoid ( talk) 17:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then say 'mainstream'? Come on everyone knows the connotation of the word 'popular' in the phrase; 'The popular movie included commentary by well known physicist (...)'. Look I can even re-word it for you 'The movie was released with the intended market of a mainstream auidence and featured physicist (...).'
Tweedle (
talk)
12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
-
Fafrotsky - Which
speedy deletion criterion do you believe that this article meets?
~Oshwah~
(talk)
(contribs)
01:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Majority of non-unique and unique sources are from this organisations own website, produced by the subject organisation such as the 2 research papers linked (both here fall under primary sources and are Source's 1 to 11), or from sites affiliated with the organisation such as Source 20 for example. Furthermore, links to sites which are not affiliated only mention the subject briefly;
- Source 13 only mentions the subject in one line quote; 'Fundraising is the hardest part. [The nonprofit] UAPx is one, and the Galileo Project [at Harvard University] is another.'
- Source 14 is a copy-paste of a blog post on Medium by the organisation themselves.
- Source 15 is better, much more proper coverage, but again the subject is not the main focus of the Space.com article is only included at the very ending section out of a total of 5 sections.
- Source 16 is from a small movie review website which does not demonstrate notability of the organisation themselves.
- Source 21 (Source 22 would fall under this as well) by Heavy.com are more articles based more around interviews of the professor of this organisation and a discussion about Star Trek but WP:RS says that Heavy.com is not great of a source and should not be relied upon; 'There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied :upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead.'
- Whether these can be used can be debated, Source 22 is actually better in this because at-least it discusses the Tear in the Sky movie, but again is more of a discussion around that then a discussion around the organisation
- Source 23 is a unrelated 1974 article about UFO spotting's which has nothing to do with this group at all.
- Source 24 is from the History Channel which is unreliable. 'Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories.'
- Also the 'Catalina Island Expedition - A Tear in the Sky' section reads kind of like an ad?
- Overall in my opinion the group is not really notable enough for a Wikipedia article (but by all means does not mean that the subject is irrelevant in the UFO scene of-course)
Tweedle (
talk)
12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Catalina Island section does not "read like an ad". It is describing a key event in UAPx's history which is entirely pertinent to the organization's notability.
- Source 23 was cited as evidence to support the claim that the Skinwalker Ranch area is widely regarded as a "hotspot for UAP sightings". This is directly relevant to UAPx's recent expedition to the ranch and thus the mention in my article.
- Regarding additional sources, here are two more (which I'm currently unable to add, due to the article's locked status):
- https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group/
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost
Cosmoid (
talk)
13:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- 'The Catalina Island section does not "read like an ad"' - I dont want to obsess too much on this point, I think it could be re-written mainly but to stress this is not an assumption of bad faith of you by the way.
- 'Source 23 was cited as evidence to support the claim that the Skinwalker Ranch area' - Fair point, mistake on my behalf as I was skimming through the sources, however we would most likely have to remove said section due to the main point and source being the History Channel citation to which the History Channel itself is considered to be unreliable.
- Regarding the two additional sources attached to this I will just copy and paste what I wrote above which you responded to;
- I would just comment on Vice as I can't comment on PopularMechanics.com for the moment, It is considered to on WP:RS to have 'no consensus on the reliability' of the publication, while this doesn't immediately rule out it does not lead very well as one of your main sources for establishing notability (but is better then anything currently anyway).
Tweedle (
talk)
19:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd certainly re-write that section to remove any language that might be considered promotional in any way. No problem at all.
Cosmoid (
talk)
19:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The rest of the sources are problematic as discussed, removing the promotional items might help, but we need better sourcing.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
RedirectI was hoping for something in this Cnet article [27], the group is only mentioned in the last few lines of the article. Rest of the Gnews pages are press release type articles or sketchy websites. I don't think this group has notability, yet. I would reconsider a redirect to the " /info/en/?search=Unidentified_Aerial_Phenomena_Task_Force", which is basically what this group is studying, the US Navy videos. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)- I don't think redirect a non-notable group is a good idea just based on it's mere existence. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- UAPx is *not* studying the US Navy videos. The organisation is conducting its own research expeditions with a view to obtaining primary data for analysis by the team of analysts and professional physicists. Case in point, the Catalina Island expedition, which was filmed by the independent production company for the Tear in the Sky movie that I referenced. Preliminary analysis of the data was presented at the recent SCU AAPC conference (also referenced) and the science team is currently writing several papers for submission to peer reviewed journals towards the end of this year.
- In reference to the "notability" requirements - please see these two links, which specifically pertain to UAPx:
- https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost
- I would add these to my article, however I am currently unable to edit as it is locked. Cosmoid ( talk) 18:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd also add that a redirect to the UAPTF would be wholly inappropriate. UAPx is a nonprofit organisation and is not affiliated with any US government agency. Cosmoid ( talk) 18:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force -was- a tax-dollar funded US Government Program which is now defunct and those responsibilities have been taken over by another USG department called the irborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG) https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2853121/dod-announces-the-establishment-of-the-airborne-object-identification-and-manag/ Both of those are official US Government programs. UAPx is, as has been clearly stated here, on their site, and in nearly every reference, a civilian organization which does not work with or for the US Government. Redirecting the UAPx page to the UAPTF should not occur. 174.68.143.246 ( talk) 18:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The rest of the sources are problematic as discussed, removing the promotional items might help, but we need better sourcing.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd certainly re-write that section to remove any language that might be considered promotional in any way. No problem at all.
Cosmoid (
talk)
19:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- From what I saw, they were studying what was in the tic tac video. I'd just delete it at this point, notability has not been established and it appears at best a fringe group, at worst, something filmed for television (not quite as bad as the Ancient Aliens fellows which is another reason why we can't accept History TV as a source imho)). Submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal doesn't help, it needs to be accepted and published (heck, I can submit a paper to them, just as anyone could).
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- For a group established 3 yrs ago, they have 1300 something followers on Discord and 3000 or so on Twitter, or the other way around. I'd expect a much larger following if it was in the least bit notable. Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes, but I follow train bloggers on youtube that have more followers than this group does. It's mathematicians/scientists gathering data at the end of the day, which is what they do. Almost appears routine at this point.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- So following my providing the additional links that clearly support "notability", you're now trying to shift the ground by trying to define that on the basis of how many social media followers the group has? Really?! You contradict yourself by stating "Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes"; so then why bring it up if it is not legitimate grounds to speak to "notability"? Is it because I have gone out of my way to provide references that meet what has been asked, so you're now looking to create a perception to sway opinion that is not, in actual fact, based on Wikipedia's own stated requirements?
Cosmoid (
talk)
11:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's showing how non-notable it is. I'm colouring the discussing, you can read it however you please. I still don't see notability. If you don't like my two cents, well, it's only two cents.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, your social media comment clearly was not "showing how non-notable it is", being that - as you have already conceded - "Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes".
Cosmoid (
talk)
22:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- exactly, and the group is even less notable in the public eye, which shows how it's not terribly notable either.
Oaktree b (
talk)
16:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- A subject's social media presence is entirely irrelevant to the discussion - as you have already conceded. So, the statement it "shows how it's not terribly notable either" is fallacious & adds nothing of substance to the discussion; there can be no impact on "notability" from a domain that lies outwith the bounds of how "notability" is defined. Cosmoid ( talk) 21:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- exactly, and the group is even less notable in the public eye, which shows how it's not terribly notable either.
Oaktree b (
talk)
16:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, your social media comment clearly was not "showing how non-notable it is", being that - as you have already conceded - "Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes".
Cosmoid (
talk)
22:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's showing how non-notable it is. I'm colouring the discussing, you can read it however you please. I still don't see notability. If you don't like my two cents, well, it's only two cents.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- So following my providing the additional links that clearly support "notability", you're now trying to shift the ground by trying to define that on the basis of how many social media followers the group has? Really?! You contradict yourself by stating "Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes"; so then why bring it up if it is not legitimate grounds to speak to "notability"? Is it because I have gone out of my way to provide references that meet what has been asked, so you're now looking to create a perception to sway opinion that is not, in actual fact, based on Wikipedia's own stated requirements?
Cosmoid (
talk)
11:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding your statement that you saw "they were studying what was in the tic tac video" - presumably as pertaining to the US Navy videos of 2004 as were released by the Pentagon and referenced by the UAPTF - I’d suggest you look again.
- Being generous, I'll assume you are referring to the work of Dr. Knuth and Dr. Szydagis regarding presentations on the "Flight Characteristics & Physics of UAP", where the US Navy data was analysed. Note, that although Dr. Knuth and Dr. Szydagis are members of UAPx, this work was done independently of the organisation and was published in academic literature in October 2019. UAPx was not even formed until August 2019. Dr Knuth's work in this regard has developed over time with input from members of UAPx such as David Mason (who is no longer with the organisation). However, UAPx as an organisation has never undertaken analysis of the US Navy videos. Cosmoid ( talk) 13:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Currently the sources which are at least 'decent' enough to establish some sort of notability are as follows for this page:
- Indepth discussion;
- PopularMechanics.com article
- Partial coverage;
- Space.com article
- LiveScience.com article
- Personally I am sticking to my belief of either my initial vote of Delete or at best a Draftifying the article so it can be re-written, the subject seems to have *some* notability in the UFO scene and I sympathise that it is probably hard for the creator of this page to find articles which meet Wikipedia's strict tendency, especially for on a group which is dedicated to studying UFO's, but for the moment I don't think it reaches Wikipedia levels of notability.
Tweedle (
talk)
13:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- The "ufo community" is a small group across the globe. Granted there are larger groups that like and discuss trains - mostly because trains don't get stigmatized. Comparing the social media followings of a ufo group to that of a train group is a non sequitur simply due to the disparity in the overall population's association with those two topics. One must take this into consideration and concede that UAPx has a tremendous following of people from all over the globe in their niche. The fact that the streaming channel, Tubi, just released a new documentary featuring both Jeremy McGowan and Gary Voorhis of UAPx and spent a considerable amount of time discussing UAPx directly in the film speaks volumes. Tubi reaches into a new and different demographic and brings this discussion to more to the forefront than before. Additionally, the previous comments regarding the assumption that UAPx is only studying Navy incidents is patently incorrect. UAPx, even on their own website states they do not study or analyze any data they themselves do not capture. Hence they are developing new scientific equipment, processes, procedures, and acquiring the requisite talent to do so - and have done so and are continuing to do so. UAPx is in partnership with the State University of New York UAlbany (SUNY) as well where they have presented to the physics department and they are noted and mentioned by the Harvard-back "Galileo Project" with many members of UAPx also serving as advisors to the Galileo Project.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- This boils down to a bunch of science guys that measure stuff in the sky, that most people don't see/consider to be real. Yes they've published stuff, they're taking measurements. I don't see them as being any different than other researchers in the field of study, it's almost routine at this point what they're doing. I suppose we could draftify it, but I don't think anything notable will pop up for a while; they may just have to toil away in silence until something big "hits", then we can establish notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I feel I have established that UAPx is absolutely notable enough within its knowledge domain to warrant inclusion. The organization is at the forefront of the scientific investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena - a field of investigation which is gaining ever greater public awareness owing to the ongoing US Government Congressional hearings into the UAP question.
- Whilst the subject of my article does not command the same broad public awareness of the latest Hollywood blockbuster, the organization is nevertheless notable in terms of the domain in which it operates and the contribution it is making to this field of study - a field which is of intense interest to the US military and, recently, politicians. I would submit that notability for an encyclopaedia should be judged on the basis of the contribution an entity is making to its domain, rather than a public popularity contest. Surely part of the raison d'être of Wikipedia is to educate readers about subject matter that they may not readily find reported in their newspapers week after week.
- I feel I have provided references to good secondary sources to establish that UAPx is everything I am claiming them to be. Their position within a domain where the potential global impact of discoveries is unmatched by general public awareness of the process of discovery, merits this organization highly notable, in my opinion. Hence, my spending the time and effort to author the article. Cosmoid ( talk) 22:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- no offense but this is blatantly, an AD. i am not sure what the organization appearing in an obscure documentary recently has to do with the notability of the article
Fafrotsky (
talk)
21:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, it is not "blatantly an AD". You can say that until you're blue in the face - doesn't make it true. You're clearly being unreasonable - indeed you've already been told the article did not merit deletion for "blatant advertising or promotion". You're starting to sound like a broken record.
- The link to the documentary was yet another example of UAPx's notability - even though it may not suffice in and of itself, owing to the documentary not being entirely about the organization, such as Wikipedia seems to require.
Cosmoid (
talk)
22:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- and it's still not a reliable, notable source. It's a documentary on an obscure app. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- This boils down to a bunch of science guys that measure stuff in the sky, that most people don't see/consider to be real. Yes they've published stuff, they're taking measurements. I don't see them as being any different than other researchers in the field of study, it's almost routine at this point what they're doing. I suppose we could draftify it, but I don't think anything notable will pop up for a while; they may just have to toil away in silence until something big "hits", then we can establish notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- The link to the documentary on Tubi that features Jeremy McGowan and Gary Voorhis, to which the previous commenter referred, is: https://tubitv.com/movies/675565/aliens-abductions-and-ufos-roswell-at-75
- Again, I would have added this as a reference on my article, but am unable to edit.
Cosmoid (
talk)
21:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
-
https://www.cnet.com/science/the-upcoming-pentagon-ufo-report-isnt-the-place-to-look-for-the-truth/ while this also only briefly mentions UAPx, CNET has published the article at the link in this message that does reference UAPx
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
13:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Still not notable, as I explained above. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
-
https://www.cnet.com/science/the-upcoming-pentagon-ufo-report-isnt-the-place-to-look-for-the-truth/ while this also only briefly mentions UAPx, CNET has published the article at the link in this message that does reference UAPx
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
13:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The "ufo community" is a small group across the globe. Granted there are larger groups that like and discuss trains - mostly because trains don't get stigmatized. Comparing the social media followings of a ufo group to that of a train group is a non sequitur simply due to the disparity in the overall population's association with those two topics. One must take this into consideration and concede that UAPx has a tremendous following of people from all over the globe in their niche. The fact that the streaming channel, Tubi, just released a new documentary featuring both Jeremy McGowan and Gary Voorhis of UAPx and spent a considerable amount of time discussing UAPx directly in the film speaks volumes. Tubi reaches into a new and different demographic and brings this discussion to more to the forefront than before. Additionally, the previous comments regarding the assumption that UAPx is only studying Navy incidents is patently incorrect. UAPx, even on their own website states they do not study or analyze any data they themselves do not capture. Hence they are developing new scientific equipment, processes, procedures, and acquiring the requisite talent to do so - and have done so and are continuing to do so. UAPx is in partnership with the State University of New York UAlbany (SUNY) as well where they have presented to the physics department and they are noted and mentioned by the Harvard-back "Galileo Project" with many members of UAPx also serving as advisors to the Galileo Project.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- For a group established 3 yrs ago, they have 1300 something followers on Discord and 3000 or so on Twitter, or the other way around. I'd expect a much larger following if it was in the least bit notable. Not that we count these as notability standards for wiki purposes, but I follow train bloggers on youtube that have more followers than this group does. It's mathematicians/scientists gathering data at the end of the day, which is what they do. Almost appears routine at this point.
Oaktree b (
talk)
20:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment A thought, would it make sense to put a brief mention of the group here
[28], under the Research part? We have a brief mention there of the Mufon group, basically the same idea as these fellows. Not enough for a stand-alone article, but a brief mention there.
Oaktree b (
talk)
16:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- UAPx is nothing like MUFON. That you'd suggest they are demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of what the organisation actually does. Once again - and for the avoidance of any doubt - unlike groups like MUFON, UAPx does NOT investigate UAP/UFO sighting reports from the general public. UAPx conducts its own field research to detect, measure and record UAP activity. The collected data is then subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, and papers authored for submission to the academic literature. Cosmoid ( talk) 21:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The mission, duty, and purpose UAP Expeditions Organization (UAPx) is to identify, classify, understand, and provide a public repository of knowledge on Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. UAPx, with preliminary data analysis, supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved, they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, government or industry developmental program, foreign adversary system, and classifications which will require intense scientific study to explain appropriately. The primary purpose of UAPx is to research the UAP phenomena as defined by the United States Government while providing direct data access from data analytics to the general public. In addition, their goal is to inspire and educate citizen scientists to participate in the national identification process of aerial phenomena. UAPx designs, tests, implements, and utilizes specialized equipment which fills the gaps in sensor technology as identified by the United States Government. Functioning as a civilian analog to the U.S. Government’s UAPTF, UAPx seeks to provide research, education, inspiration, and technological developments to study unidentified aerial phenomena. The UAPx Mobile Response Team creates a detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting collected during expeditions which include, but is not limited to that of data collected by: Geospatial Intelligence, Signals Intelligence, Human Intelligence, Measurements and Signals Intelligence
107.115.41.1 (
talk)
107.115.41.1 (
talk)
17:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Non-notable group of scientists studying something that may or may not be there. Would be better if we waited until something is published by the group and they get discussed in reliable sources. Unlike Mufon which has somewhat more notable sources, this group hasn't been covered by any. We can revisit when they are.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- You say: "Unlike Mufon which has somewhat more notable sources, this group hasn't been covered by any..."
- Once again, you're talking absolute nonsense. Your claim that UAPx has not been covered by any "notable" sources is simply untrue - as has already been demonstrated by the references provided above.
- The question here is not whether there are any reliable sources to demonstrate notability; it's whether there are enough sources. Speaking to that, I refer you once again to my comments above, namely: "I feel I have established that UAPx is absolutely notable enough within its knowledge domain to warrant inclusion ... Whilst the subject of my article does not command the same broad public awareness of the latest Hollywood blockbuster, the organization is nevertheless notable in terms of the domain in which it operates and the contribution it is making to this field of study - a field which is of intense interest to the US military and, recently, politicians ... I feel I have provided references to good secondary sources to establish that UAPx is everything I am claiming them to be. Their position within a domain where the potential global impact of discoveries is unmatched by general public awareness of the process of discovery, merits this organization highly notable, in my opinion ...".
Cosmoid (
talk)
13:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- When CNET publishes an article with the title "The Upcoming Pentagon UFO Report Isn't The Place To Look For The Truth" and states "A new nonprofit dubbed UAPx is taking a scientific approach, using technology like satellites and artificial intelligence to monitor the area off the California coast where UAP have been sighted in the past." - that signifies a tremendous affect of the UAPx organization and puts it on parity for actual information affecting the world with the entire military-industrial-political complex of the Pentagon - I'd say that UAPx is quite notable in terms of the per-capita of the population who is interested in this topic.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not it signifies nothing because it isn't coverage of UAPX. I'll ntoe that there are more bytes of text here than there is in the article and still 0 sources that support inclusion.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps the disparity between what is considered "notable" per Wikipedia standards and what is notable for an emerging topic should signify the willingness of Wikipedia editors and admins to take a step back and re-evaluate the criteria so that measurements can be made for organizations with small footprints and large undertakings.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is wikipedia. Notability is required in a Wikipedia sense. We aren't a directory of things that exist, if we were, we'd be a search engine. It simply isn't notable.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- no·ta·ble
- /ˈnōdəb(ə)l/
- adjective
- worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.
- "the gardens are notable for their collection of magnolias and camellias"
- The key term here is "worthy" - worthy of attention. The idea of UAPx is, by definition, worthy of attention in and of itself. The fact that it hasn't made a tremendous footprint in the news does not detract from the fact that it is a notable company, "worthy of attention." The nature, type, and approach to their research and methodology is "worthy of attention" just the same as an ethereal idea is worthy of attention, and notable, due to the effect it has on those who read it. I contend that UAPx is, in fact, a notable company, worthy of attention, and Wikipedia should take into consideration the idea that the "worth" of an organization is not restricted to writing and output of others, but by the effect it has on a group, community, or subsection of the population. The inspiration which UAPx has given to those who have been denied a full understanding of what is happening in our skies (be it domestic tech or something else) is remarkable in the fact that for the first time in more than 80 years, humanity has an organization dedicated to finding the truth of the matter without reliance on any government.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
-
WP:NOTABLE is the relevant policy you're looking for. We require coverage in independent reliable sources. Not passing mentions. Not an entire fandom/brigading by groups affiliated with subjects to determine notability.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.
- A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
- It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
- It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
- Based on exact wording from Wikipedia, "Article and lists topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice" Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Imagine if you put this much effort into finding actual sources that discuss this in depth. We wouldn't need to have this conversation, but they don't exist, so here we are. And as I said, unless anyone here can provide actual sources that would show it meets GNG, your claims that it does are irrelevant.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- What is wrong with these two sources, please, which are specifically about UAPx:
- https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost
Cosmoid (
talk)
22:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well for one, the Vice article isn't written by staff, it's a contributor piece.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
22:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why is that significant? The reference is not being used to support a statement of fact; it is being used to demonstrate notability.
- As Wikipedia's guidelines state, notability is evaluated with reference to the "reliable source guidelines". Regarding the "outside authors", the Reliable Sources guidelines state "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
- Therefore, that would appear to support my submission that the Vice article should be considered a "reliable secondary source" for the purpose of establishing notability.
Cosmoid (
talk)
22:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are incorrect - contributor submissions are not acceptable and would you please for the love of whatever you believe in stop
WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion?! You have made the same comment with the same sources at least 6 times. It's beyond disruptive.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
22:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please show me exactly where the guidelines state, in so many words, that contributor articles to reliable secondary sources are not acceptable to demonstrate notability. I must have missed that and would like to see a reference. Thanks.
Cosmoid (
talk)
23:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well you can read the discussion surrounding Forbes to start WP:FORBESCON, which discusses at length why contributor pieces in general aren't RS nor notability establishing. But seriously, stop bludgeoning this AFD. You've made it impossible to parse for anyone and made completely redundant illogical arguments. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please show me exactly where the guidelines state, in so many words, that contributor articles to reliable secondary sources are not acceptable to demonstrate notability. I must have missed that and would like to see a reference. Thanks.
Cosmoid (
talk)
23:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are incorrect - contributor submissions are not acceptable and would you please for the love of whatever you believe in stop
WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion?! You have made the same comment with the same sources at least 6 times. It's beyond disruptive.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
22:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- KEEP. Reliable links were provided as were requested. "Praxidicae" needs to take their own advice & stop "bludgeoning" the discussion. Claiming the points made were "completely redundant illogical arguments" is blatantly absurd. They were evidently addressing the issues raised and absolutely on point.
90.255.83.43 (
talk)
00:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: This ip user 90.255.83.43 seems related to
Cosmoid as they said
"Praxidicae" needs to take their own advice & stop "bludgeoning" the discussion. Claiming the points made were "completely redundant illogical arguments" is blatantly absurd
which is directly related to this. I smell SPI issue here. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 08:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)- Address the substance of the issue - i.e., that Praxidicae was entirely unjustified in the accusation of "bludgeoning". They stated "unless anyone here can provide actual sources that would show it meets GNG". I responded with 2 links and asked what was wrong with them. I received an ambiguous response about one of those references and no response about the other. If an editor is to criticise an article and then ask for information, they had better be prepared for a response. Cosmoid ( talk) 10:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
NeverTry4Me: I suspect this is continued canvassing rather than outright sockpuppetry, but I have filed a second SPI. —
Compassionate727 (
T·
C)
17:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Suspect what you will & file what you want Jack, I really don't care. At all.
- I'm simply not interested in engaging in what appears to be petty Wikipedia 'run to tell mummy' games about some bizarre 'rule infringement', imagined conspiracy or whatever else that you or anyone else has dreamt up. It's quite frankly pathetic - I certainly don't have time for it & some appear to have way too much time on their hands. I am interested only in dialogue about the substantive issue: defending my article's eligibility for inclusion in Wikipedia as notable, and have simply responded to any criticisms as I am fully entitled to do - and will continue to do. I am also working to source additional references to improve what I consider is already a perfectly Wikipedia-worthy article about a clearly notable organization. Cosmoid ( talk) 20:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: This ip user 90.255.83.43 seems related to
Cosmoid as they said
- Well for one, the Vice article isn't written by staff, it's a contributor piece.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
22:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Imagine if you put this much effort into finding actual sources that discuss this in depth. We wouldn't need to have this conversation, but they don't exist, so here we are. And as I said, unless anyone here can provide actual sources that would show it meets GNG, your claims that it does are irrelevant.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
-
WP:NOTABLE is the relevant policy you're looking for. We require coverage in independent reliable sources. Not passing mentions. Not an entire fandom/brigading by groups affiliated with subjects to determine notability.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is wikipedia. Notability is required in a Wikipedia sense. We aren't a directory of things that exist, if we were, we'd be a search engine. It simply isn't notable.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps the disparity between what is considered "notable" per Wikipedia standards and what is notable for an emerging topic should signify the willingness of Wikipedia editors and admins to take a step back and re-evaluate the criteria so that measurements can be made for organizations with small footprints and large undertakings.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not it signifies nothing because it isn't coverage of UAPX. I'll ntoe that there are more bytes of text here than there is in the article and still 0 sources that support inclusion.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
14:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- When CNET publishes an article with the title "The Upcoming Pentagon UFO Report Isn't The Place To Look For The Truth" and states "A new nonprofit dubbed UAPx is taking a scientific approach, using technology like satellites and artificial intelligence to monitor the area off the California coast where UAP have been sighted in the past." - that signifies a tremendous affect of the UAPx organization and puts it on parity for actual information affecting the world with the entire military-industrial-political complex of the Pentagon - I'd say that UAPx is quite notable in terms of the per-capita of the population who is interested in this topic.
174.68.143.246 (
talk)
14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Non-notable group of scientists studying something that may or may not be there. Would be better if we waited until something is published by the group and they get discussed in reliable sources. Unlike Mufon which has somewhat more notable sources, this group hasn't been covered by any. We can revisit when they are.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete mostly per the source analysis of Tweedledumb2. Current coverage doesn't show this non-profit meeting the relevant notability guidelines (
GNG or
NONPROFIT). If people UAPx themselves can't find significant coverage, I doubt anyone else will.
~Styyx
Talk?
15:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- In terms of GNG & NONPROFIT, here is significant coverage, from reputable sources, of a non-profit that operates nationally:
- https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a29628228/military-nasa-veterans-form-ufo-group
- https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjw3q5/this-silicon-valley-startup-is-dedicated-to-detecting-ufos-off-the-california-cost Cosmoid ( talk) 22:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Tweedledumb2 — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 15:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Quickly becoming SNOW. Nothing further had been added or taken away, we seem to be going in circles at this point.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have asked for the BADNAC/BADRELIST to be overturned on their talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per reasons outlined by Tweedledumb2, i.e. insufficient in-depth coverage by WP:FRIND sources to justify a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 14:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Timote Moleni
- Timote Moleni ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep? Outside of the stats websites you have [29], [30], [31], [32], some interviews over Tonga 0–22 Australia, google doesn't pick everything up. Govvy ( talk) 09:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment An unreliable blog and three match reports/previews do not provide significant coverage. Dougal18 ( talk) 09:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply @ Dougal18: At what level do you feel that a persons name and a person talked about across multiple different websites significant? Significant doesn't have to be one solid article, that can also be a build of multiple articles, there is a level of interpretation on GNG you know. Govvy ( talk) 10:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply @ Govvy: Any football person is going to be "mentioned" in lots of articles, it is significant coverage that is required. I don't regard brief quotes or post match interviews as significant coverage. Dougal18 ( talk) 11:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 05:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Besides the sources @ Govvy: found, I found 5, 6, and 7. In addition, almost all of Tonga's newspapers are not available online, and he probably has articles about him on there. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 18:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability met. Weakly, but it just gets over the line. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 23:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Article has sufficient sources, and can always be improved if more are required. -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 06:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Vorwerk (company). Seems to be a consensus that some of the information is worth keeping, and some of the products have been reviewed numerous times, but the brand itself is not passing WP:GNG. I will leave it to editors to kindly merge and convert the current article to a redirect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Neato Robotics
- Neato Robotics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In-depth coverage is non-existent about this non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. Amon Stutzman ( talk) 23:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood ( talk) 23:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 00:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This company is an early pioneer and actively selling products in the area of robot vacuum cleaners, one of the very few consumer level robotics products. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 01:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Selective Merge to Vorwerk (company), its parent company. Significant coverage exists in the form of reviews of the company's various products, such as CNET, PC Magazine, Engadget, PC Magazine, Engadget, Mashable, etc., but the sources don't say much about the company itself. North America 1000 11:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a bit weak on company coverage, but the product line is notable, and as Oleg pointed out, they are considered a pioneer in the consumer robotics industry. I thought about flipping it around and renaming it Neato robotic vacuums, with a small section for the company, but that would be a bit clunky, and I'm not sure that's an obvious search term. I also thought about a merge to Vorwerk (company), but that article's company overview section is a bit of a mess with unsourced bulleted text, and any merge of product info would make it unbalanced. Keeping it, but with maybe a bit less product detail, seems to be the best option. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The product review seems like a type of advertisement and product placement, refers to WP:PRODUCTREV. And the sources just don't show notability for the subject. -- Mestrossino ( talk) 08:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- The company has been around for more than 10 years, and theirs is one of the earliest and most innovative current robot vacuum designs. The things you find excessive can be trimmed. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 18:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 05:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep without prejudice toward a Merge per NorthAmerica. Andrevan @ 22:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- A merge may be a pain as the parent company has a very different product line and unrelated history. It may be clearer for the reader if these are kept separate, but current article may need to be slimmed down perhaps. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to the target suggested by Northamerica1000. Lightburst ( talk) 01:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Avalanche the Band
- Avalanche the Band ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced advert for a band with one EP and three singles. No evidence that the recordings are notable either. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Undoubtedly not notable. — VersaceSpace 🌃 20:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I see references were added upon nomination, yet they are the band's own and blogs. No Reliable Sources. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 10:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - See also User talk:Grucz, in which the creator of the article appears to be making a good-faith effort to describe this band. That is okay, and welcome aboard, but in Wikipedia people/things must qualify for inclusion by satisfying notability guidelines. This band does not qualify because they have received no significant and reliable media coverage, and are only visible in their own social media promotions and occasional brief gig announcements. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Scott Presler
AfDs for this article:
- Scott Presler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposed deletion for lack of notability. Citations in the article are covering a trash cleanups he organized in Baltimore. This article was deleted in 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Presler Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 23:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can expand the article, I just got it started as a jumping off point. I was not aware that there was a previous version of this article that was deleted, so my apologies for not taking note of that! I do think the trash cleanups were a very significant event that generated enough headlines to warrant notability. I've seen Presler pop up over the past couple of years in Fox, The Daily Beast, The Baltimore Sun, The New York Post, and the Washington Post. I will be adding more to the article, but I do believe that when all is said and done, the article will meet the standards of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
GeorgeBailey (
talk)
00:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying to this @ GeorgeBailey. Here are some of the notability guidelines used for articles about people, these are what I used when establishing if the article was notable. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Before I nominated this article I looked at a couple articles in the American political activists category and compared the types of sources cited in those articles to the ones I found covering Presler and I didn't think it passed the requirements for notability. I tried to look into his work with Rise PAC but couldn't find much of their website or by searching Google News. I gave it a good try when I was looking but it's completely possible that I missed something. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 01:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can expand the article, I just got it started as a jumping off point. I was not aware that there was a previous version of this article that was deleted, so my apologies for not taking note of that! I do think the trash cleanups were a very significant event that generated enough headlines to warrant notability. I've seen Presler pop up over the past couple of years in Fox, The Daily Beast, The Baltimore Sun, The New York Post, and the Washington Post. I will be adding more to the article, but I do believe that when all is said and done, the article will meet the standards of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
GeorgeBailey (
talk)
00:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Maryland. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a Baltimorian, I can say he is a nobody who showed up to get his 15 minutes of fame. As a Wikipedian, he's also a nobody and isn't notable. There is no in depth coverage, nothing sustained and he fails GNG (and whatever niche n criteria you want to throw in there. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- F it, delete. Started to edit and expand but got a revert from the above user. The language above seems like there would be no negotiation that would lead to anything. It's not a battle that I feel like fighting. Dr vulpes, you can blank it.
GeorgeBailey (
talk)
22:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- You can expand it and work on it while it's at AFD, but without removing the notice. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the "F it, delete" !vote and notions therein such as "started to edit and expand but got a revert", "seems like there would be no negotiation that would lead to anything" and "It's not a battle that I feel like fighting" are not based upon Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)- @ Northamerica1000 when I looked at the revert I felt it was mostly appropriate then inappropriate, they were putting the AfD notice back as it had been removed. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 04:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable fails GNG. Henriklars ( talk) 08:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: I'm very much not a fan of his politics, but he's a pretty notable Trump supporter to the extent multiple publications have written about his rallies (or cancelled rallies) and consulting. If you search "The Persistence", you'll get a bit more to push him over
WP:GNG. Alternatively, there could be an article called
Influencer support for Donald Trump where this could be merged as a section, but seeing as that article is yet to exist, keep per passing
WP:GNG. (Here's my sources to attest to GNG of some sort:
Lightning-rod Trump supporter Scott Presler's rally canceled in Wilton – Times-Union,
Scott Presler appearance cancelled for third time – Times-Union,
Newest House GOP Star Teams Up With Nutty MAGA Conspiracy Theorist – Daily Beast,
Grassroots and global players: The crowded campaign to oust Cheney – Wyoming Tribune Eagle). I think the article could benefit from adding his work with
Elise Stefanik but if possible from a source other than the Daily Beast per
WP:DAILYBEAST.
Tartar
Torte
19:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue that those are mostly just passing mentions at best.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
19:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that three of the four (the one about the third cancelled rally being excluded) are all articles that provide
WP:SIGCOV. In the case of the first Times–Union article, the article talks about both him and officials reaction to him. In the case of the Daily Beast article, the article highlights his involvement with Rep. Stefanik and his extremism/rejection of reality (re: "Stop the Steal"). The third article covers a rally from Cheyenne in which he was the main speaker. I will say; I find that none of the articles provide that much different information on him, but they all seem to pass
WP:SIGCOV in my eyes.
Tartar
Torte
19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah that was my problem when looking for sources. There are a lot out there but they just say he's at a rally or something kind of minor. I was really hopeful that Rise PAC would have more information about him so I could tie that into the article but I got stuck there as well. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 20:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that three of the four (the one about the third cancelled rally being excluded) are all articles that provide
WP:SIGCOV. In the case of the first Times–Union article, the article talks about both him and officials reaction to him. In the case of the Daily Beast article, the article highlights his involvement with Rep. Stefanik and his extremism/rejection of reality (re: "Stop the Steal"). The third article covers a rally from Cheyenne in which he was the main speaker. I will say; I find that none of the articles provide that much different information on him, but they all seem to pass
WP:SIGCOV in my eyes.
Tartar
Torte
19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue that those are mostly just passing mentions at best.
PRAXIDICAE🌈
19:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unsure if the references are more than passing mentions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Nadahan wedding bombing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Nagahan
- Nagahan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This village is not notable on its own. The only coverages are about the Nadahan wedding bombing, so it should be redirected there. Furthermore, the name could be wrong. Is it Nagahan or Nadahan? Neocorelight ( Talk) 23:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Neocorelight ( Talk) 23:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merge I think that this article is not notable enough for it's own article with its lack of references... but it should be merged and redirect to
Nadahan wedding bombing until more references are found or the notability is established (See
WP:TNT).
𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (
𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔)
00:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing to merge since all the information came from the bombing article. Neocorelight ( Talk) 00:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect Agree on lack of content to support a merge. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect viable search term. Djflem ( talk) 20:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Robin Radhakrishnan
- Robin Radhakrishnan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NACTOR because there are no significant roles in multiple notable productions. The subject also lacks significant coverage. Apparently one of the contestant of Bigg Boss which is alone not sufficient for notability per WP:BIGBROTHER. TheWikiholic ( talk) 01:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood ( talk) 08:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: In addition to the reasons mentioned by the nominator, this article is full of BLP verification issues and lacks reliable sources. –– FormalDude talk 04:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are objections to deletion on article talk page so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV - SUN EYE 1 06:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Vinay Virmani
- Vinay Virmani ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons mentioned above. George Custer's Sabre ( talk) 03:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental ( talk) 01:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 20:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Severino Tchivinda
- Severino Tchivinda ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. Generic. scope_creep Talk 19:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Africa. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Angola-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Congrats! this is the first AfD in a new delsort! – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Serial killer. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Hardly "generic". -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Somebody killing five folk is so common, that is it mediocre. There is nothing unique or special about it. On top of that you addressed the references.
scope_creep
Talk
14:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sad that anyone would think that a serial killer of five people is "so common, that is it mediocre". In most places, serial killers are very rare. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Its not the fact the person killed five people, that is inconsequential, its the fact the serial killers kill multiple poeple on average, and there is so many of them and they so common, that they are barely spoken about, except on true crime series on tv and the odd crime series like "Dexter", and many many cop shows the rotate around plot. The whole experience of stating, x killled 5 people is completly mediocre and generic, as that what they do. Perhaps you don't understand how many there actually are. I can't understand about why folk think these crimes are somehow special and unique. Its the reverse. Its a daily occurence, somewhere in the world right now.
scope_creep
Talk
16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you might watch too many TV cop shows about serial killers where they have on a different one each week. That's not real life.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that I wouldn't call a serial killer "common" and certainly not a daily occurrence. That being said, List of serial killers in the United States is not a small list, and that's just in the US, and per their inclusion criteria is only the serial killers that have a Wikipedia article. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think you might watch too many TV cop shows about serial killers where they have on a different one each week. That's not real life.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
06:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Its not the fact the person killed five people, that is inconsequential, its the fact the serial killers kill multiple poeple on average, and there is so many of them and they so common, that they are barely spoken about, except on true crime series on tv and the odd crime series like "Dexter", and many many cop shows the rotate around plot. The whole experience of stating, x killled 5 people is completly mediocre and generic, as that what they do. Perhaps you don't understand how many there actually are. I can't understand about why folk think these crimes are somehow special and unique. Its the reverse. Its a daily occurence, somewhere in the world right now.
scope_creep
Talk
16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sad that anyone would think that a serial killer of five people is "so common, that is it mediocre". In most places, serial killers are very rare. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Somebody killing five folk is so common, that is it mediocre. There is nothing unique or special about it. On top of that you addressed the references.
scope_creep
Talk
14:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Being a serial killer would fall under the purview of WP:CRIME. This article's subject does not meet any of the criteria listed there, and simply being a serial killer is not a consideration for notability under any notability guideline that I am aware of. The coverage that does exist both in the article and online is limited; the sources in the article are by far the best sources I could personally find online, and they're focused on the crime itself, not necessarily the person. Outside of the details of the crime itself, when focusing on the person (which is of course this article's subject), there's really no significant coverage in the articles. There's certainly not enough to warrant an entire article about him. The only other notability guideline that I can think would apply is WP:ANYBIO, and this article's subject fails that too. Of the three applicable notability guidelines, the article's subject fails to meet each and every one of them. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment For info. I came across another two news sources of ones that recently occurred, one in Russian and one Angola or Algeria something like that but they were so dreadful that couldn't repeat them on here. Then I found another guy, an American in the 60's, on an article that came up. That was the blackest evil, it was beyond belief really, the most senseless thing, even reading about it now. So I'll pass on that assertion. scope_creep Talk
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —ScottyWong— 02:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Regretfully. I love true-crime, and created Lloyd Clark Fletcher and am the major contributor to Mark Valera. Fletcher does not meet WP:CRIME, however meets WP:GNG. Valera meets both. This subject meets neither. He did not murder a renowned public figure. I did have a laugh at Liz comment. I respect you scope_creep, and it is rare for me to !vote against one of your noms. However Liz has a point, to say killing five people is "mediocre" is a furphy - I must have listened to hundreds of true crime podcasts and I actually cannot recall someone murdering this many people off hand, except Bundy. Though, my disagreement ends there. The issue here is that while I do consider the crime noteworthy, it is not a well documented historic event evidenced through sustained coverage of the event. Proquest only showing one source and not much elsewhere. I gave serious consideration to invoking WP:IAR for the first time in an AFD discussion, but I cannot do it. As there is not sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability or create a properly sourced, complete article, I must support deletion. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 23:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
MaxnaCarta: it's almost weird isn't it? The whole thing seems like there should be coverage for it and thus notability, but it's just...weirdly absent in this case. -
Aoidh (
talk)
23:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed mate, it just felt wrong to vote delete but ultimately there just is not enough to get it over the line. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 00:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- @
MaxnaCarta: it's almost weird isn't it? The whole thing seems like there should be coverage for it and thus notability, but it's just...weirdly absent in this case. -
Aoidh (
talk)
23:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus to delete. Sources have been provided to justify keep, but upon reviewing them I have to concur with Aoidh's description of each one and the fact that they do not provide WP:SIGCOV. TigerShark ( talk) 03:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Joel Engardio
- Joel Engardio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:PROMO. The article is written like a resume with mostly primary sources, whether from personal blog posts or columns that he has written in larger publications. ( WP:JOURNALIST)
One film doesn't qualify him for WP:CREATIVE (I still need to evaluate its coverage as the page was created by the same author of this page) Unsuccessful runs for local elections doesn't qualify him for WP:POLITCIAN. BriefEdits ( talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Journalism, Religion, and California. BriefEdits ( talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep -
WP:GNG met by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources cited in the article:
[33],
[34],[35], [36]. Article improvements, not deletion can address the other complaints ( WP:NOTCLEANUP). ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Of the sources Kvng lists above, This is an opinion piece about a local level political race, it would be weird not to find that kind of coverage for a local race, and the scope of coverage must be considered. Overall it would contribute towards notability, but it certainly doesn't do much on its own. This is written by the article's subject. Not independent, doesn't contribute to notability in any way. This isn't trivial coverage, but it's an article about his documentary, not about him. Doesn't contribute to notability. This is another local-level opinion piece about a political race, but this one has even less substance than the first one. Doesn't contribute to notability. If this is the best coverage that we can find for the article's subject, then the article's subject just doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia. Maybe it's a matter of WP:TOOSOON, maybe not, but there's just not enough there. - Aoidh ( talk) 05:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're right to exclude the NPR piece. The Newsweek piece is about the documentary but also has significant coverage of the subject so does contribute to establishing notability. I'm not aware of "scope of coverage" requirements associated with biographies. The endorsements are local news but local to one the largest metropolitan areas in the US. ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Scope of coverage is similar to depth; we're just looking for the amount of attention that reliable third parties have given to a particular subject (e.g. sentence vs. full article) While coverage from a major publication would definitely be more convincing of notability, I wouldn't say that coverage alone is enough for notability. The point I wanted to emphasize WP:POLITICIAN and WP:CREATIVE was that while the subject's name may pop up in relation to the coverage of the political races that he has ran in or the one film that he has made, it's difficult to ascertain his notability outside of those articles proper. BriefEdits ( talk) 09:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're right to exclude the NPR piece. The Newsweek piece is about the documentary but also has significant coverage of the subject so does contribute to establishing notability. I'm not aware of "scope of coverage" requirements associated with biographies. The endorsements are local news but local to one the largest metropolitan areas in the US. ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —ScottyWong— 02:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Barstow Rock (Massachusetts)
- Barstow Rock (Massachusetts) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. There are no sources online beyond basic location information. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 02:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Rock is so small it's not even visible on Google Maps, apparently. Utterly baffling why this was created. Template:Islands and Peninsulas of Massachusetts has quite a few more perma-microstubs like this that should be deleted. Reywas92 Talk 20:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- delete The reason why you cannot see it is because, apparently, it is underwater. I've looked at a bunch of nautical charts of the area, and they all show it a shallow underwater bump marked by a buoy. And while GNIS claims this was collected from the usual first phase sources, no topo map shows it until after GNIS was initiated, so I have to think the charts were the source. No way this is notable. Mangoe ( talk) 04:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete it is not even above the water level. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. North America 1000 03:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Cormorant Rock (Plymouth County, Massachusetts)
- Cormorant Rock (Plymouth County, Massachusetts) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. There are no sources in the article, and no sources online beyond basic location information. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 02:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It's a rock. I'm utterly baffled why this was created. Reywas92 Talk 20:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: no notability whatsoever. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete that this article went almost 12 years with a tag mentioning it had no sources is an indication that the system in Wikipedia is not good enough. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Justin Smith (footballer)
- Justin Smith (footballer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Jake Forbes (footballer)
- Jake Forbes (footballer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Denvin Jones
- Denvin Jones ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Carlos Septus
- Carlos Septus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and Haiti. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental ( talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Luca Reich
- Luca Reich ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Miguel Marshall
- Miguel Marshall ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
T'Sharne Gallimore
- T'Sharne Gallimore ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Giovanni Grant
- Giovanni Grant ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental ( talk) 01:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Liam Blok
- Liam Blok ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - only trivial mentions found in searches Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
William Butler (footballer, born 2004)
- William Butler (footballer, born 2004) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Phillip Graham (footballer)
- Phillip Graham (footballer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Charles Medway
- Charles Medway ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental ( talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Leo Forte
- Leo Forte ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Rahul Arora
- Rahul Arora ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unable to find any evidence of notability for Arora. Coverage is limited to routine announcements, but nothing significant Star Mississippi 01:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Star Mississippi 01:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental ( talk) 13:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.