Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >

Purge server cache

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. Joyous! | Talk 02:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Shredderman Rules

Shredderman Rules (  | 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)

Found no additional coverage and what's on page isn't sufficient for GNG or NFO. QuietHere ( talk) 23:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

New Politics Australia

New Politics Australia (  | 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)

The subject does not pass WP:GNG. Most of the current sources are just links to the podcast on Apple Podcasts. The remaining links are a WP:TRIVIALMENTION from the The Latch, a WP:PRIMARY source containing a transcript of the show, and two short mentions that aren't WP:INDEPENDENT of the show because they are from guests of the show. And then of course the couple of sources about the books, which don't even mention the podcast or are just primary sources. The show does not WP:INHERIT notability from it's guests or hosts. The hosts don't have Wikipedia articles so there doesn't appear to be a clear merge or redirect target. The article was proded last November. Doing a few Google searches, I'm unable to find sources that would demonstrate notability. TipsyElephant ( talk) 17:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Of course, a podcast is going to link to Apple podcasts. The three published books directly refer to the podcast – "New Politics has released two publications based on the podcast series and published articles". What else needs to be added here? All the links are verifiable. How is “notability” defined? EdanTabain ( talk) 11:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ EdanTabain: you can read about how notability is defined on Wikipedia at WP:NOTABILITY. A few essays that might also be helpful include WP:GOLDENRULE, WP:THREESOURCES, WP:BACKWARD, and WP:FIRST. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we could perhaps draftify this for EdanTabain and they could work on it in draftspace until they feel comfortable submitting it to WP:AfC for review. It appears there is already a draft in draftspace though. TipsyElephant ( talk) 17:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Look, just forget it. I set the page up to get more Wikipedia skills – but it seems technically and practically too difficult. And now I don’t even know where the page had gone! Seems like Wikipedia is managed by anonymous people who arbitrarily decide what’s notable and what’s not. There’s so many other pages I’ve seen on Wikipedia for years of people with low-notability, so it just seems arbitrary. EdanTabain ( talk) 00:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 23:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, notability is not inherited and the sources provided are not indpendent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject of the article directly and indepth.  //  Timothy ::  talk  09:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Pearl King (disambiguation)

AfDs for this article:
Pearl King (disambiguation) (  | 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)

The previous nomination was closed because of the socking nominator and lack of participation. Pretty slamdunk case of WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend ( talk) 15:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 23:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, disambiguation can be accomplished in a hatnote. BD2412 T 04:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Also, the link leads to an article about the husband in which the wife is hardly mentioned. Suitskvarts ( talk) 21:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian ( talk) 20:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 02:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Dawn Prince-Hughes

Dawn Prince-Hughes (  | 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 due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article only cites three sources, with a local news article being the only secondary source. All other sources are primary (her own writing, an interview), tertiary (encyclopedia.com) or not independent of her (Western Washington University, where she was employed). Baronet13 ( talk) 23:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Clear WP:NAUTHOR pass, with additional WP:SIGCOV. Her memoir, Songs of the Gorilla Nation, was extremely widely reviewed, and has been the subject of scholarly work. Her other books have also received reviews and scholarly attention. I've added 6 reviews, a scholarly article, and a feature (the Chronicle article) to the footnotes. There will be more - this all came from a single database, and I didn't check google scholar or any newspaper-specific databases. -- asilvering ( talk) 04:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep. As per @ Asilvering CT55555( talk) 04:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment. These sources are about the book, not Dawn Prince-Hughes herself (the subject of the article) and contain little or no substantive information about Prince-Hughes that could be used in this article, which is probably why you cited five sources just to say she wrote a book and four sources to say she wrote another book. The additional sources did nothing to improve the article; it still has an entire section that doesn't cite any sources. It's impossible to write a good encyclopedia article relying almost exclusively on books reviews for source material. There is still no evidence of significant coverage of Prince-Hughes herself (the subject of the article) in secondary sources. Still fails WP:GNG. Baronet13 ( talk) 08:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    What do you expect sources for an author to be about? Her favourite colour or her cat's name? Sources for footballers are about football and sources for politicians are about politics, so sources for authors are about books. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would expect better sources than a small number of book reviews (ten reviews for the seven books she wrote). Almost every published book is reviewed, so just having a book reviewed is insufficient to establish notability. Baronet13 ( talk) 19:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's not the case - see WP:NAUTHOR. It is extremely standard for AfD discussions about authors to close as keep on the basis of multiple notable books; notability of books is commonly decided based on the depth and number of major media or academic reviews. -- asilvering ( talk) 19:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I should also add that I didn't cite five sources just to say she wrote a book and four sources to say she wrote another book. I put those footnotes on those sentences because that is the most logical place to place those sources. The article could be expanded with the information in those reviews, and now it is easier for another editor to do that. I haven't read any of her books myself and don't have any desire to expand her article, so that's as far as I'll go here, but I have nonetheless left the article in a better state than I found it. If you don't wish to expand it either, that's fine; so long as the subject is notable and there isn't anything outright false in the article, we can leave it as it stands. -- asilvering ( talk) 19:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Almost every published book is reviewed. citation needed Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Common knowledge. Baronet13 ( talk) 02:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Your knowledge appears to be false, or maybe more charitably based on sampling bias: the books you have heard of are more likely to be the ones that have been reviewed. But I have a long list of many books that I would like to create Wikipedia articles about but have not because I have been unable to find enough reviews. For many of these I have no reviews at all. For that matter we have five books in the nominated article for which we do not yet list any reviews. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    My knowledge is that I know several people who have written books that have been published, but no review has been published. This knowledge does not seem to be as common as you think. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC, e.g. One day, a gorilla touched her soul (Seattle PI, 2004), The Zoo Story (New York Times, 2004), Song of the Gorilla Nation Kirkus, 2004) (both the NYT and Kirkus reviews note the 2004 book is a memoir, and the Publisher's Weekly review also notes this plus a tour and advocacy related to the book), Inspiring stories of people on the autism spectrum (CBS News, 2016); there are also interviews on BBC and NPR that while mostly primary, may be helpful to further develop the article, and there is an abstract available on GScholar for a 2011 Disability Studies Quarterly article that "examine[s] two technical and professional writers in particular—Temple Grandin and Dawn Prince Hughes—showing how each invents a professional ethos that resists stereotypes about autism and what it means to be an "ideal" professional communicator." The article can be further developed with available sources, and as outlined in WP:NAUTHOR, the multiple reviews of her collective body of work are secondary support for her notability, not simply verification that she wrote books, similar to other notable author articles. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for all your work on this! -- asilvering ( talk) 20:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you, asilvering - author articles are some of my favorites to work on, and after you found so many great sources, this became an ooh! squirrel! opportunity for me. Cheers, Beccaynr ( talk) 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to the sources identified above establishing clear WP:NAUTHOR notability, there's this profile: [1] [2]. It's a local paper, so less weight for notability purposes than some of the above sources, but can be used as an additional source for biographical details. Jfire ( talk) 19:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the multiple reviews of multiple books identified in the article. In-depth coverage of an author's works should be sufficient to build an article centered on those works. In this case we also have a significant amount of separate biographical coverage but that is not necessary for AUTHOR notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for meeting the relevant standard. The idea that reviews of an author's work somehow don't contribute to the author being noteworthy floats around from time to time, and it never makes sense. We don't need a lavish profile with the subject's favorite beef stroganoff recipe and the roles they had in all the school plays. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just adding that since the AfD creation, the sources now clearly include multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Initial concerns are resolved. — siro χ o 09:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY after good work done by Beccaynr. Bearian ( talk) 20:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY and passes WP:AUTHOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Kareem Harris

Kareem Harris (  | 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) 23:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Tishan Hanley

Tishan Hanley (  | 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) 23:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • GiantSnowman - I added a few sources. He got a decent bit of coverage, mostly because he didn't stay to play in the country and because he's a striker and not a defender, which is sad. KatoKungLee ( talk) 23:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I added a bunch of sources but like always, there's 2 newspapers in St. Kitts and the rest of the world has virtually no interest in St. Kitts soccer. KatoKungLee ( talk) 23:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, article does not have RS with SIGCOV. Sources in article (including recently added) are brief mentions, stats, routine reporting, etc. Nothing that meet SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  //  Timothy ::  talk  09:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Carlos Bertie

Carlos Bertie (  | 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) 23:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Errol O'Loughlin

Errol O'Loughlin (  | 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) 22:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was wrong venue. This should be brought to WP:RFD Salvio giuliano 21:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorani abjad

Sorani abjad (  | 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)

The Sorani abjad redirect is inaccurate, as the Sorani abjad is technically not an abjad and is an alphabet. Blahhmosh ( talk) 20:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Obvious keep Redirects don't need to be a fully accurate description of their target, as long as they are something people are likely to search for when looking for that target, and it would be easy for someone to mistakenly call it the "Sorani abjad" considering that it's based on Persian, which is an abjad. small jars t c 20:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 21:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment; It's a WP:RfD case, by the way. My understanding is that redirects should be discussed there. Suitskvarts ( talk) 21:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    You are right, that was a brain fart on my part. Salvio giuliano 21:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Eastern Orthodox Church. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Order of Saint Benedict (Eastern Orthodox)

Order of Saint Benedict (Eastern Orthodox) (  | 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 group clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCHURCH. I found nothing from reliable independent sources on them.

Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve ( talk) 15:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. I'm a little loathe to delete, because I suspect there's a kernel here of a good article. If it's true that there's some subset of Orthodox monasteries and/or oblate programs that base themselves on the Rule of St Benedict, that does seem worthy of comment—and I can't shake the suspicion that there is commentary on it somewhere, if we knew where to look. But I've looked and can't find it, and the sources that the article does have are all garbage. So, delete! — Brian ( talk) 20:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment. I might be changing my mind on this as I keep researching. Some of the old unsourced information you deleted includes some good clues for finding the right alleyways. Here's a source, for example, that talks about a Benedictine monastery and the history of the Latin rite on Athos. I suspect I'll be able to find more. (I'm actually tempted to re-post some of the unsourced ideas you deleted with a flag, in case it helps others. But I'm not trying to start an edit war with you. Would you be opposed?) — Brian ( talk) 21:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Would you be opposed? yes I am opposed. If you want to add information, it must be sourced by reliable sources. Veverve ( talk) 00:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. Maybe I’ll go back and add it to the talk page for future reference. I just have a strong bias against deleting old unsourced information on WP unless its factuality has been directly challenged, especially on less-trafficked pages, for exactly this reason. I fear that by deleting all of that you’ve made it harder for an interested editor to bring the article up to WP standards. Brian ( talk) 10:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Bdhamilton: if you are interested, I wrote an entire essay to explain my reasoning on why such things should be done: WP:CHEWINGGUM. Veverve ( talk) 11:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Good read! I see where you're coming from, but I disagree in cases like these. A lot of the stuff that got deleted is fairly easy to find sources for. I wonder if a middle ground wouldn't be at least to add a note to the talk page about what was deleted, with a link to the last version of the article that included it all. Brian ( talk) 12:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Bdhamilton: I would not oppose you putting on the article's talk page information I have deleted and which you believe could be sourced in the future (by you or anyone else). This is I think a good compromise. I advise using either Template:Talk quote block or Template:Collapse, and Template:Reflist-talk. Veverve ( talk) 13:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Probably delete -- Benedictine is a Catholic order. This article is saying that its principles have been applied to an Antiochan Orthodox denomination, probably mainly in America. This has the feel of a splinter from a splinter, so that I doubt its notability. There may be scope for a brief merger to the parent denomination. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider option of Merge suggested by participant. But what target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge - I do not believe there is enough RS-based information here at this time, but imagine RS do exist to support merging with Eastern Orthodox Church either in the Holy orders section or Relations with other Christians section (with the latter probably the best target). However, I'm quite bad at finding sources and possible useful sources like church websites are notoriously hard to come across through search websites unless you know what you are looking for (due to few hyperlinks leading to them resulting in low search coefficients). — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Eastern Orthodox Church as there is enough coverage for a merge but not for a standalone article at present, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Participation in festivals and/or obtaining (minor) awards make it likely that sources exist and therefore preclude speedy deletion, for example. However, once at AfD, this is irrelevant and for an article to be kept notability has to be shown through in-depth independent reliable sources. Even the one "keep" !vote admits that the necessary sources cannot be found at this time. Randykitty ( talk) 22:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

A Father's Diary (film)

A Father's Diary (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 film. The three sources from Bangladesh are regurgitated press releases about upcoming showings at festivals. The source from Spain merely names the film in a photo caption. Policy WP:NOTPLOT tells us that the encyclopedia should treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing their development, design, reception, significance, and influence. Searches in English and Bengali found no independent analysis in secondary sources that could be used to write in an encyclopedic way about it (instead of simply promoting it by raising its profile). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOE. Worldbruce ( talk) 16:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The film is apparently an indie type one so that could be the reason why it has low media coverage about its production, development and design. However, it seems to be significant as it has received several recognitions at several foreign film festivals. Added some available online references. Abhishekrand ( talk) 16:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Unlike IMDb, Wikipedia is not intended to be an indiscriminate collection of every film ever on the festival circuit. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film tells us, "Because of the proliferation of film festivals and 'award mills', festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus." Adding more "said a press release" sources is not the way to demonstrate notability. If the film secures a distributor, then enough may be written about it to make it suitable for the encyclopedia, until then it is WP:TOOSOON. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 18:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
However, the film festivals mentioned here can be used to indicate the notability of the film. Isn't it? Abhishekrand ( talk) 15:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep : The list of awards on this page can be considered a valid claim for the film's notability Abhishekrand ( talk) 15:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. It's snowing. Star Mississippi 00:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Leo Liu

AfDs for this article:
Leo Liu (  | 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 a BLP of a non-notable person for whom there are no reliable sources. The closure of the initial AFD as "Keep" ignored the deficiency of sources and the lack of citation to sources claimed by "keep" advocates. There may be some confusion about sources, since there are large number of sources to other persons with the same name. This person is not notable. He is a teenage blogger who once appeared at TEDxEustis conference a year ago (TEDxEustis is not TED, and is held at a high school auditorium in a small town in Florida) and self-published a book that has no reviews by reliable sources. He clearly does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:Author Banks Irk ( talk) 20:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and China. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG/ WP:BIO. Woodroar ( talk) 22:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone can provide links to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The earlier AfD debate was deeply flawed. Cullen328 ( talk) 23:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Disruptive: This was closed less than a week ago and apart from the nom, this was unanimous "keep". If you don't agree with the previous close, take it to WP:DRV. Opening another AfD is plain disruptive. I'm taking this to ANI.-- Randykitty ( talk) 23:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    In most any other circumstances, yes this would be considered disruptive. But your bad close was so egregious that a new afd is rather justified. Zaathras ( talk) 02:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    To say that I disagree with your assessment would be an understatement, Randykitty. I encourage you to engage in some self-reflection. The closer's job is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments, not to count votes. One strong, policy based argument to delete ought to be more convincing than 100 ignorant, evidence free arguments to keep, especially when they are unrooted from policy. If you were unwilling to properly close a debate polluted by ill-informed, irrelevant opinions by newly created accounts, then you should have abstained and moved on, or you should have participated as an ordinary editor recommending "delete" instead of making that bad close. Cullen328 ( talk) 05:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Is this pile-on needed? The matter has been well hashed over at ANI. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Delete No indication of notability in the article, amazed to hear a previous AfD was closed as keep but that is not a reason to keep a non-notable article. Jeppiz ( talk) 23:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, did a google and looked at the sources which came up... Then I went and looked at the version of the page which existed during the last AfD and I'm genuinely not sure how it possible was kept. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: (from RSN) per nom and above editors; barring someone posting some GNG sources, it's an unreferenced BLP. I also don't quite understand how the last AFD ended in keep, but glitches happen, so do-over. Levivich ( talk) 23:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Far too trivial for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Delete now that the bad sourcing has been removed, there is nothing left this person doesn't meet notability in reliable sources. Zaathras ( talk) 02:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the user above me. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 02:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per others. I'm surprised at how superficial the previous discussion was; such superficial discussions can't be considered a proper consensus. Those sources weren't reliable, and weren't properly scrutinised. I can't resist pointing out that TEDx has notoriously low standards for speakers (remember the Sam Hyde one?); it's basically equivalent to saying "this person attended a Toastmasters once", or "in his high school biology class, this person gave a presentation on spiders". DFlhb ( talk) 11:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete This article has zero sources cited. I'm assuming this dude wrote the article about himself, despite doing absolutely nothing notable. The-J-Verse ( talk) 17:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Isabella Escobar

Isabella Escobar (  | 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)

According to ITF records, appears to be a junior player that never made it as a professional. I can't find any evidence of meeting WP:NTENNIS now that Fed Cup participation has been removed from that guideline. I'm also not seeing enough coverage for WP:SPORTBASIC. I found a passing mention in El Norte, another in US State News and, finally, another in Siglo Veintiuno. None of that is even close to good enough. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete This person is not notable enough and I'm assuming she wrote the article about herself. The-J-Verse ( talk) 17:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, not notable for what amounts to a stub article. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek ( talk) 00:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Dabiri

Dabiri (  | 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)

Indian fashion company appears to fail WP:NCORP. Not my topic area so sending to AfD in case there are more knowledgeable editors. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 18:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of airports in the Caribbean. Randykitty ( talk) 17:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of airports in Saint Martin (island)

List of airports in Saint Martin (island) (  | 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 merge proposal, further to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airports in Aruba (2nd nomination). With 2 items this AfDd list is 100% better than the other lists nominated, yet it is still subpar. The 2 items should be included individually (per political unit) into List of airports in the Caribbean. The airports are already listed side by side in Saint Martin (island)#Airports and this is more than sufficient to emphasize that there are two airports on this politically divided island. gidonb ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Lists, Netherlands, and Caribbean. gidonb ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment #1 "With 2 items this AfDd list is 100% better than the other lists nominated..." has made me laugh every time I've read it this morning. Thank you. #2 You don't have to bring merge proposals to AfD. You can add {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags to the articles and begin a discussion on the talk page of the "merge into" article. Joyous! | Talk 18:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The same fella made another one of these annoying subtle jokes here. I consider reporting them to ANI. gidonb ( talk) 04:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Regarding mergeto/mergefrom: I used to be a huge advocate of this procedure as well. We can discuss sometime in another forum. gidonb ( talk) 13:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Alalch E. 20:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Cultural monuments of the Kosovo district

Cultural monuments of the Kosovo district (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
Cultural Monuments of Rasina District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cultural Monuments of the Toplica District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cultural Monuments of Kosovska Mitrovica District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cultural monuments of the Pirot district (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cultural monuments of the Peć district (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cultural monuments of the Bor District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cultural monuments of the Pčinja District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Short version: We don't want 31 lists (8 have been created so far but there are 23 to go), we don't want potentially even more than 31 lists, we want the two perfectly fine lists that we already have. And we want our stand-alone lists to follow WP:NLIST.

Long version: These duplicative lists contain the following content: The 'cultural monument' entries from the Immovable Cultural Heritage of Exceptional Importance (Serbia) (first-tier official status) mixed together with entries from Immovable Cultural Heritage of Great Importance (Serbia) (second-tier); the resulting pool of entries is then split by administrative division, while isolating only the 'cultural monument' class from the other three classes of protected 'objects'. This list structure exists on the Serbian Wikipedia ( sr:Категорија:Непокретна културна добра – entries containing "Списак споменика културе у"), and the author seems to have been copying those articles, perhaps not knowing that this whole topic has already received appropriate encyclopedic treatment here (if only on the list-level). The problems are as follows:

  • The content is simply duplicative with no additional depth provided. All of these entries are already included in appropriate lists, in a very similar table format. If the author wants to split the long-standing lists by district, he should propose a split, and not create pages that duplicate the scope. But splitting like this would be a bad idea, namely:
  • The nominated lists fail WP:LISTN, because grouping Serbian cultural heritage objects by administrative division is not supported by secondary sources. There is no meaningful link between the listed status and the district; these are national designations. There are currently eight such lists, but as there are 29 districts (24 functioning districts in Serbia proper and Vojvodina + 5 non-functioning districts making up the claimed province of Kosovo and Metohija) + 2 special-status cities, such continued creations would mean that the content currently covered by two articles is duplicated across 31 lists (that many exist on the Serbian Wikipedia). Going further...
  • Since the eight nominated pages are limited to 'cultural monuments', but seeing how Serbia's 'Immovable Cultural Heritage' comprises four classes of 'objects': 'cultural monuments', archaeological sites, 'historic landmarks' and 'spatial cultural-historical units', this means that we could get even more such articles for the remaining classes of objects. (Also, if selecting by administrative division, however irrelevant that is, why then also select only a single class of object?) Considering the tempo of these creations, and understanding that this is a part of wholesale copying of an entire parallel list structure from another-language Wikipedia, this is edging toward WP:MASSCREATE.

— Alalch E. 17:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • That is true, and it's something I remembered at one point, and then looked if there are any third-tier objects in the eight lists, but I couldn't determine that there are any. This is made harder by the fact that the eight lists don't distinguish between the level of protection. In any case the vast majority of entries seem to belong to the top two tiers comprising "Immovable Cultural Heritage". Maybe it would be simpler to start all over, using your list format, and simply copying the table rows from the two lists into per-tier sections for each 'of/in district X' list, as it helps that your lists indicate which is which tier (maybe individual rows could even be transcluded -- demonstration), and then add notable third-tier entries to the bottom, then to look each entry up to see which level of protection it is listed under; certainly the level of protection must be indicated. — Alalch E. 23:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Alalch E.: Ah, I think I understand the issue now. You probably checked on of the (new) lists that covers a district in Kosovo. For the territory Kosovo, the Central register only lists those objects that belong to the two higher classes. I don't know why, but the third-tier objects from Kosovo are missing, and it is impossible to find a list on the internet. So, for the Kosovo districts, those new list are indeed the duplicates of my lists. But, I checked Cultural Monuments of Rasina District, and it really lists all the cultural monuments, from all three classed of protection. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes that's right: I primarily checked the Kosovo District list and only briefly compared several entries from 3-4 other lists but not nearly as thoroughly. That does mean that the duplication reason for this nomination is significantly undermined. Well, I'll have to sleep on this. Thank you very much for the feedback. — Alalch E. 00:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment #2: If those articles are to be kept, I recommend renaming them into "Immovable Cultural Heritage of the Kosovo district" (and so on), and adding the objects that belong to the three other types of heritage. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, that would be a logical step if keeping. — Alalch E. 23:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the comments, I totally agree, let's rename the required articles, please can you give advice how to save the articles? Leto III Atreides ( talk) 10:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Nominator comment: Many things have been cleared up:
    • The new lists, while partly overlapping with the old lists, are not truly duplicative because there is a third, long, government register of cultural heritage objects (the third tier of protection), and these territorial lists do, in fact, include third-tier cultural heritage objects (some incidentally don't because there are no third-tier listed objects in some of the administrative districts), some of which are notable and should be included in a list. Or lists.
    • It doesn't seem worthwhile for me to keep arguing lack of WP:NLIST for using the adm. districts of Serbia (as opposed to something else) as the territorial selection criterion, because so far the participants have not shown an interest in this argument; I could probably talk more about this, but as it's a rather obscure issue, I foresee that basing the deletion case on this will not lead to anything.
    • There seems to be agreement that the new lists should differentiate between the tier of protection (which they currently don't). Color coding can be used for the tables, but it's probably better to group entries by tier in separate tables (within a single list).
    • There seems to be agreement that the new lists should include all classes of 'objects': 'cultural monuments', archaeological sites, 'historic landmarks' and 'spatial cultural-historical units' (not just the first class). This implies a significant change to the scope of the existing eight lists, and means that the remaining 23 list that will be created should not be created as 'cultural monument' lists, but rather as 'Immovable Cultural Heritage' lists. Existing lists need to be renamed, which is outside of the scope of an AfD; this isn't a contentious matter.
      (Also worth noting: The districts aren't "districts" anymore. Since 2006, they are "administrative districts". Therefore, an example name would be "Immovable Cultural Heritage of Pirot administrative district" or perhaps better "Immovable Cultural Heritage in Pirot administrative district" which more accurately denotes that it's cultural heritage of Serbia that's located in this or that adm. district)
    • The issue of inconsistent table formatting wasn't commented on, but I will keep insisting that the formatting be consolidated; possibly entries (table rows) can even even undergo Help:Labeled section transclusion (marked by register number). From my perspective a lot of work needs to be done on the nominated lists, almost evoking WP:TNT, but deletion is not required for the effort to succeed.
    • Categorization with respect to Kosovo categories will need to be considered.
  • This being said, I withdraw the nomination. Pinging Vanjagenije and Leto III Atreides so they see this comment; if you're interested in continuing the conversation / coordinating efforts, ping me on a talk page of your choosing. Sincerely— Alalch E. 20:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Majid Akbari

AfDs for this article:
Majid Akbari (  | 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 find anything in Persian searches apart from the usual database sources. I have translated the only non-database source in the article here and it's only a trivial mention in a list of transferred players. There is no evidence that Akbari meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC so I can't see any alternative but to delete for a second time. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller ( talk) 17:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Burhanettin Muz

Burhanettin Muz (  | 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. Kadı Message 16:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Kadı Message 16:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Bilateral relations, and Algeria. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only primary sources provided. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 00:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are multiple print encyclopaedia articles about him as well as multiple reviews of his work in literary magazines. Please see my comment in the Turkish-language version of this AfD for the specific citations. Kadı, I don't think it's a particularly productive use of everyone's time to simultaneously nominate articles for deletion in both languages, I would recommend sticking to one language at a time as otherwise there is unnecessary forking/duplication. -- GGT ( talk) 14:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I withdraw the nomination. Thanks to @ GGT for finding valuable sources. Kadı Message 08:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Aysar Qasim Mohammed

Aysar Qasim Mohammed (  | 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)

For a footballer to be notable, they must meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The latter clearly states that [sports] biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. I have searched in Swedish and Arabic and not found any sources that meet requirements. Draft:Aysar Qasim Mohammed already exists. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sofascore.com/dalkurd-ff-enkopings-sk/FKskVi Yes Yes No Database sources are deprecated per WP:SPORTBASIC. ✘ No
https://www.dalkurd.se/index.php/a-laget/truppen No His employer No No Contains only his name and squad number ✘ No
https://no.soccerstats247.com/spillere/aysar-qasim-qasim-mohammed-863391/ Yes Yes No Database sources are deprecated per WP:SPORTBASIC. ✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/aysar-qasim-qasim-mohammed/863391/ Yes Yes No Database sources are deprecated per WP:SPORTBASIC. ✘ No
https://tembah.net/en/player?p=863391 ? ? No Database sources are deprecated per WP:SPORTBASIC. ✘ No
https://www.hitta.se/aysar+qasim+mohammed/uppsala/person/msuhlcq No No No No prose coverage ✘ No
https://www.kooora.com/?n=1106499 Yes Yes No Only a passing mention - mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.ina.iq/146267--.html Yes Yes No Mentioned once in a squad list ✘ No
https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/aysar-qasim-mohammad/ Yes Yes No Database sources are deprecated per WP:SPORTBASIC. ✘ No
https://www.transfermarkt.com/aysar-qasim-mohammed/profil/spieler/1071706 Yes No WP:TRANSFERMARKT No Database sources are deprecated per WP:SPORTBASIC. ✘ No
https://aysarqasim.com/ No His own website No No ✘ No
https://www.instagram.com/aysar_qasim/ No His own social media No No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone can add "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Cullen328 ( talk) 23:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney ( talk) 03:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The references don’t establish notability per WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, or WP:NATHLETE, not to mention WP:NBIO. I did my own search for any sources that might have been missed and didn’t find any that would qualify as reliable, secondary, and independent. Based on these findings, deletion is appropriate. Shawn Teller ( talk) 17:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

LOWERN

AfDs for this article:
LOWERN (  | 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)

Pretty straightfoward case of WP:NEOLOGISM, and there's a pretty decent bar for scientific jargon acronyms getting an article. From that policy To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term. . . Not finding any real discussion of the acronym itself, and there are plenty of sources that discuss the underlying concepts without attempting an acronym. Article has also been unsourced since 2009, and I can't find any significant reliable sources actually focusing on the term on a level to satisfy WP:N.

The only sources that seem to tangentially show up are are a few bottom of the barrel things like teaching worksheets, student presentations, etc. or WP:CIRCULAR. What I can find for source quality doesn't seem to meet the bar for inclusion even in climate articles to show the acronym is widely used, much less a dedicated article. It really looks like a few teachers just slapped together an acronym years ago (article created in 2009) and nothing really came of it since. KoA ( talk) 16:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of airports in the Caribbean. Randykitty ( talk) 15:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of airports in Aruba

AfDs for this article:
List of airports in Aruba (  | 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)

Totally unnecessary list with just one item! Merge into List of airports in the Caribbean. gidonb ( talk) 15:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Also nominating:
List of airports in Bonaire
List of airports in Saba
List of airports in Sint Eustatius
to be merged to the same. gidonb ( talk) 15:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge, with notes, maybe add a category for the island its on so that we dont need the subpages (this is my first AFD in a while might have formatted wrong) - Bad At This ( yell at me) 15:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and salt. Randykitty ( talk) 14:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Behzad Qasemi (Hacktivist)

AfDs for this article:


Behzad Qasemi (Hacktivist) (  | 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)

Was declined twice at AfC, once by Star Mississippi and once by Mako001, then was moved into mainspace by the article creator after adding 2 sources which do not go in-depth about the subject, as well as being from sources which might not be reliable. I sent back to draft for further development, but was returned to mainspace. As per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, not eligible for draftifying again, so we are here. Onel5969 TT me 14:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: No better in terms of notability than the draft I declined. The way that the (unreliable) sourcing is used crosses the line into original research in places. Since there is at least some chance that this person may become notable, I wouldn't oppose allowing it to be undeleted to userspace or draftspace upon request. But if undeleted at the request of the article creator, it must only be moved to mainspace after being accepted at AfC. Whilst I really want this salted, I suspect it wouldn't help much, though I wouldn't oppose salting. Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 23:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article has the basic recognition to remain in the encyclopedia and is written in an encyclopedic tone. In addition to this issue, he refers to reliable sources such as: the official newspaper of Iran, reliable news agencies and the Federation of Communication and Information Technology of Iran. The article is not advertising in any way and refers to the investigation of a person who plays a key role in freedom of information in Iran. Garshaasp 18:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Fails to prove notability. Alex-h ( talk) 13:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT This article has been deleted via AfD twice at Behzad Qasemi and is already salted in that namespace. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 20:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT, per User:GPL93. Fad Ariff ( talk) 13:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 14:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Matt Field

Matt Field (  | 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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep ( talk) 11:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

On the other hand, he has an OBE which is pretty significant. Sadly, I do not know much about this person and therefore cannot add m ore information to his page. Yet, I would be in favor of keep. Madigo11 ( talk) 20:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 14:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep a quick search for Czech "Matt Field" velvyslanec reveals that he was noted by some major Czech media days after he was appointed. Ambassadors of Great Britain in the Czech Republic are usually notable in the Czech public space. Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 08:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: is coverage significant?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 22:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

StegAlyzerAS

StegAlyzerAS (  | 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 decent references available with a cursory Google search only showing PR or developer written pieces. Developer doesn't have a Wikipedia article itself so don't believe the software should either. - Rich T| C| E-Mail 13:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 14:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 14:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable software that does not pass WP:NPRODUCT, searching on Google gives no reliable secondary sources. MaterialWorks (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

BENGpire

BENGpire (  | 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 TV show. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 12:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 14:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. "He's the first to..." is a presumption of notability and would preclude WP:SD#A7. However, once we're at AfD, notability must be shown,not just presumed. Therefore, the "delete" !votes have the stronger policy-based arguments. Randykitty ( talk) 14:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Rawlston Masaniai

Rawlston Masaniai (  | 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. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - "one of the first players from American Samoa to play at international level" seems like notability to me. Unfortunately, media in American Samoa is particularly poor, which makes it hard to get references. I'd also like to draw people's attention to the comment from the closer on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination): "As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries." This seems to be exactly such a case where we need to be careful about deletion.-- IdiotSavant ( talk) 09:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per IdiotSavant. He is also the only American Samoan to play in Europe. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 21:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'd be more inclined to give this a pass if he had more than zero goals in six appearances at the international level... I'd imagine there would be some discussion of him in European media, but his career is nothing special (in my analysis anyway). PSA Elite is an amateur club and a third-level team in Germany aren't GNG-worthy. Had he not been from American Samoa, he'd be deleted. Unless we can come up with a story or two in the media about him in Europe, it's a Delete for me. I'd be wiling to give it a weak keep if he had a somewhat better career; he's basically a fellow from overseas playing low-level soccer and doesn't seem to be anything special. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm comparing this to the Irene Dubois AfD; they've at least had several interviews that help establish visibility, so a member of the public would find something useful in a Wiki article. This soccer player's article is basically a list of where he's played and stats; nothing for any sort of critical commentary about him or anything to paint a picture of him. It appears he tried to make it on the world soccer stage and never quite went anywhere. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes GNG with references on page.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 07:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The first 5 citations on the page are to non-independent sporting bodies Red XN, the 6th is pure stats Red XN, I get an error message from the 7th, the 8th is a passing mention in a squad list Red XN, the 9th and 10th are stats Red XN, the last is again non-independent Red XN. Nothing remotely close to justify keeping, especially considering the absolute requirement sports bios contain a citation to GNG coverage to even benefit from achievement-based presumptions of further SIGCOV. Without that, the fact that he played at an international level is automatically rejected as an invalid argument. And the implications of racist bias are just slimy. JoelleJay ( talk) 07:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Added one GNG-passing source from the Los Angeles Times. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    You mean the two-sentence blurb accompanying his name and all the other names of the high school county first and second team members?! No that absolutely does not contribute to GNG, what on earth! That a) is not even close to SIGCOV; b) fails NSPORT decidedly; c) is a routine announcement most certainly contributed by coaches (do you really think newspaper journalists personally researched all 44 high schoolers to independently determine why they were selected?). JoelleJay ( talk) 00:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I believe he's referring to this one. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 00:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah that is less preposterous, but still entirely fails independence as well as NSPORT. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Its written by an LA Times staff writer – how is it non-independent? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 00:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
You know full well that pieces consisting almost wholly of primary quotes from the subject/affiliates cannot count toward GNG. This is even more the case for high schoolers. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yikes. I'd say the second source is a little better than "less preposterous" than said two-sentence blurb in source #1. Also, it would be interesting to hear how you think a piece from an LA Times staff writer is not independent. I am well aware we would probably need at least two GNG-passing sources; I was simply pointing out the addition of a good one. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
It's not independent or secondary because it's almost entirely quotes/repeating what he or people close to him said. Additionally, it fails YOUNGATH. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Although the LA Times article is useful coverage, I agree with JoelleJay that it runs afoul of WP:YOUNGATH - there simply isn't "substantial and prolonged coverage" of his time in high school sports. Nothing else comes close to WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney ( talk) 14:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 14:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Andrej Drapal

Andrej Drapal (  | 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 biography has no independent sources offering significant coverage. At the time I write this, it has 11 cites. I'll go through them - #1 and #3 are trivial mentions. #2,#8,#10, and #11 are all written by the biography subject and are not independent. #4 is an article about political lobbying that quoted him a couple of times, but doesn't offer significant biographical details. #5,#6,#7, and #9 are documents published by organizations he is associated with mentioning his name, not independent. I believe this does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBIO and should be deleted. Side note, this appears to be a slightly altered copy of the subject's autobiography from Draft:Andrej Drapal which was copied to the mainspace without attribution. I noticed it when the COI editor began linking it in various articles. MrOllie ( talk) 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MrOllie ( talk) 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Philosophy, and Slovenia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, independent sources are the first condition for GNG. I did some quick search but could not find anything substantial. -- Tone 13:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete given the lack of independent sources and reliable coverage. Appears to be a autobiographical vanity article. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 17:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I did an in depth search for sources and coverage myself and didn’t find anything that would satisfy WP:SIGCOV by reliable independent secondary sources. The article subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. If the subject passed either of these, there would be a stronger case for keeping, but as it stands the article should be deleted. Shawn Teller ( talk) 12:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Randykitty ( talk) 13:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Ant Ul Hayat

Ant Ul Hayat (  | 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)

Notability doesn't establish per WP:NFP, sources are unreliable and blogposts, not in-depth coverage in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 13:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. Randykitty ( talk) 13:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

William Afton

William Afton (  | 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 case of WP:NOTPLOT, the refs in the reception section are all brief mentions, when the character is mentioned at all. Does not meet WP:GNG. Redirect was challenged. Onel5969 TT me 13:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect for now, but keep alive the possibility of restoring its article if and when the movie comes out AND more independent RS's come out. My position lies mostly with ZXC and Mike Allen, but the topic has potential in the future if more RS's come out. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 00:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect, but consider the fact that the franchise is coming out with a movie soon, and William Afton will be an important character in the movie. I understand that that in itself is not alone to qualify this article to stay. It does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT , there's no actual need for a whole wikipedia page for William Afton, even if the lore behind him is excruciatingly long and complicated. His subsection in wikipedia's FNAF article should be enough and a lot of this information can simply be added there. As a FNAF fan myself, I would love it if there was a million different articles that talk in detail about the lore of each FNAF character, but that violates wikipedia's WP:NOTPLOT, and that's what wiki fandom is for. Rickandmorty4ever ( talk) 01:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Barbaros Hayreddin: Sultan's Edict

Barbaros Hayreddin: Sultan's Edict (  | 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)

Television series doesn't seem to meet GNG - coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for a TV series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

DO not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:28B5:EB00:D13C:29FC:53F0:1604 ( talk) 15:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller ( talk) 12:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Ken Martin (politician)

Ken Martin (politician) (  | 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 pass WP:NPOL as he hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere ( talk) 21:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, notable state party chair, meets WP:GNG Andre 🚐 22:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Andrevan This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. -- Bedivere ( talk) 22:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    It is well-referenced enough to pass GNG, and AFD is not cleanup. This individual was also vice DNC chair along with state party chair. Andre 🚐 22:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Minnesota. Shellwood ( talk) 22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral: As usual, state party chairs are not inherently notable ex officio but may be notable depending on the strength of coverage. In this case, the coverage is quite superficial despite being high in quantity. Curbon7 ( talk) 13:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm seeing at least two or three bits of significant coverage in reliable sources, so passes GNG. Springnuts ( talk) 10:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the coverage sufficient since the position is not inherently notable
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 11:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. State-level chair of major party, with adequate independent sources. Kablammo ( talk) 13:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Ajax Orlando Prospects players

List of Ajax Orlando Prospects players (  | 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 list of non-notable people. The team in question was a 4th-tier developmental football club in the USA, and it folded 15+ years ago. None of the players here will be notable enough to have an article created to fill out this page, and there's already a category ( Category:Ajax Orlando Prospects players) that can group together any that do end up being notable enough for a page. fuzzy510 ( talk) 11:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Agree with nomination, there is no indication how this list qualifies under WP:NLIST. Regards Govvy ( talk) 17:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom. Does not show notability. Kierzek ( talk) 00:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There appears to be legitimate disagreement as to whether the sources provided constitute SIGCOV, but numerically the tilt toward deletion is sufficient to constitute consensus in this case. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Scott MacNicol

Scott MacNicol (  | 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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - more like 6 mate. You found some decent references for this one I'll give you that. Simione001 ( talk) 22:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • They are not all from today so not nominated in short time as you suggested. Thanks. Simione001 ( talk) 22:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Sure, they are not all from the same day but it is still a relatively short time. Also, I appreciate you creating many soccer articles no matter how small they are, but I find it frustrating that you do that while deleting many others hard work such as Dauntae Mariner and this article. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 23:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment MacNicol or McNicol ? The old BBC ref has McNicol, [10], but it seems MacNicol is more correct. No profile on soccerway is a red flag for me. Also, he is manager for a semi pro club where as the club article Rochedale Rovers FC is in terrible shape, (shouldn't it be moved to Rochedale Rovers F.C.?) Regardless of the citations and cover. From the article and provided above, I am not really that impressed. To me it's a case of citations being too local to the location of the club and where they play. I am not sure whether to weak keep or side with delete which is the way I am leaning too. Govvy ( talk) 09:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I tried to have a look into this, but I am still not impressed, with the sourcing available in the article, the links posted above and google. To me this is not sufficient to pass GNG on wikipedia. Govvy ( talk) 23:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Govvy:, @ GiantSnowman:, [11] and [12] are from national UK newspapers. The many other sources I found above are all from reliable sources and newspapers as well. Also definitely has offline coverage, having played and scored in fully pro Scottish Premier League and had extensive career in Australian top flight and as a coach. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 20:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The coverage might be from good, reputable sources (although the Record is a tabloid), but it is not significant. Giant Snowman 21:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Das osmnezz: Sorry, but my delete vote still stands, I still don't see enough here. Regards, Govvy ( talk) 22:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, significant sources that pass GNG.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 09:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, significant sources that (albeit just) pass GNG. Springnuts ( talk) 11:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi ( talk) 11:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The sources above are not independent enough to pass GNG, interviews and such. There is insufficient coverage. Also, I don't see how mentioning that the nominator has also nominated numerous other articles is relevant here. -- IWI ( talk) 11:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The sources listed by Das osmnezz come nowhere close to meeting GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sources are individual match reports, interviews or not significant and as such do not meet GNG. Avilich ( talk) 04:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn their nomination and no editors have voted to Delete this article so I'm closing this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Donkey (Shrek)

Donkey (Shrek) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | [ since nomination])
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Im open for any criticism, but I think there are only few reliable sources about this character. Recent source only shows this [13] I think. GlatorNator ( talk) 11:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 1 I don't seem to have access to this, but it appears to be entirely about this character. 2, and 3, from which I quote in part: "One of these beings, a talking donkey, is not so much like a fairy tale character as he is like the central figure in the second-century novel The Golden Ass by Apuleius (1994) (a devotee of the Green Goddess Isis). Donkey persists in accompanying Shrek, first as an unwelcome sidekick and later an essential friend." "Key to his emotional rescue is his friendship with Donkey, the talking ass. Shrek, voiced by Mike Myers, has a Scottish accent. Donkey, voiced by Eddie Murphy, has an unmistakably African-American style of speech. This conventional pairing of white hero and darker sidekick is a problematic aspect of Shrek. First of all, the pairing is a common one reflecting racial hierarchies. Moreover, Donkey (who apparently has no other name)7 is characterized in ways that draw upon some stereotypic “coon” associations (Pilgrim, 2000)—the African-American man as a figure of comic relief, one who is vulgar, shiftless, cowardly, and dominated by women. These racist representations are projections, telling us nothing about African-Americans but instead, pointing to traits whites fear or reject in themselves in order to maintain a view of themselves as more “properly” gendered, rational, civilized, and superior." And it goes on from there... Thus, multiple academic (independent, reliable) RS'ed discourses on Shrek covering this character in a non-trivial manner, GNG is met, and editing can fix any problems which remain. Jclemens ( talk) 17:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I found what's most likely WP:SIGCOV in The Fantasy Film by Katherine A. Fowkes (p. 121-123), as well as significant mentions in Investigating Shrek and other books, such as what has been mentioned above. Donkey is mentioned a lot as a controversial figure and there is enough for a pretty large reception section on him. See also WP:NEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw I would like to Withdraw. GlatorNator ( talk) 23:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. The creator of the article requested deletion in good faith, and the article has no substantial contributions from other editors. Mz7 ( talk) 10:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Forcas and Careiras Ocean Territory

Forcas and Careiras Ocean Territory (  | 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)

Alleged micronation based only on old fandom page. No RIS found. Definitely not notable. Mccapra ( talk) 09:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah there's a reason for that and it's because that's the only things that pop up MaizeninReignsapark ( talk) 11:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Not just that all the links I found in Perplexity led me to flags MaizeninReignsapark ( talk) 12:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I’ve no idea why you created the article if you’re agreeing that there are only junk sources. It’s just a waste of time. Mccapra ( talk) 18:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Already speedy deleted so I guess we can close this. Mccapra ( talk) 08:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

A Kaliyamurthy

A Kaliyamurthy (  | 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)

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While opinions are divided, in my view the "delete" side makes the more persuasive arguments in the light of applicable guidelines. While it is not contested that the company has received coverage in several media, the discussion turns on the quality and depth of this coverage and its independence from the company. With respect to these characteristics, I think that the "delete" side has done a better job in addressing the quality and independence of each source and arguing why it's in their view inadequate, while the "keep" side is more readily satisfied, to simplify, with making arguments in the vein of "it's in the NYT ergo the company is notable". I am also taking seriously, given the generally promotional tone of the article and the vehemence with which it is defended here, the possibility that Wikipedia is being misused for advertising purposes here. Sandstein 09:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Menē Inc.

Menē Inc. (  | 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:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. Refs are PR, routine business news and press-releases. scope_creep Talk 06:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. AllyD ( talk) 07:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep, sources verify that this is a well-known company co-founded by the well-known granddaughter of Pablo Picasso. Notability has been established. Please also contact WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep as the creator of this page, I responded to any and all feedback from far more editors than just Scope creep. Other editors chimed in and removed material that may have run afoul of WP:Promo. The sources included are demonstrably more than just " ...PR...", or " ...routine business news..." and certainly not all are mere "press releases." Respectfully, the nom should familiarize himself with WP:BEFORE and close this nomination in favor of keep TY— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 15:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above, sources are in-depth in their coverage of the company, and are reliable sources, and per the points Atsme provided below. I have to admit, however: there's a lot of fierce bludgeoning in this AfD discussion! I would upgrade it to Speedy Keep, though the oppose votes have good points as well! I'll vote as keep for now!though I would improve the citations (including Reference 5, YouTube isn't generally a reliable source). Tails Wx 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Its amazes me how many people are willing to suspend Wikipedias consenus regarding established policy to save a brochure advertising article, in an attempt to help some friends, that looks awfully like canvassing. Pablo Picasso has nothing to do with it, as notability is not inherited and posting the vogue and the NY articles links as though they are valid references is a woeful, particularly when they are so obviously PR and read like PR is woeful. We will go through the references. Any suspicion of socking behaviour will immediately be reported to SPI. scope_creep Talk 17:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    No one is suspending a single item "regarding established policy", and cleanup was made regarding your initial comments which were valid. Your opposition now seems to be based more in a refusal to accept the consensus as it now stands regarding the article. You may continue to hammer your same points over and over, but that does not make them any more valid than previously. Maybe read up on what PR actually is. TY — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 17:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please everyone, assume good faith, in everybody. No need to name call or get into areas outside of the topic. Picasso, on her own, is notable, she doesn't have to inherit it from her grandfather. A known art curator and historian. This sourced page correctly takes her notability into account. Randy Kryn ( talk) 18:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Fair point Randy Kryn. Appreciate the reminder. It is always an important point that cannot be emphasized enough, the WP:AGF tenet. :) — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 19:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    She has plenty about her on her own too, you are 100% correct. Here is her page, Diana Widmaier Picasso. In no way was this about 'inherited notability' at any time. TY — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 19:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - passes GNG - (just added 7 more RS in comment below, including Barrons, Vogue, Financial Times), the NYTimes article is cited, as are several others but the company also has an article in Vogue (magazine), and Elle (magazine) that could be used to expand the article a bit more. The nom apparently did not perform an adequate WP:BEFORE because the sources are there. Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether or not the content about a notable business is promo or straight-up information describing why the business is notable - there is a fine line, especially when jewelry and fashion are involved. Liken it to use-distinction and how certain articles use terms like "hit a homerun", or "it was a successful year for the team", or describing a movie as "thrilling". In this particular case, it is gold jewelry by notable designers but with emphasis on the composition and weight of each piece. I toned it down a lot, but we cannot completely eliminate what makes the business notable, or that it mines gold and platinum in the US & Canada, and one of the company's unique aspects include its trademark, its designers, and its history. That type of content about a notable business is not promotion when the tone is matter-of-fact. Atsme 💬 📧 02:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Per policy WP:GNG doesn't apply for companies, it is WP:NCORP and has been since 2016. scope_creep Talk 10:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
No, it is not "per policy" because those are guidelines, not policies. In fact, GNG clearly states: WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). Based on this AfD discussion, the keeps are very strong, especially when matched against your single delete. The article satisfies significant coverage per GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.. Vogue magazine, Elle, the NYTimes, and the multiple listings in investment news such as Bloomberg, etc. are quite sufficient to satisfy our policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT and WP:NEXIST. Keep in mind, this company is about fashionable jewelry and investment, thus the citing of coverage in the sources used. That does not make it promotional – it is factual information in the Fashion and/or Investment sections. I doubt the company will be covered by CNN Headline News, unless they get robbed, or in a published book by an academic or historian, at least not this early in time. It's notable based on all the keep iVotes. Atsme 💬 📧14:05, February 26, 2023
  • Let me roll in here on this. There has been much debate on how NCORP is applied and the takeaway (i.e. consensus) is that NCORP does not change the requirements of GNG but instead lays out precisely how sources are to be examined with a view on notability. Put another way - if a topic passes GNG then it must also pass NCORP - if it doesn't, it means GNG wasn't correctly applied. Similary if a topic passes NCORP it must pass GNG. Other SNGs (usually the ones for specialized functions such as for academics and professors or for geographic features) have added additional criteria to establish notability - this isn't the case for NCORP. Also, the GNG section you've quoted from confirms all of this and says that SNG can provide *examples* of sources and types of coverage considered significant (which is what NCORP does) and goes on to confirm this saying the strict coverage requirements spelled our in the SNG for organizations and companies. Getting back to what you've said at the start - you say the article satisfies "significant coverage" as per GNG. I agree, there is a significant coverage but it is not "Independent Content" (see WP:ORGIND). Each source must meet all of the criteria (see WP:SIRS) so the other sections can't just be ignored willy-nilly. HighKing ++ 18:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • While your criticism is offered in GF, I've always been the kind of editor who gracefully accepts constructive criticism from collaborators, but this is not one of those times. Your criticism is based on the wrong guideline, and fails to take into consideration the last few sentences of WP:ORGSIG as follows: However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products, though articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable per WP:NOTADVERTISING. We already cleaned-up the prose - it's not PROMO - and we established the fact that Mene is not a local company that works out of a garage. One of the founders owns a goldmine or two, and the co-founder is an art historian and curator, and granddaughter of Picasso. Their products are on display internationally in notable museums, and we have barely begun to explore all the coverage per WP:NEXIST relating to some of the artful, historic design of the jewelry. You are also incorrect about "independent content" as well as independent sources, and it appears you don't have a really good handle on what makes a source independent, or perhaps I misunderstood you? Significant coverage in independent sources has already been established, so let's not belabor the obvious. There is zero connection with the cited sources and Mene. I just added an additional 7 independent sources below, such as Barrons, Vogue, Financial Times, Architectural Digest, and MarketWatch. Forgive me for taking advantage of this opportunity to suggest that you consider becoming an NPP reviewer after taking one of the tutorial courses at WP:NPPSCHOOL. We have highly experienced teachers who can help polish some of the rough edges in your approach to notability, and also validate what you already know to be true. It can be as much fun as you make it. We need confident, competent reviewers, who fully understand the process, and what makes an article notable or worthy of inclusion. NPPSCHOOL does a very good job at it, and we are always in need of good reviewers. Atsme 💬 📧 19:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • WP:NCORP (in conjunction with GNG) is the correct guideline for companies, big and small alike. It is notable that you mention the founders as a reason of notability but notability isn't inherited - see WP:INHERITORG. The products are not the subject of this article so articles that are about the product (without providing in-dept info on the company) don't assist in establishing notability of the company. Thanks for your opinion on what you believe my level of understanding of what makes a source "Independent" but for me, it is you that hasn't grasped the following part of WP:ORGIND - "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Can you point out a paragraph within any of the sources you've listed which contains something that meets this requirement? I'll post my analysis of sources below (actually I see that an analysis was already done and I agree with it). Thank you for your suggestion that I need to take a NPPSCHOOL tutorial - perhaps instead I'll point to my experience at NCORP-related AfDs where you will clearly see my !voting tends to be much more in line with consensus (and therefore an understanding of the guidelines) that your own. HighKing ++ 14:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The fact the reference has been written by the NY Times doesn't necessarily make it valid. The NY Times takes the advertising dollar as much anybody else on the planet and they are as good at writing PR as anybody else on the planet. Lets looks at the references.
  • Ref 1 [14] This is PR that fails WP:SIRS. It is not in-depth and is essentially an interview failing WP:ORGIND.
  • Ref 2 [15] A case report for buying stock. Most of the content comes from the website and company publications. It is not independent and fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 3 [16] This reads like PR and its interview failing WP:ORGIND.
  • Ref 4 [17] Press-release fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 5 [18] Interview with Roy Sebag. Non-RS It is non-rs, WP:PRIMARY and fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 6 [19] Not independent, reads like a press-release and fails WP:SIRS. Non-RS
  • Ref 7 [20] PR. Single paragraph, not significant coverage, fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 8 [21] The shop itself, which is non-RS and shows its a brochure article.
  • Ref 9 [22] Classic PR. "Though the line has just launched", "Cohosted by Mene’s Diana Widmaier Picasso" It a launch event. Fails WP:ORGIND, and WP:SIRS.

Looking at the 9 references, 2 are non-rs, 1 is a press-release, 3 are interviews 1 is a small case report that is not in-depth, 2 are PR. Not a single secondary source that satisfies WP:SIRS. There has been an attempt to update the article per WP:HEYMANN to remove very obvious WP:PROMO content that read like a marketing skit, but what is left is equallly worthless as its all comes from the company. The case report which is a direct copy of blog and company content including their public financials would have been the best ref if it was truly indepenent. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep Talk 10:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • WP:NEXIST, the cited sources pass "significant coverage", and there is no PROMO. Investment jewelry is quite notable as demonstrated in Marketwatch, yet another source I just found that includes information about Mene, and it is not trivial.
  • Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.

    Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

  • Reviewers should already know this. Atsme 💬 📧 18:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
This is a load of waffle and doesn't address the fact that the references are really weak and don't support WP:NCORP. scope_creep Talk 08:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Well, looky here - I found more RS, imagine that! I'd say this article is a WP:SK so upgrading my iVote.
  1. Barrons
  2. Vogue
  3. Financial Times
  4. Architectural Digest
  5. TMX Money
  6. The French Jewelry Post
  7. In Store Magazine
And there are more. I'm pretty sure notability has been established. This is what NPP reviewers are expected to do before nomming an article for AfD - WP:BEFORE Atsme 💬 📧 17:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Response Not a single source above meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. These are either PR, interviews or puff profiles, none of which contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Can you highlight a specific section or paragraph which you believe meets the criteria? HighKing ++ 15:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a public WP:LISTED company so surely analysts and the financial press are covering it to some extent. Investors need to know what they're putting their money into. At the least there should be press to be found around their IPO when they were selling the company to investors. – wbm1058 ( talk) 23:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    wbm1058, I don't think the TSX really meets the level of attention the NYSE to merit assumption of sources. If this company was listed on the TSX 60, I think that argument could be made, but that is not the case for Mene. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well it isn't listed on the CSE like Wikileaf, Curaleaf, and NameSilo. – wbm1058 ( talk) 12:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've been looking into the company to find other sources and it didn't have an IPO. Instead, the company stock was renamed in a long history of renaming. There was some post-IPO funding rounds, apparently, but no one reported on them. The company is listed on a comparatively minor stock exchange (TSXV, which is not the same as the TSX). There is a history of financial press releases from the company but no one seems to be republishing them, let alone doing any analysis on them. Even their own media press releases aren't being picked up.
    I don't know what counts as notable or not but all of this stock stuff is definitely routine. Cauldron bubble ( talk) 06:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
While there is usually consensus that listed company get an article, it contingent on the references being able to support it. These are type of arguments you don't mention at Afd, because Wikipedia isn't a investment advice company. Does it say that when you login in the morning, that its an investment advice company? It is has been five years since the IPO and yet the article still relies on crap PR and press releases to validate itself which fail WP:SIRS. scope_creep Talk 08:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Easy keep based on strong sources. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP guidelines apply which requires references that discuss the topic (ie the *company*) in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Also, quantity of "significant coverage" isn't relevant - a million "mentions" or single paragraph descriptions does not meet the criteria, nor can multiple sources be combined.
In this case, we don't have that. Most of the references rely on information provided by the company or are very generic repetitions of the company description. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 18:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
In this case, we actually do have that, several times over. Have you reviewed each of the sources? Some, you are right, might not. But tell me please how this one would not qualify based on WP:NCORP? — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 20:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Response Hi Moops, yes I have reviewed every source offered in the article and at this AfD (which is the way I always start with any AfD) and I have also looked for other articles and books including newspaper archives at the Wikipedia Library. The NYT article does not qualify because it does not contain sufficient "Independent Content" which is "in-depth". The article starts in a very generic way - it describes what the company does (sells jewelry, priced by weight, origin of name, recent investment) but this is not in-depth, it is a summary and one which pops up frequently. For example, this article written a year later has striking similarities and structure. The article moves on to the founders and their opinions on the business - it is clearly regurgitated without "Independent Content" which requires original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If I've missed some Independent Content which you believe is in-depth, please point to the specific paragraph. HighKing ++ 15:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Do you know about newspapers, how they make their money and how they actually work? scope_creep Talk 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that you want to change the entire way that Wikipedia works and the type of sourced content that is deemed reliable or independent. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 17:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User:Atsme in the comment added the following references. Lets looks at them:
  • Ref 1: Barrons This is an interview with the founder. Per WP:ORGIND, it fails the Independence of the content clause as the founder is talking about their own company.
  • Ref 2; Vogue Again fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH because it the founder and their partner talking about the business with a vogue photographer present. Not only a very short report that is not in-depth, it is classic PR in the simplest terms.
  • Ref 3 Financial Times This has a single para and in an another interview with the founder. It fails WP:ORGIND as its the founder is talking their own company again. This is typical of the type of PR that startups produce.
  • Ref 4 Architectural Digest This is interview with the founder, in her own house. Per WP:ORGIND it is a junk.
  • Ref 5 TMX Money This is a press-release which NON-RS.
  • Ref 6 The French Jewelry Post This is a plain advertisement which comes from a press-release. Its fails WP:SIRS. It is not independent and is PR. It is so plainly obvious that this is a press release that I'm starting to worry that the editor doesn't understand the difference between a good and a bad reference. It is non-rs.
  • Ref 7 In Store Magazine It states on the third para, according to a press release from the company. It is non-rs.
This attempt to supply WP:THREE references per Afd best practice has been a wholesale failure. The core problem is that company is spending a lot of money on PR to advertise their business which results in lots and lots of advertising articles. They are not historically or encyclopædically valid which is reflected in the fact they hit WP notability policies around companies. A WP:BEFORE that I did found the same of kind of PR coverage typical of a startups. I couldn't find a single valid secondary on the company. scope_creep Talk 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Enough! I'm not going to engage with you in this nonsense. Let the closer do their job. I have provided excellent sources for "sig coverage", and your comments are neither helpful nor applicable. Atsme 💬 📧 20:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Hang on - you've produced 7 references which you claim establishes notability. Other editors then have an opportunity to examine those sources against our policies and guidelines. Your argument would be better served by pointing out sections or paragraphs or content within those sources which you believe contains in-depth Independent Content. HighKing ++ 15:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • There are many notable sources listed, with nitpicking objections. You know, it would be nice if more nominators withdrew their noms at some point, it happens occasionally but not often enough for a collaborative project. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Hmmm ... "notable sources" is not a criteria for establishing notability but I see that editors occasionally form an opinion that articles published in well known publications must meet our criteria which isn't the case. What you call "nitpicking objections" are far from it, the sources fail at a very fundamental level which is they are not Independent. BTW, the same invitation extends to any editor who wishes to point to a particular section/paragraph in any of those sources which they believe contains in-depth Independent Content. HighKing ++ 15:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Not independent of the New York Times, Vogue, Architectural Digest etc? Well, Picasso's grandkid sure owns a lot of very high quality newspapers and magazines! Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • You might be referring to the "functional independence" part of being independent (i.e. no corporate links) but ignoring "intellectual independence" (i.e. independent content not regurgitated from company sources). I've posted the full definition from WP:ORGIND above. The invitation to refute the rejection of those sources by pointing to sections/paragraphs that contain in-depth independent Content still stands, but I would understand completely if nobody actually can manage to do so. HighKing ++ 17:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Second attempt at a rebuttal to this ongoing chat. The following was a correction issued by the New York Times piece. The article was written on May 10th, 2018, but the correction was issued on May 11th, 2018. Such a correction would not be issued on some pay-to-play 'PR piece', but then again, literally only one, maybe two contributors to this conversation have even made that unfounded allegation regarding the nature and type of the sources involved here. In this case, here is a quote taken from the source, and it is just a paragraph, if this too is deleted as a WP:COPYVIO then we have an issue of trying to censor dissenting opinion on this. However I suspect this post will be allowed to stand:

    A correction was made on May 11, 2018 An earlier version of this article, relying on incorrect information from a company official, misstated who photographed a campaign featuring Isabella Rossellini. The campaign was photographed by Paola Kudacki, not Inez van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin. [23] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/fashion/jewelry-mene-gold-value.html

    — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 22:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • See WP:STRAWMAN. The reason for my Delete !vote on this article is because I cannot identify any in-depth content about the *company* which is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Nobody said this was a pay-to-play PR Piece. HighKing ++ 12:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I became aware of this AfD from watching some comments at user talk pages, and I'll start by saying that editors need to discuss this civilly, and without seeing a deletion discussion as being a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've looked at several of the sources, and I come down on the side of believing that they satisfy the requirements for independent and significant coverage. Although some of the sources do indeed fail these criteria, there are enough that satisfy the criteria that the page passes GNG. Articles like those in the New York Times and Barrons are good examples of appropriate sources. It's a misunderstanding to say that they fail independence because they talk to or interview connected persons, or because they present the subject in favorable terms (something that tends to follow coverage of celebrities). These are independent journalists who made an independent determination that the subject is noteworthy, and, having done so, talk to people connected with the subject and present the subject as something that is interesting. That's not at all the same thing as reprinting a press release (although, again, there are some cited sources that are like that). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for reminding all of us (myself included) of that fact. :) — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 22:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I think we may also benefit from keeping the following essay in mind WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, in this case. While not perfect by any stretch, and no one was claiming perfection, the minimum sources required here are more than sufficient to meet SIGCOV and GNG—though the 'house' may still be in construction of the article—we do not wish to 'demolish' a work while it is still a 'house being built'. It is beyond draftspace stages, but not yet perfect per se.— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Discussion not salient to the Afd itself (although it appears to become more relevant each passing day)
  • You know what this is an example of?, a nomination which stays open way too long after it is obvious that a Keep "verdict" has been obtained. I've written about it a bit in a user essay WP:SHADOWOFKEEP. Some editors will take a look at their nomination, ascertain that it's not going to work, and withdraw it. Those editors deserve praise. When a "_fD" goes on too long editors start to bicker and call names, emotions are stirred up, and the result that is present is finally made obvious in a close and then everybody waits and carbs up until next time. These should be some of the highest quality conversations on Wikipedia, and when a Keep is reached much of the time it could be acknowledged and graciously accepted, yes? Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    That would be a wonderful outcome and I would be happy to move on to other matters... namely, reverting high volumes of vandalism, which is truly my favorite thing to do. :) — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 23:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Just finished that essay as well. Well done. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 23:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you Moops. I had just edited it, encouraged, driven forward, dog-and-pony-half-time-show, feeling verified by this AfD. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note Certain editors here appear to be in a hurry to rush to close this AfD. We don't decide by counting !votes btw. There are blanket statements that various sources meet the criteria. These sources have been rebutted, with reasons provided based on GNG/NCORP guidelines. Can those editors who disagree deal with these rebuttals - very simply, point to particular sections/paragraphs in whatever sources that you believe contains in-depth "Independent Content" and if you can do this, I'm sure the Delete !voters will agree the topic is notable. HighKing ++ 12:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'd like to perhaps know what exactly you are looking for that might be missing from the sources listed in your view. Let us take just one source at a time then.. I think the New York Times source is a good place to start. Nearly anything in that source qualifies from what I can see as reliable, independent and meet the requirements of GNG/NCORP guidelines. I mentioned a correction from a piece above as well, in reference to how this article in particular is not some 'pay-to-play' PR piece of puffery. I am at a loss for what else specifically might be requested here, but I am interested in helping, since somehow you don't seem to see what the rest of us see when looking at these articles. TY — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 16:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Hi Moops, good idea, lets get into details. I'll ignore the WP:STRAWMAN "pay-to-play PR" arguments - I've not said that at all. You say that "nearly everything from that source qualifies as reliable, independent and meets the requirements of GNG/NCORP". I've already provided commentary on why that NYT piece does not meet the criteria earlier above and you've not engaged with that there so I'll repeat here with added detail.
  • The article starts in a very generic way - it describes what the company does (sells jewelry, priced by weight, origin of name, recent investment) but this is not in-depth, it is a summary and one which pops up frequently. Most of the key points are from Mene's website. For example, the website explains that prices fluctuate in real-time based on the prevailing gold market price and the announcement of raising capital. The "ancient name" is also explained on the "about" page of the website. The listing and prices of the various products doesn't talk about the *company* - it doesn't add any information about the company. The article then moves on to discuss the *founders* and their opinions on the business - so information from persons associated with the company.
  • So first step, identify the content that meets WP:ORGIND and in the process ignore any remaining content which is *not* original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It could be argued that there is some degree of fact-checking in relation to the pieces for sale on the website, their prices and the identification of the most expensive piece and it could be argued that saying the "most unusual piece" is the fully functional gold mastercard is an opinion. None of that though is about the company so for me, that content is ignored for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • The information about the announcement of having raised finance is also on the website which also contains the news about the business about to create it "offline retain business". So that's not "Independent Content" either.
  • Then we're left with the information about the founders including direct quotes and their opinions on aspects of the business. There is no additional content here, the journalist/publication does not add any of their own opinion or analysis, just regurgitates the opinions and/or facts provided by the founders. None of that is "Independent Content" either.
  • We can also see that the company had a very comprehensive "Press Package" available in 2017 to coincide with their "invitation only" launch - still available here. There are also other announcements available on their website containing a lot of information you can see regurgitated in most of the articles - e.g. here.
  • I've also pointed to a very similar article from March 2019 in The Globe and Mail where you can see the similarities but also see how articles like these are merely regurgitating information provided by the company.
  • As per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability. Once you ignore the content that fails ORGIND, there's really very little left, and that is not enough to meet CORPDEPTH.
So, putting it bluntly, it seems that it is blatantly obvious to some of the editors here who spend a lot of time at NCORP-related AfDs that the sources are puff pieces, PR, spam, etc, which contain zero "Independent Content". It is coverage, sure, in reliable sources, sure. But it isn't significant - just common-or-garden business-as-usual corporate activity - and it definitely isn't "Independent Content" as you can see. HighKing ++ 12:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
An exellent and absolutely accurate exposition there @ HighKing:. scope_creep Talk 14:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not understanding what page you're looking at. The Vogue article alone is a full article, and the page is becoming better sourced daily. Per and in the spirit of WP:SHADOWOFKEEP (a non-award winning user essay) this discussion should have been closed long ago (probably on its first day). Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Doubtful. I've worked through the sources cited. 1 and 2 have some discussion of the company, but mainly say that the stock is down. 3 is a listing. 4,7,8,9,11,12 and 13 are not independent (suggesting that Randy Kryn does not understand what is meant here by notable). 5 seems a good source, but just one. 6 and 10 are, for me, behind paywalls so I can't check. Maproom ( talk) 18:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hmm.. 6 is the New York Times piece which is super important to this, not the only one, but an essential one. Anyone know how Maproom might be able to at least view the content if it is behind a paywall? Same question also for 10 (another good one, Marketwatch source). — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 19:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I have a subscription to the NYT, so I can read the entire article. I'll try to summarize it here, without directly copying:
    1. First two paragraphs: Says that there is a new trend in the jewelry industry, growing out of a trend in the fashion industry, and that a new company, Mene, exemplifies this, by "par[ing] jewelry back to its elements" and basing prices on weight.
    2. 3rd paragraph: explains what the company name means.
    3. 4th paragraph: lists the kinds of products sold.
    4. 5th paragraph: describes how prices fluctuate day-to-day.
    5. 6th paragraph: names most expensive piece, and most unusual piece.
    6. 7th paragraph: describes money raised, and names the co-founders as a financier, and Picasso's granddaughter.
    7. 8–13th: Ms. Picasso's background and reasons for being interested in the company.
    8. 14–15th: names friends of Ms. Picasso who have come to work for the company.
    9. 16–17th: describes financial success of the business.
    10. 18–26th: discusses another company, in France, as a second example of this new business trend.
    In my opinion, this is an independently written article by a journalist, about what the source considers a significant new trend in the jewelry business. It places Mene within this trend, and gives it a primary position in the trend. It begins with Mene, and devotes about two thirds of the article to Mene, presenting it as an important new company. All of it is written as statements in the NYT's voice, and not in language such as "according to the company....". It's written in a very favorable tone, but it still reads (to me) as journalistic rather than as a puff piece. To me, it is secondary, independent, and significant (at least as significant as anything about a jewelry website can be). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    TY kindly for that Tryptofish for providing that for @ Maproom: or anyone else that may wish to see the above. I think this about sums up my thinking on this as well regarding the New York Times piece (or source 6 unless the order changes as more sources are added continually, "...an independently written article by a journalist, about what the source considers a significant new trend in the jewelry business. It places Mene within this trend, and gives it a primary position in the trend.... — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 21:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Also this is behind a paywall too, this one that was provided by HighKing. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 19:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This is a lot closer call than some would like. For the record, I come to this discussion after commenting in a marginally connected MfD. On the merits I find myself largely in agreement with the nominator's frustration and analysis of sources, apparently in some agreement with User:Maproom and User:HighKing. While sources exist, there's a lot of connected, semi-connected and routine business news. Some unfortunate badgering here (it's obviously NOT a speedy keep), and contributors would be wise to knock off extraneous characterization or pre-closing. This process is showering nobody with glory, and tarnishing some. BusterD ( talk) 20:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    The news here was that there was a new business model, while on the surface that may seem routine, bringing an entirely new business model to the Western world from what apparently has been ancient practice in the East is in large part the news here. Some sources at the very least I am strained to see how they might not establish notability of this company. Surely, there are mentions of other companies that are less notable, or not notable entirely, such as a French competitor that was spun up apparently after the creation of Mene called 'Le Gramme' which also uses this new technique of selling by weight and aiming to do things with a certain degree of transparently (also it would seem an old practice in the far east, but a novel one in the West). This sort of quote would not establish notability of 'Le Gramme', The French company Le Gramme also focuses on absolute minimalism, even naming its products by their metric weight., but then again, we are not trying to establish notability for 'Le Gramme', rather we are documenting the fact that the entirety of several pieces is dedicated to this firm, Mene Inc. Whether or not the reliable, secondary sources "get their information directly from the company" seems to me to be a bit beyond the scope of our job as wikipedia editors. We are to find reliable sources, as established by community consensus, clearly Vogue, The New York Times, and Marketwatch, at bare minimum are reliable, and their coverage is nearly entirely if not entirely on the subject at hand. That coverage is also independent, unless it were established that Mene Inc., or Roy Sebag, somehow is a majority shareholder in any of the related media companies, but to my knowledge, he is not. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 21:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    As I said above, I've been working on the article. This idea of jewelry as a way to invest in gold is not new or confined to the "East" (which is honestly a cringey term. It's better to name the specific countries since their existence need not be defined by their position relative to North America): this article from 2013 talks about that very concept.
    Everything I've seen written about the company is a regurgitation of its press releases and wording; no one is analyzing the company, its approach, its product quality, its market share, its relationship to the co-founder's mining company, or deviating from the press release script the company has provided.
    Instead, I just keep finding little weird things, like the series of stock renames, or claiming a trademark phrase that doesn't exist because they abandoned the filing, or stamping pure platinum with "24K" which is a gold-only measure of purity (platinum purity is always denoted by a zero followed by three digits to represent purity, 0.999 being the most pure). Cauldron bubble ( talk) 06:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Response – Named Countries in regards to the East, might include India as one of the most prominently cited, China, Japan, and others. India though is definitely the biggest in this context as to using jewelry measured by weight and by gram as a form of savings or investment. That is the 'novel concept' by and large here that makes this company stand out in some regards and differentiates them as notable from any standard/run-of-the-mill or other 'normal' jewelry company. The coverage reflects that in the ideas put forth by this company's founder as we can tell named Roy Sebag, and then artistically they work with the Diana Widmaier Picasso figure, though it is really Sebag's ideas that most establish a uniquely notable position for this company and its inclusion as an encyclopedic article. The stamping of '24K' pure and anything like that are important only because that is not common practice for nearly any other jewelry company in ' the West' (USA, UK, Europe etc.) today, especially with big brand companies such as Tiffany's which—if you are lucky—might sell you 18K metal products, and not by weight with a clear and transparent premium stating what the profit margin is (in the case of Mene it is around ~30%... though it used to be around ~15–20%... so clearly they have had to raise prices and tighten their profit margin... the business model does not work as well in the West as in the East). Those terms are expedients by the way, and not ideal, but I did not want to have to list out the entirety of the countries each and every time I spoke of them. Not everything written about these is 'regurgitation of its press releases', by any stretch, but it does depend on the source. Clearly some are more PR based, but others, such as The New York Times piece, are clearly not. Stock filings and sources of that nature are also not there to establish notability, but simply to present the ticker symbol as is present on other company pages per MOS guidelines, but those do not establish the notability, but rather just add details as presented. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 07:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    platinum purity is always denoted by a zero followed by three digits to represent purity, 0.999 being the most pure @ Cauldron bubble: thank you very much for working on the article by the way. I have noticed your edits and I appreciate any help to improve an article versus just delete it. I just wanted to point out that in the case of Mene, platinum purity is not always denoted that way by the way, on my Mene items, it says 24K just like on the gold items. So they made a deliberate choice to use 24K for both gold and platinum. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 07:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    When platinum is hallmarked (which includes purity: I was wrong, it's three digits like 900 or 950 or 999 along with a symbol, not 0.###), there are specific standards those hallmarks have to meet. 24K is not a valid platinum hallmark. Therefore I assume that 24K is part of their maker's mark but it's a misleading mark on platinum. Obviously it's a deliberate choice, but it's weird on top of other weird things.
    I don't know very much about notability but there's so little about this company out there. You write here as though you're doing a marketing campaign for them, like this is some new disruptor breakthrough company that is leading the way forward in gold investment but I'm just not seeing that this company or its product is all that special.
    Whatever either of us think of this company or its products, from what I'm reading on notability it's most important to find other sources (not based on press releases or fluff pieces) that focus on the company and then summarize what others think. Aside from a few small articles here and there, virtually no one is talking about the company. I've searched a lot and I'm coming up empty handed. Cauldron bubble ( talk) 07:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    No, but I am clearly a fan of their stuff. Look at the picture on here. I added that, and that shows on the far right one of my rings that is a platinum one and has a 24K marking visible from the inside of the band along with the visible Mene logo. I will admit, I think it is a bit of a weird choice, and I think that they might have been better off to have chosen .9999 or .999 and then also stamped 'PLAT' or something along those lines on the metal. Doing it the way they did might confuse some buyers into thinking that their products are silver, or palladium or some other metal upon resale in a third party transaction... I must imagine that many Apple enthusiasts write on the Apple page, and so on and so on. As long as we source our content, and write from a NPOV and in neutral wiki-voice etc., as well as are kept in check by the community at large, then all should be fine. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 08:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The two main delete arguments are that (1) the article lacks RS when there are 18 cited sources, including the NYTimes, Vogue, Architectural Digest, and several others, and that (2) the article is noncompliant with WP:PROMO, despite it being toned down to a dispassionate tone that focuses on the facts and notability factors, which happens to be the jewelry line. It is possible that we are dealing with a use-mention distinction issue, especially considering the topic is jewelry, art and fashion, the notability of which can escape nonparticipants in the fashion and jewelry industry, for lack of a better term. The products by this company include specific lines of artistically historic styles of jewelry by notable designers. In a nutshell, the company is known for its product line–the jewelry–which is what makes it notable, along with the company's approach to the jewelry's investment value. WP:PRODUCT clearly states: In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. That is exactly what this article does. Notability is further established because of the international coverage of the product line, its designers, and its investment value, which are being covered in reliable investment publications such as Bloomberg, and Reuters; therefore, substantial coverage has unequivocally been met. Atsme 💬 📧 14:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    There's another concern, Atsme. The tag team bludgeoning on this page has been so extreme and dismissive to draw my attention. The nominator's original concern, as expressed in their review on the page creator's talk (and also mentioned by another editor on talk), is that this page resembles undisclosed paid editing ("an advert"). I think it still resembles upe. The frantic and methodical bludgeoning (and working the referees) on this page by the page creator also resembles the sort of response I often see from paid editors, who might suffer a financial cost of the page were deleted. The page creator may not have been paid, but this process and their behavior in it surely raises my hackles. And yes, I graduated NPP school. BusterD ( talk) 16:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would like to say the Moops has told me on Discord that they are worried that the article being deleted will make it so that they are unable to be granted NPP status when they reply which would probably explain the bludgeoning since they're trying to prevent the article from being deleted so they can get NPP status. I told them that 1 article being deleted will most likely not cause that to happen. They have told me about this AFD in DMs which may bring up WP:CANVASSing concerns, however the lead section of WP:CANVASS specifically says "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Moops simply wanted to make me aware that this was happening and did not intend for me to !vote (which I have not done both because of Moops' DM and also because i Don't have much experience in this specific area). ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment: Having had a similar situation as a beginner at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Topala, I can believe that Moops was simply worried about an article they created being deleted. Xtools shows that Moops has never had an article they created deleted ( aside from a few cross-namespace redirects created as a "newbie"), so this must be a shock. (Note: I came across this AfD after seeing a notice on Moops' talk page but have not been canvassed). Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I hope that Moops won't mind if I repeat this information here, but Moops has self-disclosed that he is on the autism spectrum. It's true that there has been a lot of WP:The Last Word here, but that should not be mistaken for UPE. And in fact, it seems to me that the ugliness in this discussion has been coming from both "sides", and the very fact that this has spawned a (now withdrawn) MfD of a user essay, and now, a COIN thread based on this flimsy evidence of UPE, is a pretty bad indictment of those on the "delete side". I'm getting very close to seeking administrator intervention. (I also feel sorry for whoever has to close this discussion.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As I said in the above comment, I have technically been canvassed, however it will not influence how I will !vote. I will be creating a source assessment table of all the sources in the article to make it a bit easier to see what sources are good and contribute to notability. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Blaze Wolf. I urge you not to create another source assessment table since one has already been created, and its accurate. At most your likely to make mistakes as your only at 64% efficacy on Afd Stats and at worst you will repeat the same arguments above, that have already been made, wasting everybodies time. Canvassing is problematic as well. SAT's don't contribute to notability although they make things clearer. scope_creep Talk 21:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • BusterD, as you know, all that glitters is not gold (forgive the pun). I never got the impression that Moops might have a COI, much less be a UPE. It is possible the editor may have an interest in high fashion and expensive jewelry, but I'm hard pressed to believe the interest rises to the point of conflict. Moops is neither a brand new editor (Feb 2022), nor a bold one relative to refusing to seek help or ask questions. If anything, Moops is more likely to be considered overzealous in a friendly way, which explains the scolding they received for sending out too many Happy New Year greetings. As a hard working member of the vandalism team, Moops has exhibited a sincere desire to learn and become a productive WP editor, so I'll just cut to the chase. If Moops is a PE, then please pull this wool cap off my head because it is covering my eyes. I seriously doubt a company the caliber of Mene Inc., would consider hiring anyone less qualified than someone on this list to create their article. (Oops, Moops - sidebar note: my comment is not a criticism of you, so please don't misinterpret it as such.) Atsme 💬 📧 21:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with scope_creep and HighKing's analysis of the sources - they don't have independent analysis and content. If you look at the nytimes article, it is very careful to attribute essentially ever sentence to the company or one of its founders ("all said to be responsibly mined in the United States and Canada", "Mene announced it had raised as much as $21 million", "notion that unalloyed gold is considered “too soft” for jewelry is a product of marketing spin, too, she added") - I couldn't find a single paragraph with content that was truly independant, i.e. not straight from their website or obviously from them or their marketing materials. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 00:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I hope that you don't mind my replying to your comment, but since I had posted a comment of my own just above, in which I carefully read the same source, and reached the opposite conclusion about the tone in which it was written, I felt the need to look at it again with your comments in mind, and see whether I had missed something. My take is that the quotes you give are instances in which the author of the article was just doing attribution, but that the text as a whole still sounds to me like it is the independent assessment of the subject by the author. It is very much not the case that "essentially every sentence" is attributed. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hello Galobtter. Please realize that journalists use quotes for their articles, this is common practice and how journalism works. The New York Times of course will quote the sources in such an article, just as the New York Times is obviously independent of the company. Randy Kryn ( talk) 01:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sure, but for WP:NCORP we need independent analysis, e.g. opinions from someone other than the company or its founders. What isn't quotes in the article is taken straight from the company's website. The few sentences that aren't attributed like "has pared jewelry back to its elements and aligned prices with weight" sound very much like PR speak. One of the other sentences that looks independent "has even trademarked the phrase “investment jewelry”" is plain incorrect per Cauldron bubble's fact checking at Talk:Menē_Inc. - it doesn't seem like the New York Times really independently analyzed or fact checked the company. But of course you or Tryptofish are free to disagree with me on my view on the article - I just have to completely agree with HighKing on his analysis of the article. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 01:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    The New York Times is a reputable secondary source. That's all that's required by WP:NCORP. Randy Kryn ( talk) 01:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Brían Nguyen

Brían Nguyen (  | 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)

Looks like the subject is only notable for one event. -- IWI ( talk) 16:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. As per @ Willthacheerleader18. Criterion 3 of WP:BLP1E is clearly not met, and all must be met for it to apply. Criterion 2 is also unknown, but probably also not met. CT55555( talk) 05:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
How is it not met? This was a preliminary pageant win that attracted some low-quality (sportskeeda is generally unreliable, NextShark appears to be totally unreliable given their " editorial team" is just a list of their hundreds of mostly-anonymous "contributors") and non-notability-contributing press (the Herald Scotland and ABC4 pieces have just a couple independent sentences on her and the competition, with the majority of independent commentary in the latter conflating Miss America with an entirely different pageant system). That does not indicate it was a "significant event". JoelleJay ( talk) 17:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
BLP1E has three elements, all which need to be met.
And Criterion 3 within it has three sub parts (event not significant or individuals role is not substantial or well documented)
I think the event is significant (the first trans winner) and I think Nguyen's role in the event is central and well documented in the source.
I do see that it's up for debate how significant an event this is. Someone winning a competition like this, I think is not usually that significant (although I'm amazed how much wikipedia in general focusses on beauty pageant winners and I find it weird). But the first trans winner does seem significant. My perception of the significance is a judgement/opinion and is open to challenge, I see that. But of course, that is just taking criterion 3 in isolation, which makes that matter less, because also we'd have to imagine that Nguyen was likely to remain a low profile individual. Actually also we'd have to think Nyugen has been, this whole time, a low profile individual. Quoting WP:BLP1E: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. but Nguyen is all over the tabloid news, indeed in unreliable sources, so I cannot add them, but clearly Nguyen doesn't meet the definition of WP:LOWPROFILE. I quote from the nutshell summary ...who has not sought public attention.. People entering beauty competitions, are 100% seeking public attention. They are absolutely not low profile individuals. To me BLP1E is therefore clearly not met, probably on 2 out of 3 criteria. CT55555( talk) 17:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Significance is based on the sources, not our personal judgement/opinion. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and creating a WP:COATRACK in the article of negative opinions about her and the pageant seems problematic generally per WP:BLP. And per WP:LOWPROFILE, she is not a "media personality" nor has she voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like. She has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a limited group (Miss Greater Derry), which is a low-profile activity, and she has not/does not appear to [seek] or [hold] a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in a field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere, or other area of human endeavor and she is allegedly notable only for a minor role in one major event, although a local scholarship competition [24] is not a major event based on tabloid and low-quality coverage. We need higher-quality and sustained coverage to support a BLP. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I respect the views of those who disagree generally and the point about quality and depth of sources is agreeable. However, to say she has not "voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities" seems at odds with that I think a beauty competition is. I don't know much about beauty competitions, but can I persuade you that a trans women choosing to enter one in the US does seem to be at odds with what I think WP:LOWPROFILE is guiding us to consider low profile activities.
Of course your rebuttal of my point is wider than that specific point (noting the sourcing issues), but can we at least agree on that? And therefore conclude that she is not low profile? CT55555( talk) 18:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Based on the sources, I applied the factors outlined in the WP:LOWPROFILE essay and included a local news source describing the local pageant as a scholarship competition. An openly trans woman being permitted to enter a low-level competition is included in the Miss America article, but there do not appear to be independent and reliable sources that support the conclusion that this one event is "self-publicity activities" as described in the essay. Perhaps compare the Kataluna Enriquez AfD for a source-based analysis of WP:BLP1E for differences in activity levels and related coverage - when someone is not low-profile, we don't need to debate the technical wording of one part of the essay, we can look to sources and a pattern of activity over time. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I am not caught up in the technical wording of BLP1E, I believe that I am making a case based on the spirit and intention of the guideline. My understanding of BLP1E is heavily informed by the essay WP:NOTBLP1E.
Here's a link to Nguyen being interviewed for the Outsports podcast. Listen from 15m10s onwards.
I wonder if you find that persuasive in terms of seeing her as not low profile? CT55555( talk) 19:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
A podcast interview on a sports blogging network does not seem to contribute to a high-profile pattern of activity as described in the WP:LOWPROFILE essay. And I was referring to a debate over technicalities in the WP:LOWPROFILE essay, not WP:BLP1E. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
People enter pageants for many reasons other than "publicity" and there is no expectation that they will become "public profiles" at such low levels of competition; the people I know who participated did it for the scholarship money, or because they liked to showcase their talents, because it's fun to get glammed up, because they enjoyed performing, because they liked the socializing, etc. It's at best OR to assume that a trans girl did it just to make a statement and not for any of the other reasons girls compete, and even if she's proud to be "the first" with her identity that doesn't mean she wants or will be the subject of continued publicity. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I just want to clarify that any assumptions I made about motivations applies to trans and cis applicants, indeed I had not considered the wider (educational/prize winning) range of potential motivations beyond fame and profile. So that is helpful feedback and does reduce the strength of my argument. Although please also see the interview I linked to above, which I think supports my (possible initially badly formed) statement about profile. CT55555( talk) 19:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Update: now reconsidering....I think I am right about WP:BLP1E, but I think she may fail WP:GNG. Reassessing, thinking and also waiting to see what others say about that. CT55555( talk) 18:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
While I am mostly arguing the BLP1E point above, I think WP:GNG is really what matters here, as I think BLP1E does not apply. English language alone sources don't appear to support WP:GNG, but there is a lot of Spanish, Russian and other sources on her, but
  1. https://1news.az/news/20221110070148123-Transgender-pobedil-na-konkurse-krasoty-ot-Miss-Amerika-FOTO
  2. https://www.hispanidad.com/sociedad/eeuu-trans-gana-certamen-belleza-miss-greater-derry-2023-se-lleva-casa-beca-mujeres_12038271_102.html
Combined with ABC News here
I am not certain of a WP:GNG pass, but see this more like a weak keep. I'll more formally update my !vote later, depending on replies above, any source analysis that anyone can offer on the above, still reflecting on this difficult one. CT55555( talk) 19:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The 1news.az and Hispanidad pieces are fluff containing mostly primary/non-independent quotes. Nowhere close to SIGCOV, and Hispanidad is employing the usual right-wing tabloid press approach of platforming highly negative tweets instead of writing their own commentary (so as to avoid backlash). These shouldn't be linked on WP at all.
And interviews on podcasts don't make someone a public figure. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I trimmed the "Backlash" subsection in this brief article to remove a negative comment directed at this low-profile Miss Greater Derry winner, but per WP:BLP1E, there still seems to be undue weight on the event. Based on the few available sources, she appears to only be covered in the context of the pageant, the mostly low-quality sources do not seem to support the significance of the event, and her role does not appear substantial nor well-documented. She is already mentioned at the Miss America article, and a redirect could be created. Beccaynr ( talk) 13:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 04:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per above. I could see this turning around if she goes on to win the notable title of Miss New Hampshire and compete in the main Miss America pageant, at which point she'd meet WP:ANYBIO #1 and possibly #2 as well, but so far she's only won a local competition and is getting above average coverage for the novelty of her being trans. As a fellow queer person I always love to see victories like these for my people, but as a WP editor I have to recognize the rules in place. QuietHere ( talk) 14:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
comment just pointing out here that we had a similar discussion at Simple English Wikipedia. As an uninvolved admin I closed that one as a keep. My reasons for that were two-fold. 1) there seems to be foreign-language coverage of the event, so it must have generated some media echo 2) given that beauty-pageants are usually unisex (either miss-swimsuit, or mister-swimsuit, but not moe pageant for both), winning such a pageant as a transgender person is quite remarkable.Note however, that our article simple:Brían Nguyen isn't quite the same as yours. Eptalon ( talk) 10:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Trending towards keep given that nobody has rebutted the relevance of the sources provided towards the end of the discussion. Sandstein 09:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Toni Fiore

Toni Fiore (  | 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)

Fiore claims to be a “celebrity chef” but I’m unable to find articles on her besides actual recipes, book reviews, and blurbs. There may be more articles on her behind paywalls. Putting her up for discussion in case she is more well-known in the vegan/vegetarian world. LovelyLillith ( talk) 19:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep - Although the coverage isn't in abundance, there seems to be multiple sources with coverage that shows notability of this chef. -- Excutient Talk 19:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per the sources listed by Psychologist Guy, the PBS one is not independent because her short bio is there because she's been on PBS programs, the ranking of celebrity chefs name-checks her in a list (nothing about her), the Publisher's Weekly is a one-paragraph review of one of her cookbooks. Although she has had a PBS cooking show for years I find very little about her, and other sources are pretty thin, such as this which just name-checks her. She has one cookbook (and has collaborated on one more), and it is "#907 in Vegetarian Cooking" on Amazon. Admittedly, the book is not new, but proof of making a bestseller list would at least be something. Lamona ( talk) 05:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I managed to find a few more reviews of her books and shows [28] [29]. She was also featured as a guest in this podcast released by the PCRM, a notable vegan advocacy group (her wp article links here in one reference but makes no mention of the podcast in the text for some reason). In response to Lamona's comment, I tried to find the historic sales rankings of her book, but Amazon doesn't seem to archive subject-specific bestsellers lists; that said, the book was published in 2008, and 907 is an impressive ranking after 15 years. small jars t c 22:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    The second one you link to is a show that she is in, and therefore not an independent source. Again, the podcast is her speaking, and like an interview is not an independent source. The first one, "Vegetarians in Paradise" is hard to judge. It appears to be a personal web site of two people: "We're just a couple of adventurous pigeons named Zel and Reuben Allen who live in Los Angeles." So that probably does not count as a reliable source. In my searches I turned up that she had shows on PBS, but I couldn't find any write-ups about her outside of that gig. She has one book - that's not a lot for notability even if it did sell well. We'd still need reviews. Lamona ( talk) 05:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm with Lamona. I'm amazed to find someone with a cooking show with dozens of episodes can be this non-notable, but she really seems to be. Her website doesn't even have links to press coverage or any kind of press kit. None of the sources mentioned here are significant, independent coverage from reliable sources (I guess with the exception of the PW cookbook review). -- asilvering ( talk) 01:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 04:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete – insufficient independent sources to pass GNG, from the sources I have seen from the article, searches, and here. -- IWI ( talk) 11:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    1. Goad, Meredith (2008-08-13). "A new chapter for 'Delicious TV' chef Toni Fiore". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.

      The article notes: "The last time I spoke with Toni Fiore of Cumberland, her vegetarian cooking show, Delicious TV, had just been picked up by 21 public television stations nationwide. That was 2005. ... Fiore, who tapes the show in her own kitchen, now gets mail from vegetarians and vegans all over the world. People send her old family recipes and ask her help in making a meatless version. She cuts the fat and cooking time, too. ... Her own experiments in the kitchen, along with dishes submitted by viewers and recipes from guest chefs, result in about 30 to 40 new recipes in a season. ... The next step seems like a natural one: a companion cookbook to the TV show."

    2. Kamila, Avery Yale (2014-06-11). "'Mashup' back for new season of vegan goodness". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.

      The article notes: "Popular vegan chefs Terry Hope Romero, Miyoko Schinner and Maine’s own Toni Fiore star in each episode. ... jokes Fiore, who lives in Cumberland and often fields questions from local fans who have seen the reruns on MPBN. ... Carson and Fiore started filming “Totally Vegetarian” in 2002 for Portland’s local cable access station. They later began distributing it to PBS stations, and its 52 episodes have now aired more than 53,000 times. They started filming “Vegan Mashup” in 2012. Having spent her teens and 20s in Italy, Fiore learned to cook in a world where fast food didn’t exist and grocery shopping took place in an open air market. The whole foods and fresh ingredients in her recipes reflect these roots."

    3. Goad, Meredith (2005-11-30). "Veggie TV - Shot in Toni Fiore's Cumberland kitchen, this meat-free cooking show is simply 'Delicious.'". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.

      The article notes: "The show is currently shooting its second season in Fiore's Cumberland kitchen with Rob Draper of VisionMill, a high-definition production company in Camden. ... Fiore has not eaten meat for 18 to 19 years, and her two children are also vegetarian. ... After writing an article for the Maine Animal Coalition on slaughterhouses, she decided to make a complete transition. On the show, Fiore concentrates perhaps half the time on her casual Mediterranean cooking style. She recently returned from five days in Italy with a cooking crew, and will be incorporating her experiences into a future episode of "Delicious TV." ... Fiore promises that future shows will also be all-veggie, all the time."

    4. "Kitchen TV". Vegetarian Times. No. 341. May–June 2006. p. 96. ISSN  0164-8497. EBSCOhost  20553698.

      The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Hosted by Toni Fiore, a vegetarian for nearly 20 years, the show highlights healthful recipes with no-fuss preparation. Originally, the Food Network approached Fiore and her producer about airing the show. They were thrilled--until the network proposed adding chicken and fish to the program. Delicious TV said no thanks, and now Fiore brings compassionate cuisine to PBS viewers, with recipes such as tempeh fajitas, veggie wantons, tofu pot pie and sweet vegetable lasagna."

    5. Book reviews:
      1. Meola, Olympia (2008-12-24). "Cookbook Review". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.

        The review notes: "From thrifty tips, such as how to reuse paper towels and plastic bags, to a plug for the public television show hosted by author Toni Fiore, "Totally Vegetarian" at first seems like the equivalent of a box of plain couscous. ... Fiore's charm comes through in several places at the start of the book. She suggests you fill a sink with sudsy water, then sink pans and dishes in as you cook to cut down on cleaning time. Do that, she instructs, while water boils or simmers. If you still have time, "stay near the stove and knock out thirty or forty squats." ... Fiore uses the first 46 pages to introduce herself and to tell you how to stock the kitchen, what equipment to buy and which items are essentials in the pantry, fridge and freezer."

      2. McAvoy, Rochelle (2008-12-15). "Totally Vegetarian". South Bend Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review notes: "In her first cookbook, Toni Fiore has a passionate love of and experience with vegetable-based cooking. "Totally Vegetarian" is full of simple, easy to prepare dishes, from light appetizers to sophisticated breads and pastas, that use affordable as well as accessible ingredients. ... Fiore admits to using viewers' feedback from her television show to "reshape my style of cooking," which is why these recipes are best seen as guidelines."

      3. Bieselin, Robert (2008-08-18). ""Totally Vegetarian"". The Record. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review notes: "This book from Toni Fiore, the host of Delicious TV's "Totally Vegetarian," presents nearly 200 recipes of every sort and style. Separate sections give suggestions for soups, salads, breads, pizzas, burgers, sandwiches and desserts and center dishes on meat substitutes (tofu, tempeh, seitan) and veggies and grains."

      4. Houck, Jeff (2008-09-03). "Eat Their Words: Totally Vegetarian". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review notes: "Subtitled "Easy, Fast, Comforting Cooking for Every Kind of Vegetarian," Fiore, who hosts the "Totally Vegetarian" series on public television, includes recipes for such dishes as corn bread, pizza and pot stickers that even nonvegetarians can enjoy. Especially helpful is the list of tips for keeping organic foods available on your table and within your budget."

      5. Giuca, Linda (2008-12-11). "Tasty Menu of Books For Cooks". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03 – via Newspapers.com.

        The first page of the article is here Internet Archive.

        The review notes: "The host of public television's "Delicious TV's Totally Vegetarian," Fiore brings a European sensibility to American comfort foods. Nearly 50 pages of introduction describe her transition to vegetarianism as well as offer advice on ingredients, equipment and stocking a pantry. The meatless recipes are flexible enough to adapt to a vegan lifestyle. Fiore also devotes a chapter to soybean-based tempeh and seitan, high-protein meat substitutes."

      6. "Totally Vegetarian: Easy, Fast, Comforting Cooking for Every Kind of Vegetarian". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 255, no. 24. 2008-06-16. p. 46. EBSCOhost  32958597. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.

        The review notes: "This all-purpose vegetarian cookbook from the host of the PBS series Delicious TV's Totally Vegetarian offers about 200 accessible recipes ... Fiore's reassuring voice makes even the (somewhat) complicated dishes seem doable; lots of variety in the ingredients and flavors make the book a handy resource for vegetarians in need of daily ideas."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Toni Fiore to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." After "combin[ing]" the multiple independent sources here "to demonstrate notability", Toni Fiore passes the guideline.

    Cunard ( talk) 10:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and kudos to Cunard for finding these sources, especially the articles from the Portland Press Herald. pburka ( talk) 18:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After I discount the "keep" opinions that were apparently canvassed on Reddit, the "delete" opinions are more numerous and more persuasive. The "keep" arguments are, first, that WP:NLIST is met, but this is only asserted and not argued on the basis of sources. Second, it is argued that this is a "list of episodes of a notable show", but this does not conform to the RfC consensus pointed out by the nominator that episode lists do need to meet NLIST on their own merits. Sandstein 09:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Comedy Bang! Bang! episodes

List of Comedy Bang! Bang! episodes (  | 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)

The list does not pass WP:NLIST because the episodes are not "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There was a recent RfC discussion which concluded that podcast episode lists must pass NLIST to merit a stand-alone article (disclosure: I opened the RfC). I recently WP:BLARed this list so redirecting to Comedy Bang! Bang! could be considered as an alternative to deletion.

With the exception of an WP:INTERVIEW with the host of the show at The A.V. Club, I don't see any reliable sources that discuss the episodes as a group or set, and none of the individual episodes appear to be independently notable. Considering the number of links I would think that WP:LINKFARM applies, and I think there is also an argument to be made that the list violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. TipsyElephant ( talk) 01:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep. This is a difficult one. First I checked if reliable sources dealt with them as a list WP:NLIST. I did't find anything significant. So that seems to suggest delete. But WP:ATD would guide us towards merge. But this is a very long list, at 216,950 bytes. Comedy Bang! Bang! is 14,756 bytes. WP:LENGTH subsection WP:SIZERULE is clear that anything over 100kb "Almost certainly" should be split. An article about something that is 93% list and 7% not list would seem silly. The rules don't help us here, they put me in a circle. But actually, we don't have rules, we are humans and we can make sensible decisions, especially where the rules prevents you from improving or maintaining wikipedia and WP:IAR gives us specific advice on what to do, which is to ignore the rule. With that long introduction, I think keeping this is the least bad of all the outcomes, even if it isn't an elegant solution, I see no harm in keeping the article, and I see the loss of encyclopedic information arising from deleting it. The lost of a list of episodes would not keep me awake at night, but it is still a net positive for the encyclopedia. CT55555( talk) 15:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I just realised I didn't give enough thought to the RfC. I think that puts me somewhere between mild delete and neutral. I may update this. If I don't, count me as neutral. CT55555( talk) 21:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per the RfC discussion, podcast episode lists, unlike episode lists for TV shows, have to pass WP:NLIST to be notable. There's no reason why the list of episodes has to be on Wikipedia at all in that case, we can simply delete it. There are other avenues for people who want a full list of podcast episodes. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am generally against such lists but this list is far from the general criteria we expect from episode lists. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 04:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - there are two keep !votes on the talk page CT55555( talk) 18:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep While I do acknowledge that the article does not conform to what is considered the standard rule set, I want to comment on the content of the article itself, as I feel it merits consideration as an exception. Said content is accurate and incomparably comprehensive, verified by simply cross-referencing episode number, title, and associated guest/character appearances on any podcast application, as well as the paid service offered by the podcast host which provides access to the entire catalogue of episodes. I do not believe one should have to pay a subscription fee in order to find information on archived episodes, information that at this point (as far as my efforts thus far have confirmed) can only be found in this article or an otherwise painstaking process of looking through each free episode available on various podcast applications. Other sites, including the Fandom page for the podcast that attempts to list episode numbers/names/guests/characters, has in my experience (as recently as yesterday 2/22/2023) been impartial or inaccurate. The result has been my return to this Wikipedia article that has allowed me to identify quickly and accurately with simple keyword searches the episode I am looking for. I strongly believe that anyone else who like me has a vested interest in the podcast and this article/list can confirm this. I also believe it would be a safe assumption to say that there are many other avid listeners of this podcast who rely on this page for the content it provides that cannot be found anywhere else. While the list does not pass WP:NLIST because the episodes are not "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", it should be stressed that the podcast episode archive itself, the only primary source that can technically exist, attests to the reliability of this article. Deleting it would be to the detriment of many, including myself, who reference it on a regular basis without issue. Yodas4sale ( talk) 21:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC) — Yodas4sale ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

I think we should keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.203.218.37 ( talk) 02:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC) — 185.203.218.37 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Keep: Someone brought notice of this article's potential deletion to me and I'd just like to say that as a long-time listener of the podcast in question, I would very much like this article to be kept, and would be willing to make edits to help do so.
The podcast in question has been in existence for nearly 14 years, and has its roots in a radio show/improv show from the early 2000s, which was a locus of talent in the alt-comedy scene. As you can see from the list of its guests and their appearances, it features some prominent comedians and cultural figures, often in the early parts of their careers and so this list may be of journalistic/historical importance. Occasional musical guests perform stripped-down versions of their songs in the recording studio, which fans of the artists may wish to find.
Although the content isn't necessarily high-brow, I feel confident in saying that fans of the show have a lot of affection for it, and in particular to episodes involving pairings of guests/characters and features (though the specific set of episodes will differ from listener to listener). Though the podcast is episodic and unscripted, there are recurring features, characters and story-lines that listeners often like to revisit or that new listeners seek out to better enjoy the performances. This list is a very helpful resource in that regard.
As the host often comments, the podcast began before the mid-2010s boom in the medium, and averages about 50 episodes a year, each about 80-100 minutes in length. It branched out into a TV show of more than 100 episodes, and now sits as part of a small network of "in-universe" podcasts involving characters from the main one. There is significant value and utility in maintaining a list of these episodes, and as there is a fairly comprehensive one contained in this page, it would be quite a loss to have it deleted. August Lindt ( talk) 06:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC) — August Lindt ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
How were you made aware of the deletion discussion? CT55555( talk) 12:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
They likely were made aware by a post on the Comedy Bang Bang Subreddit. Yodas4sale ( talk) 17:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The post that you made? Are you aware of the WP:CANVASS behavioural guideline? CT55555( talk) 17:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I am aware that my Reddit post is in violation of the written rule. However, I believe that the unique nature of this case, as outlined in previous posts, warrants unique action to support it. With all due respect I will illustrate, briefly to the best of my ability so as to not come across as standing on a soapbox, to try and make clear the sincere spirit of my position. Please bear with me.
In matters of Ownership, such as the holding of title to property by a private party, there are instances where the owner cannot enjoy their ownership free and clear due to complications arising from additional parties who may knowingly or unknowingly have a vested interest in said title in the form of some type of land rights. There may not be any knowledge of the existence whatsoever by the owner of who these other parties are. In order to perfect ownership, the owner is permitted by law to "delete" the interest the unknown parties may have by filing a suit of Quiet Title Action, wherein a judge will instruct the owner to serve those unknown parties claiming an interest in the property through publication. This case law can be found here: (Donel, Inc. v. Badalian (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 327, 332.)
The takeaway from this is that intent to delete the interest of unknown parties must be made known "through publication". The intent must be made public, in writing, so that anyone who may have interest in the title can contest the deletion of said interest. Furthermore, California Civil Code CCP § 763.010 states that "reasonable diligence" must be used to inform unknown parties. It has been precedented by Watts v. Crawford (1995) 10 Cal.4th 743, 749, fn. 5 that “Reasonable diligence” denotes “a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney.”
Now it is clearly, clearly obvious that the letter of these laws has no jurisdiction here in any measure. But how does the spirit of this legislation apply to the matter at hand? It could be argued that "reasonable diligence" was used to inform unknown parties who have a vested interest in this page's content of its deletion, in the form of a notice on the top of said page. I would argue that such an effort actually does not denote a "thorough, systematic investigation" to inform interested parties, and that "reasonable diligence" in this case would include informing a modestly sized but well-established internet community of loyal fans of what is about to take place. Yes, this can be defined as Canvassing. But I believe that if there are principles of ownership well founded in matters of private ownership, how much more so should these principles, the spirit of the rules, be applied in this specific case to free information that has no private owner but belongs to us all as the public? Should this not merit by necessity an additional measure of reasonable effort, as I have taken with my Reddit post, however it may be classified, to inform those with vested interest in the public content in question and who will be needlessly disadvantaged should that content be deleted due to it not being in strict conformance to the guidelines? Should not such unknown parties be permitted to contest the decision even if it constitutes an overwhelming majority opinion and could be said to compromise the normal consensus decision making process? After all, the only ones who benefit from this page are the listeners of the podcast, represented in this case by the subreddit in which I posted.
I must stress that I believe these principles apply because of the existence of the Comedy Bang Bang subreddit, a place where reasonable diligence" can be exercised. Without it, there would be no reasonable manner in which to inform the public. This is why I do not believe my post there can be considered canvassing.
August Lindt made clear that the podcast has established a legacy. It has even won awards because of its popularity. There is indeed significant value and utility in maintaining a list of these episodes, especially as new fans of the podcast continue to be made. This is by far the best place to access this information. As you stated in a previous post, the rules do not help us here. We are humans and we can make reasonable decisions. The reasonable decision here is to refrain from deleting the page. Yodas4sale ( talk) 19:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I think you over-complicated that explanation, the way I see it is that this seems like canvassing. The reddit thread also indicates that there is a group of people who consider this page useful. It's interesting how posting notice of the AFD to a WikiProject would be considered a good thing to do, but to a subreddit would be a bad thing to do, and yet the intention is quite similar.
Seeing that a small and obscure community find this list helpful is something that I do find relevant. Is this page overall a net positive or a net negative to the encyclopedia? My views have shifted again towards net positive. I'll vote again below. CT55555( talk) 14:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, it was the post on the subreddit. I apologize if my behavior is against the formal rules here, but I wouldn't have known otherwise, as I haven't checked this page in a few weeks. August Lindt ( talk) 07:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep 2603:8081:1401:9410:DC99:D478:D924:A23B ( talk) 14:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC) — 2603:8081:1401:9410:DC99:D478:D924:A23B ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep i think keep it ok 120.29.68.253 ( talk) 10:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 04:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Lean keep. I voted keep. Then I was persuaded to revoke that, after someone pointed out the RfC, which I had not sufficiently factored into my analysis. So I updated to neutral. Then I saw the canvassing and WP:SPA votes, which I looked into and flagged. Then I saw how an obscure reddit community find this list to be a useful encyclopedic resource.
I'm struck about how posting notice of an AFD to a WikiProject is considered a good thing and doing the same to the relevant subreddit is a bad thing. I uncomfortable because this seems like I'm endorsing canvassing, but the chain of events and off wiki activity that I've noted has actually persuaded me that this list has encyclopedic value. I can only justify this argument by pointing to WP:IAR. CT55555( talk) 14:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
This discussion is the very embodiment of why posting notice of an AFD to a WikiProject is considered a good thing and doing the same to the relevant subreddit is a bad thing; notices to WikiProject attract Wikipedians who are interested in the fate of articles on the topic, whereas notices to reddit attract content-free WP:ITSUSEFULs like the above that the poster incorrectly thinks will influence the fate of this discussion. Finally, you said above that the intention is quite similar - language like This [deletion proposal] is absolutely ridiculous from the linked Reddit post wouldn't be tolerated even at a WikiProject, and makes it clear that the intention is fundamentally different. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I've struck my leaning keep !vote, I'm back to neutral, after reading the rebuttal of my point above. CT55555( talk) 13:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I erred in not specifying in the subreddit post that contributions to this RfC should only be made if meaningful arguments are presented. I updated my post to inform readers of this shortly after seeing that this is what was happening. My intention was certainly not to flood this RfC with spammed Keep comments. It was my assumption that any who took the time to look into the intent to delete the article would then follow up with their own thoughts on the matter should they feel inclined. As you can probably tell, I deeply value the information in the article, and my only intention is to hopefully demonstrate that there are others who feel the same way and that deleting it would be a disservice. I hope that this clarification can be taken in good faith by all. I do not mean to cause chaos and apologize since that is what has taken place. Yodas4sale ( talk) 18:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a giant mass of fancruft with only one source. None of the above keep arguments make any attempt to dispute the original reason for deletion: that notability providing sources, per the linked RfC, must be found, and none have been. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Is fancruft the best way to describe what is occurring here? I ask because I genuinely don't think that this Wiki article is exactly general interest. The information is beneficial for a niche group of individuals. Perhaps I'm mistaken in my understanding of the definition of the word though. In any case, on the matter of notability, I believe it has been commented already that the only primary source that can exist for this list is the podcast itself. Additionally, it has also been pointed out that it may not be a practical resolution to merge the article with the main page due to the amount of information contained within it. I'm seeing under the Notability guidelines that an alternative to merging or deletion is to "Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources." Could a note be written at the beginning of the article saying something to the effect of "Reference the podcast as a primary source" to satisfy that criteria? After all, the main reason anyone would reference the list is to then redirect to the podcast once they've found what they're looking for. I can attest that the information has been consistently accurate thus far. Just a thought. Yodas4sale ( talk) 18:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    [...] this Wiki article is [not] exactly general interest. The information is beneficial for a niche group of individuals is the very definition of fancruft. Re it has been commented already that the only primary source that can exist for this list is the podcast itself, I'm assuming you meant to omit the word "primary", in which case it self-evidently follows from your claim that the list is not notable. Re, Additionally, it has also been pointed out that it may not be a practical resolution to merge the article with the main page due to the amount of information contained within it, I suggested a delete not a merge. Re Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources, you misunderstand what that clause is about; it's a procedural rule, suggesting that people who doubt the notability of an article should sometimes ask the creator where to find the necessary third-party sources rather than trying to look themselves and nominating for deletion if they fail, and is inapplicable at this stage of the discussion. Re, I can attest that the information has been consistently accurate thus far. Just a thought. - see WP:ITSUSEFUL. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I from the outset acknowledged that the article does not conform to the letter of the law, so to speak. That includes notability. I was not referring to you when pointing out that a merge had been suggested. Another commenter made that suggestion. A clause from WP:ITSUSEFUL "Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'" Allow me to clarify what I mean when I say that I can attest that the information in the article has been consistently accurate thus far: The list on this page brings together the entire catalogue of episode numbers, names, guest celebrities, characters, features, and musical acts and is useful for navigating the subject of the podcast and its contents, and it does so in an accurate manner. No other resource available comes close to the level of thoroughness this article/list contains. Yodas4sale ( talk) 17:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Two comments: First, nothing motivates skeptical long-time Wikipedia editors to jump in to one of these debates like seeing a bunch of new users sign up just to vote. In other words, you're doing more harm than good to your own cause. Second, I didn't see the RfC linked at the top, but I fail to see anything conclusive coming out of it. We already have two ways lists of episodes, characters, etc. come about: notability via NLIST and article splits. That RfC doesn't somehow supersede long-standing style guidelines about what to do when part of an article gets too long. So the question is: does this meet NLIST, or would it be WP:DUE in the main article, but too long to include there? I don't know the answer to either. A search for sources returns a few (the podcast is among the most notable comedy podcasts, for whatever that's worth), but I do think this is going to hinge more on whether it should be included in the main article. A good hypothetical is: if there were 20 episodes instead of hundreds, would it make sense to include in the main article? If so, it's probably not crazy to spin it out to its own page. If not, well, there's always fandom.com. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I find your logic persuasive. Indeed if there were 20, it would seem logical to add them. The real number would make the page look strange. Which makes me change my mind again, I now !vote keep. CT55555( talk) 22:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP ( talk) 08:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 04:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Redd Velvet

Redd Velvet (  | 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 inline secondary sources and only a single source in external links which is not in-depth coverage. Obvious conflict of interest editing by Redd Alert ☰ Hamburger Menu ( talk) 04:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Alabama, and Nebraska. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 04:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO - my online searches with various keywords to help sort out coverage of the similarly-named K-Pop band has only found The Smithsonian coverage of her performance at the 32nd annual International Blues Challenge (3 grafs) and Tri-State Defender coverage of her performance at a Women in Blues event (3 brief grafs), and a blog with a brief overview of her career. This does not appear to be enough to support notability at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Don't meet WP:BASIC. the article is similar to self-promotion and has no worthwhile references to support the facts presented -- Loewstisch ( talk) 12:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller ( talk) 05:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

James Bowie (lawyer)

James Bowie (lawyer) (  | 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 individual seems non-notable. He received non-substantive media coverage in 2020 because he offered free legal services. To the extent that this individual is known at all (he is allegedly known for his Twitter activity but he has only 31.5k Twitter followers), it was because of a single event (i.e., WP:BLP1E) in 2022 during the Canadian trucker convoy, as indicated by the references on the article. He then received minor coverage related to ensuing scandals. The article also makes claims about this individual having been alleged to have committed crimes (which are not the primary basis of his alleged notability) and for which he has not been convicted, in apparent contradiction of WP:BLPCRIME. This seems very much like BLP1E to me. Bueller 007 ( talk) 03:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. (As article creator). WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant. The article makes no suggestion of criminality. I don't like him, but that's not relevant. WP:BLP1E would only apply if all three criteria were met, which would mean that:
  1. reliable sources only mentioned him in the context of one event (he is mentioned in context of three events, criterion not met)
  2. he is likely to remain low profile, as defined here: WP:LOWPROFILE (obviously not, he continues to make news and seek attention, criterion not met)
  3. he didn't play an important role in the event(s) he is notable for (that is open to debate)
BLP1E is only applicable if each of three conditions is met (I quote from WP:BLP1E) so that's an obvious fail. What is relevant is if he meets the WP:GNG. I believe he does; I perceive that he is notable for his provision of free legal services in 2020, for his citizen journalism in 2022 and for more than one investigation into his legal work between 2022 and 2023. I present some examples of significant coverage about him here:
  1. In 2020 https://ottawa.citynews.ca/local-news/lawyer-offers-free-legal-service-to-anyone-who-is-arrested-at-ottawas-anti-racism-march-2414073
  2. In 2022 https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/ottawa-lawyer-james-bowie-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-suspended-by-lso-in-unrelated-proceedings/372287
  3. In 2023 https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-lawyer-in-legal-services-for-sex-scandal-probed-for-mishandling-money
In summary: WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant, deletion on the basis of WP:BLP1E fails on at least two of three criteria (check out WP:NOTBLP1E if you have doubts), WP:GNG (the key thing here) is met. CT55555( talk) 04:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
"he was accused of offering cocaine and soliciting sexual contact" is accusing someone of a crime for which they are not notable and for which they have not been convicted. Bueller 007 ( talk) 04:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
That seems like WP:SYNTH. I have no idea if seeking sex or offering drugs is criminal in this context. But for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that offering cocaine might criminal. WP:BLPCRIME would guide us to avoid content that suggest acts are crimes (only you did, the article doesn't). It doesn't say we should not have articles of people who maybe did a crime. His notability is mainly about citizen journalism and law society investigations. If people who are notable for multiple things also maybe do a crime, does it mean we should delete articles about them? Let's focus on the key thing here: is he notable; does he meet WP:GNG. I think: yes. And also yes.
I see we may disagree on the relevance of BLPCRIME, and I suggest we sit with that disagreement and let others opine, I'm keen to avoid WP:BLUDGEON CT55555( talk) 04:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - much as I loathed the trucker convoy. Hmm talk about a buried lede. One sentence and the references that follow it don't support it. Here's one good reference: [30] There must be more, as I recognized the name. I see what part of the problem is: recent negative coverage -- gleeful, I would almost say. The convoy was really unpopular. and he's on Twitter. Looking deeper. [31] might not be familiar, but it's a mainstream Vancouver outlet. I'm actually not finding much more without going to twitter, but those are definitely better than the ones that are there. Not voting because ick. Elinruby ( talk) 13:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: In the context of the nomination referring to WP:BLP1E and that one event being his role around the Canada convoy protest, it seems important to mention that he was making news three days ago for unrelated reasons:
Embattled Ottawa lawyer James Bowie sued for sexual harassment CT55555( talk) 05:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. The argument that he might meet WP:GNG. the lawyer's activities are sufficiently covered and his contribution is noticeable not only at the local but also at the regional level. -- Loewstisch ( talk) 12:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 03:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

BigMuscle.com

BigMuscle.com (  | 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:NWEB and WP:GNG. Was unable to locate any reliable sources that provide in-depth information about the website on google. Vozul ( talk) 03:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller ( talk) 03:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

IdeaPad

IdeaPad (  | 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)

Where do i even start. The ENTIRE page is either an advert, unsourced, and poorly written mess. I'm actually surprised no one AfDed this before. 2603:6080:7C40:5E0:40F8:BD5C:5B36:5B3 ( talk) 02:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I had the wrong product line, but point still stands; this isn't going anywhere and at worst will be redirected. Nate • ( chatter) 17:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Still, thats not a vaild reason to keep a article. you need a reason 2603:6080:7C40:5E0:4D1E:928B:22C8:76F8 ( talk) 12:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Don't really need one for a nom with a poor rationale. WP:GNG is more than met for one, so I guess there's your reason. Nate • ( chatter) 01:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It looks like editing during this nomination period have addressed the concerns expressed in this nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

That'll Be the Day (musical)

That'll Be the Day (musical) (  | 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)

From AFD main talk page - This article about a UK theatre show has only two citations, one of which is a dead link and the other to its own programme 15 years ago. A web search returns only this page and its own website. Nobody notable appears in the show, or anybody with their own page.   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

-- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Molex. If there are questions about having a different redirect target, you can raise the question on the redirect talk page or at WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keyssa

AfDs for this article:
Keyssa (  | 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)

Restored to userspace (courtesy @ Muboshgu: following a Refund request) but then restored to mainspace without going through AfC or addressing the issues raised at AfD. Still no WP:ORG level coverage Star Mississippi 14:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, and California. Star Mississippi 14:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Sigh, we just had this one. Should be merged or redirected to Molex. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    The nature of the semiconductor industry is consolidation of important technologies into larger companies - there are very few small companies left, but the importance of the acquired companies lives on as these companies have built the technology base of the large semiconductor companies that remain today/info/en/?search=Semiconductor_consolidation Kmr719 ( talk) 01:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Molex. To my eye, only one reference would meet WP:SIRS, the Stanford case, from which I am restricted. Rhadow ( talk) 19:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I've read a couple of HBR "case studies" in the past and they're a mixed bag of quality. They can be very thin on "Independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" (as per ORGIND). Looking at the summary for this case study, it reads as if it recounts events that has occurred already, I don't see any indications of independent content. Also, concerned that the company itself seems to be using it to "promote' themselves by providing "first-hand insights" on the case study. HighKing ++ 15:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for comments, references will be expanded and added shortly; Kmr719 ( talk) 01:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This is part of why this article should not have been moved back to mainspace. Star Mississippi 13:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify to give another chance at improving it before moving it to mainspace. A redirect to Molex could be left in mainspace. MarioGom ( talk) 19:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Koch Industries (or Molex although I don't believe Molex would survive at AfD either). Kmr719 participated in the original AfD for this topic company and we should take a very dim view of attempts to circumvent a previous decision at AfD by moving from drafts to mainspace without addressing the issues as he did. This topic company fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 15:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as the High King has suggested. Lightburst ( talk) 04:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 00:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect - Per arguments above. No opposition to merge as well, though don't see what content could be worth keeping. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Kong Lingxi

Kong Lingxi (  | 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)

Contested BLP-PROD. Article has existed since 2012 with the sole reference being an interview with the subject. A search for better references only turned up Wikipedia mirrors and several other people with the same name. No objection to an A7 speedy delete given the article as it currently stands, but maybe there are Chinese/Tibetan sources with which this can be improved? -- Finngall talk 00:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_February_25&oldid=1142892774"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >

Purge server cache

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. Joyous! | Talk 02:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Shredderman Rules

Shredderman Rules (  | 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)

Found no additional coverage and what's on page isn't sufficient for GNG or NFO. QuietHere ( talk) 23:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

New Politics Australia

New Politics Australia (  | 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)

The subject does not pass WP:GNG. Most of the current sources are just links to the podcast on Apple Podcasts. The remaining links are a WP:TRIVIALMENTION from the The Latch, a WP:PRIMARY source containing a transcript of the show, and two short mentions that aren't WP:INDEPENDENT of the show because they are from guests of the show. And then of course the couple of sources about the books, which don't even mention the podcast or are just primary sources. The show does not WP:INHERIT notability from it's guests or hosts. The hosts don't have Wikipedia articles so there doesn't appear to be a clear merge or redirect target. The article was proded last November. Doing a few Google searches, I'm unable to find sources that would demonstrate notability. TipsyElephant ( talk) 17:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Of course, a podcast is going to link to Apple podcasts. The three published books directly refer to the podcast – "New Politics has released two publications based on the podcast series and published articles". What else needs to be added here? All the links are verifiable. How is “notability” defined? EdanTabain ( talk) 11:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ EdanTabain: you can read about how notability is defined on Wikipedia at WP:NOTABILITY. A few essays that might also be helpful include WP:GOLDENRULE, WP:THREESOURCES, WP:BACKWARD, and WP:FIRST. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we could perhaps draftify this for EdanTabain and they could work on it in draftspace until they feel comfortable submitting it to WP:AfC for review. It appears there is already a draft in draftspace though. TipsyElephant ( talk) 17:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Look, just forget it. I set the page up to get more Wikipedia skills – but it seems technically and practically too difficult. And now I don’t even know where the page had gone! Seems like Wikipedia is managed by anonymous people who arbitrarily decide what’s notable and what’s not. There’s so many other pages I’ve seen on Wikipedia for years of people with low-notability, so it just seems arbitrary. EdanTabain ( talk) 00:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 23:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, notability is not inherited and the sources provided are not indpendent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject of the article directly and indepth.  //  Timothy ::  talk  09:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Pearl King (disambiguation)

AfDs for this article:
Pearl King (disambiguation) (  | 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)

The previous nomination was closed because of the socking nominator and lack of participation. Pretty slamdunk case of WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend ( talk) 15:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 23:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, disambiguation can be accomplished in a hatnote. BD2412 T 04:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Also, the link leads to an article about the husband in which the wife is hardly mentioned. Suitskvarts ( talk) 21:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian ( talk) 20:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 02:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Dawn Prince-Hughes

Dawn Prince-Hughes (  | 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 due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article only cites three sources, with a local news article being the only secondary source. All other sources are primary (her own writing, an interview), tertiary (encyclopedia.com) or not independent of her (Western Washington University, where she was employed). Baronet13 ( talk) 23:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Clear WP:NAUTHOR pass, with additional WP:SIGCOV. Her memoir, Songs of the Gorilla Nation, was extremely widely reviewed, and has been the subject of scholarly work. Her other books have also received reviews and scholarly attention. I've added 6 reviews, a scholarly article, and a feature (the Chronicle article) to the footnotes. There will be more - this all came from a single database, and I didn't check google scholar or any newspaper-specific databases. -- asilvering ( talk) 04:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep. As per @ Asilvering CT55555( talk) 04:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment. These sources are about the book, not Dawn Prince-Hughes herself (the subject of the article) and contain little or no substantive information about Prince-Hughes that could be used in this article, which is probably why you cited five sources just to say she wrote a book and four sources to say she wrote another book. The additional sources did nothing to improve the article; it still has an entire section that doesn't cite any sources. It's impossible to write a good encyclopedia article relying almost exclusively on books reviews for source material. There is still no evidence of significant coverage of Prince-Hughes herself (the subject of the article) in secondary sources. Still fails WP:GNG. Baronet13 ( talk) 08:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    What do you expect sources for an author to be about? Her favourite colour or her cat's name? Sources for footballers are about football and sources for politicians are about politics, so sources for authors are about books. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would expect better sources than a small number of book reviews (ten reviews for the seven books she wrote). Almost every published book is reviewed, so just having a book reviewed is insufficient to establish notability. Baronet13 ( talk) 19:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's not the case - see WP:NAUTHOR. It is extremely standard for AfD discussions about authors to close as keep on the basis of multiple notable books; notability of books is commonly decided based on the depth and number of major media or academic reviews. -- asilvering ( talk) 19:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I should also add that I didn't cite five sources just to say she wrote a book and four sources to say she wrote another book. I put those footnotes on those sentences because that is the most logical place to place those sources. The article could be expanded with the information in those reviews, and now it is easier for another editor to do that. I haven't read any of her books myself and don't have any desire to expand her article, so that's as far as I'll go here, but I have nonetheless left the article in a better state than I found it. If you don't wish to expand it either, that's fine; so long as the subject is notable and there isn't anything outright false in the article, we can leave it as it stands. -- asilvering ( talk) 19:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Almost every published book is reviewed. citation needed Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Common knowledge. Baronet13 ( talk) 02:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Your knowledge appears to be false, or maybe more charitably based on sampling bias: the books you have heard of are more likely to be the ones that have been reviewed. But I have a long list of many books that I would like to create Wikipedia articles about but have not because I have been unable to find enough reviews. For many of these I have no reviews at all. For that matter we have five books in the nominated article for which we do not yet list any reviews. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    My knowledge is that I know several people who have written books that have been published, but no review has been published. This knowledge does not seem to be as common as you think. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC, e.g. One day, a gorilla touched her soul (Seattle PI, 2004), The Zoo Story (New York Times, 2004), Song of the Gorilla Nation Kirkus, 2004) (both the NYT and Kirkus reviews note the 2004 book is a memoir, and the Publisher's Weekly review also notes this plus a tour and advocacy related to the book), Inspiring stories of people on the autism spectrum (CBS News, 2016); there are also interviews on BBC and NPR that while mostly primary, may be helpful to further develop the article, and there is an abstract available on GScholar for a 2011 Disability Studies Quarterly article that "examine[s] two technical and professional writers in particular—Temple Grandin and Dawn Prince Hughes—showing how each invents a professional ethos that resists stereotypes about autism and what it means to be an "ideal" professional communicator." The article can be further developed with available sources, and as outlined in WP:NAUTHOR, the multiple reviews of her collective body of work are secondary support for her notability, not simply verification that she wrote books, similar to other notable author articles. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for all your work on this! -- asilvering ( talk) 20:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you, asilvering - author articles are some of my favorites to work on, and after you found so many great sources, this became an ooh! squirrel! opportunity for me. Cheers, Beccaynr ( talk) 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to the sources identified above establishing clear WP:NAUTHOR notability, there's this profile: [1] [2]. It's a local paper, so less weight for notability purposes than some of the above sources, but can be used as an additional source for biographical details. Jfire ( talk) 19:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the multiple reviews of multiple books identified in the article. In-depth coverage of an author's works should be sufficient to build an article centered on those works. In this case we also have a significant amount of separate biographical coverage but that is not necessary for AUTHOR notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for meeting the relevant standard. The idea that reviews of an author's work somehow don't contribute to the author being noteworthy floats around from time to time, and it never makes sense. We don't need a lavish profile with the subject's favorite beef stroganoff recipe and the roles they had in all the school plays. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just adding that since the AfD creation, the sources now clearly include multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Initial concerns are resolved. — siro χ o 09:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY after good work done by Beccaynr. Bearian ( talk) 20:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY and passes WP:AUTHOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Kareem Harris

Kareem Harris (  | 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) 23:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Tishan Hanley

Tishan Hanley (  | 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) 23:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • GiantSnowman - I added a few sources. He got a decent bit of coverage, mostly because he didn't stay to play in the country and because he's a striker and not a defender, which is sad. KatoKungLee ( talk) 23:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I added a bunch of sources but like always, there's 2 newspapers in St. Kitts and the rest of the world has virtually no interest in St. Kitts soccer. KatoKungLee ( talk) 23:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, article does not have RS with SIGCOV. Sources in article (including recently added) are brief mentions, stats, routine reporting, etc. Nothing that meet SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  //  Timothy ::  talk  09:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Carlos Bertie

Carlos Bertie (  | 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) 23:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Errol O'Loughlin

Errol O'Loughlin (  | 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) 22:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was wrong venue. This should be brought to WP:RFD Salvio giuliano 21:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorani abjad

Sorani abjad (  | 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)

The Sorani abjad redirect is inaccurate, as the Sorani abjad is technically not an abjad and is an alphabet. Blahhmosh ( talk) 20:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Obvious keep Redirects don't need to be a fully accurate description of their target, as long as they are something people are likely to search for when looking for that target, and it would be easy for someone to mistakenly call it the "Sorani abjad" considering that it's based on Persian, which is an abjad. small jars t c 20:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 21:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment; It's a WP:RfD case, by the way. My understanding is that redirects should be discussed there. Suitskvarts ( talk) 21:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    You are right, that was a brain fart on my part. Salvio giuliano 21:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Eastern Orthodox Church. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Order of Saint Benedict (Eastern Orthodox)

Order of Saint Benedict (Eastern Orthodox) (  | 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 group clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCHURCH. I found nothing from reliable independent sources on them.

Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve ( talk) 15:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. I'm a little loathe to delete, because I suspect there's a kernel here of a good article. If it's true that there's some subset of Orthodox monasteries and/or oblate programs that base themselves on the Rule of St Benedict, that does seem worthy of comment—and I can't shake the suspicion that there is commentary on it somewhere, if we knew where to look. But I've looked and can't find it, and the sources that the article does have are all garbage. So, delete! — Brian ( talk) 20:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment. I might be changing my mind on this as I keep researching. Some of the old unsourced information you deleted includes some good clues for finding the right alleyways. Here's a source, for example, that talks about a Benedictine monastery and the history of the Latin rite on Athos. I suspect I'll be able to find more. (I'm actually tempted to re-post some of the unsourced ideas you deleted with a flag, in case it helps others. But I'm not trying to start an edit war with you. Would you be opposed?) — Brian ( talk) 21:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Would you be opposed? yes I am opposed. If you want to add information, it must be sourced by reliable sources. Veverve ( talk) 00:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. Maybe I’ll go back and add it to the talk page for future reference. I just have a strong bias against deleting old unsourced information on WP unless its factuality has been directly challenged, especially on less-trafficked pages, for exactly this reason. I fear that by deleting all of that you’ve made it harder for an interested editor to bring the article up to WP standards. Brian ( talk) 10:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Bdhamilton: if you are interested, I wrote an entire essay to explain my reasoning on why such things should be done: WP:CHEWINGGUM. Veverve ( talk) 11:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Good read! I see where you're coming from, but I disagree in cases like these. A lot of the stuff that got deleted is fairly easy to find sources for. I wonder if a middle ground wouldn't be at least to add a note to the talk page about what was deleted, with a link to the last version of the article that included it all. Brian ( talk) 12:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Bdhamilton: I would not oppose you putting on the article's talk page information I have deleted and which you believe could be sourced in the future (by you or anyone else). This is I think a good compromise. I advise using either Template:Talk quote block or Template:Collapse, and Template:Reflist-talk. Veverve ( talk) 13:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Probably delete -- Benedictine is a Catholic order. This article is saying that its principles have been applied to an Antiochan Orthodox denomination, probably mainly in America. This has the feel of a splinter from a splinter, so that I doubt its notability. There may be scope for a brief merger to the parent denomination. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider option of Merge suggested by participant. But what target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge - I do not believe there is enough RS-based information here at this time, but imagine RS do exist to support merging with Eastern Orthodox Church either in the Holy orders section or Relations with other Christians section (with the latter probably the best target). However, I'm quite bad at finding sources and possible useful sources like church websites are notoriously hard to come across through search websites unless you know what you are looking for (due to few hyperlinks leading to them resulting in low search coefficients). — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Eastern Orthodox Church as there is enough coverage for a merge but not for a standalone article at present, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Participation in festivals and/or obtaining (minor) awards make it likely that sources exist and therefore preclude speedy deletion, for example. However, once at AfD, this is irrelevant and for an article to be kept notability has to be shown through in-depth independent reliable sources. Even the one "keep" !vote admits that the necessary sources cannot be found at this time. Randykitty ( talk) 22:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

A Father's Diary (film)

A Father's Diary (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 film. The three sources from Bangladesh are regurgitated press releases about upcoming showings at festivals. The source from Spain merely names the film in a photo caption. Policy WP:NOTPLOT tells us that the encyclopedia should treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing their development, design, reception, significance, and influence. Searches in English and Bengali found no independent analysis in secondary sources that could be used to write in an encyclopedic way about it (instead of simply promoting it by raising its profile). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOE. Worldbruce ( talk) 16:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The film is apparently an indie type one so that could be the reason why it has low media coverage about its production, development and design. However, it seems to be significant as it has received several recognitions at several foreign film festivals. Added some available online references. Abhishekrand ( talk) 16:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Unlike IMDb, Wikipedia is not intended to be an indiscriminate collection of every film ever on the festival circuit. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film tells us, "Because of the proliferation of film festivals and 'award mills', festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus." Adding more "said a press release" sources is not the way to demonstrate notability. If the film secures a distributor, then enough may be written about it to make it suitable for the encyclopedia, until then it is WP:TOOSOON. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 18:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
However, the film festivals mentioned here can be used to indicate the notability of the film. Isn't it? Abhishekrand ( talk) 15:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep : The list of awards on this page can be considered a valid claim for the film's notability Abhishekrand ( talk) 15:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. It's snowing. Star Mississippi 00:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Leo Liu

AfDs for this article:
Leo Liu (  | 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 a BLP of a non-notable person for whom there are no reliable sources. The closure of the initial AFD as "Keep" ignored the deficiency of sources and the lack of citation to sources claimed by "keep" advocates. There may be some confusion about sources, since there are large number of sources to other persons with the same name. This person is not notable. He is a teenage blogger who once appeared at TEDxEustis conference a year ago (TEDxEustis is not TED, and is held at a high school auditorium in a small town in Florida) and self-published a book that has no reviews by reliable sources. He clearly does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:Author Banks Irk ( talk) 20:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and China. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG/ WP:BIO. Woodroar ( talk) 22:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone can provide links to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The earlier AfD debate was deeply flawed. Cullen328 ( talk) 23:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Disruptive: This was closed less than a week ago and apart from the nom, this was unanimous "keep". If you don't agree with the previous close, take it to WP:DRV. Opening another AfD is plain disruptive. I'm taking this to ANI.-- Randykitty ( talk) 23:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    In most any other circumstances, yes this would be considered disruptive. But your bad close was so egregious that a new afd is rather justified. Zaathras ( talk) 02:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    To say that I disagree with your assessment would be an understatement, Randykitty. I encourage you to engage in some self-reflection. The closer's job is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments, not to count votes. One strong, policy based argument to delete ought to be more convincing than 100 ignorant, evidence free arguments to keep, especially when they are unrooted from policy. If you were unwilling to properly close a debate polluted by ill-informed, irrelevant opinions by newly created accounts, then you should have abstained and moved on, or you should have participated as an ordinary editor recommending "delete" instead of making that bad close. Cullen328 ( talk) 05:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Is this pile-on needed? The matter has been well hashed over at ANI. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Delete No indication of notability in the article, amazed to hear a previous AfD was closed as keep but that is not a reason to keep a non-notable article. Jeppiz ( talk) 23:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, did a google and looked at the sources which came up... Then I went and looked at the version of the page which existed during the last AfD and I'm genuinely not sure how it possible was kept. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: (from RSN) per nom and above editors; barring someone posting some GNG sources, it's an unreferenced BLP. I also don't quite understand how the last AFD ended in keep, but glitches happen, so do-over. Levivich ( talk) 23:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Far too trivial for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC). reply
  • Delete now that the bad sourcing has been removed, there is nothing left this person doesn't meet notability in reliable sources. Zaathras ( talk) 02:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the user above me. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 02:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per others. I'm surprised at how superficial the previous discussion was; such superficial discussions can't be considered a proper consensus. Those sources weren't reliable, and weren't properly scrutinised. I can't resist pointing out that TEDx has notoriously low standards for speakers (remember the Sam Hyde one?); it's basically equivalent to saying "this person attended a Toastmasters once", or "in his high school biology class, this person gave a presentation on spiders". DFlhb ( talk) 11:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete This article has zero sources cited. I'm assuming this dude wrote the article about himself, despite doing absolutely nothing notable. The-J-Verse ( talk) 17:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Isabella Escobar

Isabella Escobar (  | 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)

According to ITF records, appears to be a junior player that never made it as a professional. I can't find any evidence of meeting WP:NTENNIS now that Fed Cup participation has been removed from that guideline. I'm also not seeing enough coverage for WP:SPORTBASIC. I found a passing mention in El Norte, another in US State News and, finally, another in Siglo Veintiuno. None of that is even close to good enough. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete This person is not notable enough and I'm assuming she wrote the article about herself. The-J-Verse ( talk) 17:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, not notable for what amounts to a stub article. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek ( talk) 00:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Dabiri

Dabiri (  | 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)

Indian fashion company appears to fail WP:NCORP. Not my topic area so sending to AfD in case there are more knowledgeable editors. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 18:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of airports in the Caribbean. Randykitty ( talk) 17:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of airports in Saint Martin (island)

List of airports in Saint Martin (island) (  | 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 merge proposal, further to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airports in Aruba (2nd nomination). With 2 items this AfDd list is 100% better than the other lists nominated, yet it is still subpar. The 2 items should be included individually (per political unit) into List of airports in the Caribbean. The airports are already listed side by side in Saint Martin (island)#Airports and this is more than sufficient to emphasize that there are two airports on this politically divided island. gidonb ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Lists, Netherlands, and Caribbean. gidonb ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment #1 "With 2 items this AfDd list is 100% better than the other lists nominated..." has made me laugh every time I've read it this morning. Thank you. #2 You don't have to bring merge proposals to AfD. You can add {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags to the articles and begin a discussion on the talk page of the "merge into" article. Joyous! | Talk 18:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The same fella made another one of these annoying subtle jokes here. I consider reporting them to ANI. gidonb ( talk) 04:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Regarding mergeto/mergefrom: I used to be a huge advocate of this procedure as well. We can discuss sometime in another forum. gidonb ( talk) 13:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Alalch E. 20:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Cultural monuments of the Kosovo district

Cultural monuments of the Kosovo district (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
Cultural Monuments of Rasina District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cultural Monuments of the Toplica District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cultural Monuments of Kosovska Mitrovica District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cultural monuments of the Pirot district (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cultural monuments of the Peć district (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cultural monuments of the Bor District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cultural monuments of the Pčinja District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Short version: We don't want 31 lists (8 have been created so far but there are 23 to go), we don't want potentially even more than 31 lists, we want the two perfectly fine lists that we already have. And we want our stand-alone lists to follow WP:NLIST.

Long version: These duplicative lists contain the following content: The 'cultural monument' entries from the Immovable Cultural Heritage of Exceptional Importance (Serbia) (first-tier official status) mixed together with entries from Immovable Cultural Heritage of Great Importance (Serbia) (second-tier); the resulting pool of entries is then split by administrative division, while isolating only the 'cultural monument' class from the other three classes of protected 'objects'. This list structure exists on the Serbian Wikipedia ( sr:Категорија:Непокретна културна добра – entries containing "Списак споменика културе у"), and the author seems to have been copying those articles, perhaps not knowing that this whole topic has already received appropriate encyclopedic treatment here (if only on the list-level). The problems are as follows:

  • The content is simply duplicative with no additional depth provided. All of these entries are already included in appropriate lists, in a very similar table format. If the author wants to split the long-standing lists by district, he should propose a split, and not create pages that duplicate the scope. But splitting like this would be a bad idea, namely:
  • The nominated lists fail WP:LISTN, because grouping Serbian cultural heritage objects by administrative division is not supported by secondary sources. There is no meaningful link between the listed status and the district; these are national designations. There are currently eight such lists, but as there are 29 districts (24 functioning districts in Serbia proper and Vojvodina + 5 non-functioning districts making up the claimed province of Kosovo and Metohija) + 2 special-status cities, such continued creations would mean that the content currently covered by two articles is duplicated across 31 lists (that many exist on the Serbian Wikipedia). Going further...
  • Since the eight nominated pages are limited to 'cultural monuments', but seeing how Serbia's 'Immovable Cultural Heritage' comprises four classes of 'objects': 'cultural monuments', archaeological sites, 'historic landmarks' and 'spatial cultural-historical units', this means that we could get even more such articles for the remaining classes of objects. (Also, if selecting by administrative division, however irrelevant that is, why then also select only a single class of object?) Considering the tempo of these creations, and understanding that this is a part of wholesale copying of an entire parallel list structure from another-language Wikipedia, this is edging toward WP:MASSCREATE.

— Alalch E. 17:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • That is true, and it's something I remembered at one point, and then looked if there are any third-tier objects in the eight lists, but I couldn't determine that there are any. This is made harder by the fact that the eight lists don't distinguish between the level of protection. In any case the vast majority of entries seem to belong to the top two tiers comprising "Immovable Cultural Heritage". Maybe it would be simpler to start all over, using your list format, and simply copying the table rows from the two lists into per-tier sections for each 'of/in district X' list, as it helps that your lists indicate which is which tier (maybe individual rows could even be transcluded -- demonstration), and then add notable third-tier entries to the bottom, then to look each entry up to see which level of protection it is listed under; certainly the level of protection must be indicated. — Alalch E. 23:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Alalch E.: Ah, I think I understand the issue now. You probably checked on of the (new) lists that covers a district in Kosovo. For the territory Kosovo, the Central register only lists those objects that belong to the two higher classes. I don't know why, but the third-tier objects from Kosovo are missing, and it is impossible to find a list on the internet. So, for the Kosovo districts, those new list are indeed the duplicates of my lists. But, I checked Cultural Monuments of Rasina District, and it really lists all the cultural monuments, from all three classed of protection. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes that's right: I primarily checked the Kosovo District list and only briefly compared several entries from 3-4 other lists but not nearly as thoroughly. That does mean that the duplication reason for this nomination is significantly undermined. Well, I'll have to sleep on this. Thank you very much for the feedback. — Alalch E. 00:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment #2: If those articles are to be kept, I recommend renaming them into "Immovable Cultural Heritage of the Kosovo district" (and so on), and adding the objects that belong to the three other types of heritage. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, that would be a logical step if keeping. — Alalch E. 23:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the comments, I totally agree, let's rename the required articles, please can you give advice how to save the articles? Leto III Atreides ( talk) 10:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Nominator comment: Many things have been cleared up:
    • The new lists, while partly overlapping with the old lists, are not truly duplicative because there is a third, long, government register of cultural heritage objects (the third tier of protection), and these territorial lists do, in fact, include third-tier cultural heritage objects (some incidentally don't because there are no third-tier listed objects in some of the administrative districts), some of which are notable and should be included in a list. Or lists.
    • It doesn't seem worthwhile for me to keep arguing lack of WP:NLIST for using the adm. districts of Serbia (as opposed to something else) as the territorial selection criterion, because so far the participants have not shown an interest in this argument; I could probably talk more about this, but as it's a rather obscure issue, I foresee that basing the deletion case on this will not lead to anything.
    • There seems to be agreement that the new lists should differentiate between the tier of protection (which they currently don't). Color coding can be used for the tables, but it's probably better to group entries by tier in separate tables (within a single list).
    • There seems to be agreement that the new lists should include all classes of 'objects': 'cultural monuments', archaeological sites, 'historic landmarks' and 'spatial cultural-historical units' (not just the first class). This implies a significant change to the scope of the existing eight lists, and means that the remaining 23 list that will be created should not be created as 'cultural monument' lists, but rather as 'Immovable Cultural Heritage' lists. Existing lists need to be renamed, which is outside of the scope of an AfD; this isn't a contentious matter.
      (Also worth noting: The districts aren't "districts" anymore. Since 2006, they are "administrative districts". Therefore, an example name would be "Immovable Cultural Heritage of Pirot administrative district" or perhaps better "Immovable Cultural Heritage in Pirot administrative district" which more accurately denotes that it's cultural heritage of Serbia that's located in this or that adm. district)
    • The issue of inconsistent table formatting wasn't commented on, but I will keep insisting that the formatting be consolidated; possibly entries (table rows) can even even undergo Help:Labeled section transclusion (marked by register number). From my perspective a lot of work needs to be done on the nominated lists, almost evoking WP:TNT, but deletion is not required for the effort to succeed.
    • Categorization with respect to Kosovo categories will need to be considered.
  • This being said, I withdraw the nomination. Pinging Vanjagenije and Leto III Atreides so they see this comment; if you're interested in continuing the conversation / coordinating efforts, ping me on a talk page of your choosing. Sincerely— Alalch E. 20:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Majid Akbari

AfDs for this article:
Majid Akbari (  | 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 find anything in Persian searches apart from the usual database sources. I have translated the only non-database source in the article here and it's only a trivial mention in a list of transferred players. There is no evidence that Akbari meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC so I can't see any alternative but to delete for a second time. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller ( talk) 17:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Burhanettin Muz

Burhanettin Muz (  | 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. Kadı Message 16:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Kadı Message 16:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Bilateral relations, and Algeria. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only primary sources provided. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 00:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are multiple print encyclopaedia articles about him as well as multiple reviews of his work in literary magazines. Please see my comment in the Turkish-language version of this AfD for the specific citations. Kadı, I don't think it's a particularly productive use of everyone's time to simultaneously nominate articles for deletion in both languages, I would recommend sticking to one language at a time as otherwise there is unnecessary forking/duplication. -- GGT ( talk) 14:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I withdraw the nomination. Thanks to @ GGT for finding valuable sources. Kadı Message 08:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Aysar Qasim Mohammed

Aysar Qasim Mohammed (  | 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)

For a footballer to be notable, they must meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The latter clearly states that [sports] biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. I have searched in Swedish and Arabic and not found any sources that meet requirements. Draft:Aysar Qasim Mohammed already exists. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sofascore.com/dalkurd-ff-enkopings-sk/FKskVi Yes Yes No Database sources are deprecated per WP:SPORTBASIC. ✘ No
https://www.dalkurd.se/index.php/a-laget/truppen No His employer No No Contains only his name and squad number ✘ No
https://no.soccerstats247.com/spillere/aysar-qasim-qasim-mohammed-863391/ Yes Yes No Database sources are deprecated per WP:SPORTBASIC. ✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/aysar-qasim-qasim-mohammed/863391/ Yes Yes No Database sources are deprecated per WP:SPORTBASIC. ✘ No
https://tembah.net/en/player?p=863391 ? ? No Database sources are deprecated per WP:SPORTBASIC. ✘ No
https://www.hitta.se/aysar+qasim+mohammed/uppsala/person/msuhlcq No No No No prose coverage ✘ No
https://www.kooora.com/?n=1106499 Yes Yes No Only a passing mention - mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.ina.iq/146267--.html Yes Yes No Mentioned once in a squad list ✘ No
https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/aysar-qasim-mohammad/ Yes Yes No Database sources are deprecated per WP:SPORTBASIC. ✘ No
https://www.transfermarkt.com/aysar-qasim-mohammed/profil/spieler/1071706 Yes No WP:TRANSFERMARKT No Database sources are deprecated per WP:SPORTBASIC. ✘ No
https://aysarqasim.com/ No His own website No No ✘ No
https://www.instagram.com/aysar_qasim/ No His own social media No No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone can add "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Cullen328 ( talk) 23:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney ( talk) 03:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The references don’t establish notability per WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, or WP:NATHLETE, not to mention WP:NBIO. I did my own search for any sources that might have been missed and didn’t find any that would qualify as reliable, secondary, and independent. Based on these findings, deletion is appropriate. Shawn Teller ( talk) 17:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

LOWERN

AfDs for this article:
LOWERN (  | 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)

Pretty straightfoward case of WP:NEOLOGISM, and there's a pretty decent bar for scientific jargon acronyms getting an article. From that policy To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term. . . Not finding any real discussion of the acronym itself, and there are plenty of sources that discuss the underlying concepts without attempting an acronym. Article has also been unsourced since 2009, and I can't find any significant reliable sources actually focusing on the term on a level to satisfy WP:N.

The only sources that seem to tangentially show up are are a few bottom of the barrel things like teaching worksheets, student presentations, etc. or WP:CIRCULAR. What I can find for source quality doesn't seem to meet the bar for inclusion even in climate articles to show the acronym is widely used, much less a dedicated article. It really looks like a few teachers just slapped together an acronym years ago (article created in 2009) and nothing really came of it since. KoA ( talk) 16:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of airports in the Caribbean. Randykitty ( talk) 15:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of airports in Aruba

AfDs for this article:
List of airports in Aruba (  | 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)

Totally unnecessary list with just one item! Merge into List of airports in the Caribbean. gidonb ( talk) 15:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Also nominating:
List of airports in Bonaire
List of airports in Saba
List of airports in Sint Eustatius
to be merged to the same. gidonb ( talk) 15:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge, with notes, maybe add a category for the island its on so that we dont need the subpages (this is my first AFD in a while might have formatted wrong) - Bad At This ( yell at me) 15:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and salt. Randykitty ( talk) 14:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Behzad Qasemi (Hacktivist)

AfDs for this article:


Behzad Qasemi (Hacktivist) (  | 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)

Was declined twice at AfC, once by Star Mississippi and once by Mako001, then was moved into mainspace by the article creator after adding 2 sources which do not go in-depth about the subject, as well as being from sources which might not be reliable. I sent back to draft for further development, but was returned to mainspace. As per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, not eligible for draftifying again, so we are here. Onel5969 TT me 14:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: No better in terms of notability than the draft I declined. The way that the (unreliable) sourcing is used crosses the line into original research in places. Since there is at least some chance that this person may become notable, I wouldn't oppose allowing it to be undeleted to userspace or draftspace upon request. But if undeleted at the request of the article creator, it must only be moved to mainspace after being accepted at AfC. Whilst I really want this salted, I suspect it wouldn't help much, though I wouldn't oppose salting. Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 23:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 03:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article has the basic recognition to remain in the encyclopedia and is written in an encyclopedic tone. In addition to this issue, he refers to reliable sources such as: the official newspaper of Iran, reliable news agencies and the Federation of Communication and Information Technology of Iran. The article is not advertising in any way and refers to the investigation of a person who plays a key role in freedom of information in Iran. Garshaasp 18:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Fails to prove notability. Alex-h ( talk) 13:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT This article has been deleted via AfD twice at Behzad Qasemi and is already salted in that namespace. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 20:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT, per User:GPL93. Fad Ariff ( talk) 13:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 14:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Matt Field

Matt Field (  | 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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep ( talk) 11:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

On the other hand, he has an OBE which is pretty significant. Sadly, I do not know much about this person and therefore cannot add m ore information to his page. Yet, I would be in favor of keep. Madigo11 ( talk) 20:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 14:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep a quick search for Czech "Matt Field" velvyslanec reveals that he was noted by some major Czech media days after he was appointed. Ambassadors of Great Britain in the Czech Republic are usually notable in the Czech public space. Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 08:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: is coverage significant?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 22:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

StegAlyzerAS

StegAlyzerAS (  | 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 decent references available with a cursory Google search only showing PR or developer written pieces. Developer doesn't have a Wikipedia article itself so don't believe the software should either. - Rich T| C| E-Mail 13:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 14:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 14:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable software that does not pass WP:NPRODUCT, searching on Google gives no reliable secondary sources. MaterialWorks (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Randykitty ( talk) 14:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

BENGpire

BENGpire (  | 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 TV show. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 12:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 14:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. "He's the first to..." is a presumption of notability and would preclude WP:SD#A7. However, once we're at AfD, notability must be shown,not just presumed. Therefore, the "delete" !votes have the stronger policy-based arguments. Randykitty ( talk) 14:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Rawlston Masaniai

Rawlston Masaniai (  | 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. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - "one of the first players from American Samoa to play at international level" seems like notability to me. Unfortunately, media in American Samoa is particularly poor, which makes it hard to get references. I'd also like to draw people's attention to the comment from the closer on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination): "As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries." This seems to be exactly such a case where we need to be careful about deletion.-- IdiotSavant ( talk) 09:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per IdiotSavant. He is also the only American Samoan to play in Europe. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 21:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'd be more inclined to give this a pass if he had more than zero goals in six appearances at the international level... I'd imagine there would be some discussion of him in European media, but his career is nothing special (in my analysis anyway). PSA Elite is an amateur club and a third-level team in Germany aren't GNG-worthy. Had he not been from American Samoa, he'd be deleted. Unless we can come up with a story or two in the media about him in Europe, it's a Delete for me. I'd be wiling to give it a weak keep if he had a somewhat better career; he's basically a fellow from overseas playing low-level soccer and doesn't seem to be anything special. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm comparing this to the Irene Dubois AfD; they've at least had several interviews that help establish visibility, so a member of the public would find something useful in a Wiki article. This soccer player's article is basically a list of where he's played and stats; nothing for any sort of critical commentary about him or anything to paint a picture of him. It appears he tried to make it on the world soccer stage and never quite went anywhere. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes GNG with references on page.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 07:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The first 5 citations on the page are to non-independent sporting bodies Red XN, the 6th is pure stats Red XN, I get an error message from the 7th, the 8th is a passing mention in a squad list Red XN, the 9th and 10th are stats Red XN, the last is again non-independent Red XN. Nothing remotely close to justify keeping, especially considering the absolute requirement sports bios contain a citation to GNG coverage to even benefit from achievement-based presumptions of further SIGCOV. Without that, the fact that he played at an international level is automatically rejected as an invalid argument. And the implications of racist bias are just slimy. JoelleJay ( talk) 07:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Added one GNG-passing source from the Los Angeles Times. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    You mean the two-sentence blurb accompanying his name and all the other names of the high school county first and second team members?! No that absolutely does not contribute to GNG, what on earth! That a) is not even close to SIGCOV; b) fails NSPORT decidedly; c) is a routine announcement most certainly contributed by coaches (do you really think newspaper journalists personally researched all 44 high schoolers to independently determine why they were selected?). JoelleJay ( talk) 00:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I believe he's referring to this one. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 00:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah that is less preposterous, but still entirely fails independence as well as NSPORT. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Its written by an LA Times staff writer – how is it non-independent? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 00:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
You know full well that pieces consisting almost wholly of primary quotes from the subject/affiliates cannot count toward GNG. This is even more the case for high schoolers. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yikes. I'd say the second source is a little better than "less preposterous" than said two-sentence blurb in source #1. Also, it would be interesting to hear how you think a piece from an LA Times staff writer is not independent. I am well aware we would probably need at least two GNG-passing sources; I was simply pointing out the addition of a good one. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
It's not independent or secondary because it's almost entirely quotes/repeating what he or people close to him said. Additionally, it fails YOUNGATH. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 12:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Although the LA Times article is useful coverage, I agree with JoelleJay that it runs afoul of WP:YOUNGATH - there simply isn't "substantial and prolonged coverage" of his time in high school sports. Nothing else comes close to WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney ( talk) 14:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 14:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Andrej Drapal

Andrej Drapal (  | 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 biography has no independent sources offering significant coverage. At the time I write this, it has 11 cites. I'll go through them - #1 and #3 are trivial mentions. #2,#8,#10, and #11 are all written by the biography subject and are not independent. #4 is an article about political lobbying that quoted him a couple of times, but doesn't offer significant biographical details. #5,#6,#7, and #9 are documents published by organizations he is associated with mentioning his name, not independent. I believe this does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBIO and should be deleted. Side note, this appears to be a slightly altered copy of the subject's autobiography from Draft:Andrej Drapal which was copied to the mainspace without attribution. I noticed it when the COI editor began linking it in various articles. MrOllie ( talk) 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MrOllie ( talk) 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Philosophy, and Slovenia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, independent sources are the first condition for GNG. I did some quick search but could not find anything substantial. -- Tone 13:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete given the lack of independent sources and reliable coverage. Appears to be a autobiographical vanity article. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 17:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I did an in depth search for sources and coverage myself and didn’t find anything that would satisfy WP:SIGCOV by reliable independent secondary sources. The article subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. If the subject passed either of these, there would be a stronger case for keeping, but as it stands the article should be deleted. Shawn Teller ( talk) 12:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Randykitty ( talk) 13:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Ant Ul Hayat

Ant Ul Hayat (  | 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)

Notability doesn't establish per WP:NFP, sources are unreliable and blogposts, not in-depth coverage in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 13:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. Randykitty ( talk) 13:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

William Afton

William Afton (  | 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 case of WP:NOTPLOT, the refs in the reception section are all brief mentions, when the character is mentioned at all. Does not meet WP:GNG. Redirect was challenged. Onel5969 TT me 13:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect for now, but keep alive the possibility of restoring its article if and when the movie comes out AND more independent RS's come out. My position lies mostly with ZXC and Mike Allen, but the topic has potential in the future if more RS's come out. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 00:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect, but consider the fact that the franchise is coming out with a movie soon, and William Afton will be an important character in the movie. I understand that that in itself is not alone to qualify this article to stay. It does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT , there's no actual need for a whole wikipedia page for William Afton, even if the lore behind him is excruciatingly long and complicated. His subsection in wikipedia's FNAF article should be enough and a lot of this information can simply be added there. As a FNAF fan myself, I would love it if there was a million different articles that talk in detail about the lore of each FNAF character, but that violates wikipedia's WP:NOTPLOT, and that's what wiki fandom is for. Rickandmorty4ever ( talk) 01:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Barbaros Hayreddin: Sultan's Edict

Barbaros Hayreddin: Sultan's Edict (  | 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)

Television series doesn't seem to meet GNG - coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for a TV series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

DO not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:28B5:EB00:D13C:29FC:53F0:1604 ( talk) 15:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller ( talk) 12:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Ken Martin (politician)

Ken Martin (politician) (  | 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 pass WP:NPOL as he hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere ( talk) 21:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, notable state party chair, meets WP:GNG Andre 🚐 22:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Andrevan This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. -- Bedivere ( talk) 22:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    It is well-referenced enough to pass GNG, and AFD is not cleanup. This individual was also vice DNC chair along with state party chair. Andre 🚐 22:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Minnesota. Shellwood ( talk) 22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral: As usual, state party chairs are not inherently notable ex officio but may be notable depending on the strength of coverage. In this case, the coverage is quite superficial despite being high in quantity. Curbon7 ( talk) 13:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm seeing at least two or three bits of significant coverage in reliable sources, so passes GNG. Springnuts ( talk) 10:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the coverage sufficient since the position is not inherently notable
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 11:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. State-level chair of major party, with adequate independent sources. Kablammo ( talk) 13:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Ajax Orlando Prospects players

List of Ajax Orlando Prospects players (  | 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 list of non-notable people. The team in question was a 4th-tier developmental football club in the USA, and it folded 15+ years ago. None of the players here will be notable enough to have an article created to fill out this page, and there's already a category ( Category:Ajax Orlando Prospects players) that can group together any that do end up being notable enough for a page. fuzzy510 ( talk) 11:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Agree with nomination, there is no indication how this list qualifies under WP:NLIST. Regards Govvy ( talk) 17:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom. Does not show notability. Kierzek ( talk) 00:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There appears to be legitimate disagreement as to whether the sources provided constitute SIGCOV, but numerically the tilt toward deletion is sufficient to constitute consensus in this case. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Scott MacNicol

Scott MacNicol (  | 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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - more like 6 mate. You found some decent references for this one I'll give you that. Simione001 ( talk) 22:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • They are not all from today so not nominated in short time as you suggested. Thanks. Simione001 ( talk) 22:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Sure, they are not all from the same day but it is still a relatively short time. Also, I appreciate you creating many soccer articles no matter how small they are, but I find it frustrating that you do that while deleting many others hard work such as Dauntae Mariner and this article. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 23:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment MacNicol or McNicol ? The old BBC ref has McNicol, [10], but it seems MacNicol is more correct. No profile on soccerway is a red flag for me. Also, he is manager for a semi pro club where as the club article Rochedale Rovers FC is in terrible shape, (shouldn't it be moved to Rochedale Rovers F.C.?) Regardless of the citations and cover. From the article and provided above, I am not really that impressed. To me it's a case of citations being too local to the location of the club and where they play. I am not sure whether to weak keep or side with delete which is the way I am leaning too. Govvy ( talk) 09:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I tried to have a look into this, but I am still not impressed, with the sourcing available in the article, the links posted above and google. To me this is not sufficient to pass GNG on wikipedia. Govvy ( talk) 23:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Govvy:, @ GiantSnowman:, [11] and [12] are from national UK newspapers. The many other sources I found above are all from reliable sources and newspapers as well. Also definitely has offline coverage, having played and scored in fully pro Scottish Premier League and had extensive career in Australian top flight and as a coach. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 20:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The coverage might be from good, reputable sources (although the Record is a tabloid), but it is not significant. Giant Snowman 21:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Das osmnezz: Sorry, but my delete vote still stands, I still don't see enough here. Regards, Govvy ( talk) 22:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, significant sources that pass GNG.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 09:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, significant sources that (albeit just) pass GNG. Springnuts ( talk) 11:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi ( talk) 11:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The sources above are not independent enough to pass GNG, interviews and such. There is insufficient coverage. Also, I don't see how mentioning that the nominator has also nominated numerous other articles is relevant here. -- IWI ( talk) 11:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The sources listed by Das osmnezz come nowhere close to meeting GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 04:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sources are individual match reports, interviews or not significant and as such do not meet GNG. Avilich ( talk) 04:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn their nomination and no editors have voted to Delete this article so I'm closing this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Donkey (Shrek)

Donkey (Shrek) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | [ since nomination])
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Im open for any criticism, but I think there are only few reliable sources about this character. Recent source only shows this [13] I think. GlatorNator ( talk) 11:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 1 I don't seem to have access to this, but it appears to be entirely about this character. 2, and 3, from which I quote in part: "One of these beings, a talking donkey, is not so much like a fairy tale character as he is like the central figure in the second-century novel The Golden Ass by Apuleius (1994) (a devotee of the Green Goddess Isis). Donkey persists in accompanying Shrek, first as an unwelcome sidekick and later an essential friend." "Key to his emotional rescue is his friendship with Donkey, the talking ass. Shrek, voiced by Mike Myers, has a Scottish accent. Donkey, voiced by Eddie Murphy, has an unmistakably African-American style of speech. This conventional pairing of white hero and darker sidekick is a problematic aspect of Shrek. First of all, the pairing is a common one reflecting racial hierarchies. Moreover, Donkey (who apparently has no other name)7 is characterized in ways that draw upon some stereotypic “coon” associations (Pilgrim, 2000)—the African-American man as a figure of comic relief, one who is vulgar, shiftless, cowardly, and dominated by women. These racist representations are projections, telling us nothing about African-Americans but instead, pointing to traits whites fear or reject in themselves in order to maintain a view of themselves as more “properly” gendered, rational, civilized, and superior." And it goes on from there... Thus, multiple academic (independent, reliable) RS'ed discourses on Shrek covering this character in a non-trivial manner, GNG is met, and editing can fix any problems which remain. Jclemens ( talk) 17:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I found what's most likely WP:SIGCOV in The Fantasy Film by Katherine A. Fowkes (p. 121-123), as well as significant mentions in Investigating Shrek and other books, such as what has been mentioned above. Donkey is mentioned a lot as a controversial figure and there is enough for a pretty large reception section on him. See also WP:NEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw I would like to Withdraw. GlatorNator ( talk) 23:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. The creator of the article requested deletion in good faith, and the article has no substantial contributions from other editors. Mz7 ( talk) 10:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Forcas and Careiras Ocean Territory

Forcas and Careiras Ocean Territory (  | 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)

Alleged micronation based only on old fandom page. No RIS found. Definitely not notable. Mccapra ( talk) 09:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah there's a reason for that and it's because that's the only things that pop up MaizeninReignsapark ( talk) 11:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Not just that all the links I found in Perplexity led me to flags MaizeninReignsapark ( talk) 12:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I’ve no idea why you created the article if you’re agreeing that there are only junk sources. It’s just a waste of time. Mccapra ( talk) 18:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Already speedy deleted so I guess we can close this. Mccapra ( talk) 08:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

A Kaliyamurthy

A Kaliyamurthy (  | 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)

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While opinions are divided, in my view the "delete" side makes the more persuasive arguments in the light of applicable guidelines. While it is not contested that the company has received coverage in several media, the discussion turns on the quality and depth of this coverage and its independence from the company. With respect to these characteristics, I think that the "delete" side has done a better job in addressing the quality and independence of each source and arguing why it's in their view inadequate, while the "keep" side is more readily satisfied, to simplify, with making arguments in the vein of "it's in the NYT ergo the company is notable". I am also taking seriously, given the generally promotional tone of the article and the vehemence with which it is defended here, the possibility that Wikipedia is being misused for advertising purposes here. Sandstein 09:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Menē Inc.

Menē Inc. (  | 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:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. Refs are PR, routine business news and press-releases. scope_creep Talk 06:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. AllyD ( talk) 07:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep, sources verify that this is a well-known company co-founded by the well-known granddaughter of Pablo Picasso. Notability has been established. Please also contact WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep as the creator of this page, I responded to any and all feedback from far more editors than just Scope creep. Other editors chimed in and removed material that may have run afoul of WP:Promo. The sources included are demonstrably more than just " ...PR...", or " ...routine business news..." and certainly not all are mere "press releases." Respectfully, the nom should familiarize himself with WP:BEFORE and close this nomination in favor of keep TY— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 15:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above, sources are in-depth in their coverage of the company, and are reliable sources, and per the points Atsme provided below. I have to admit, however: there's a lot of fierce bludgeoning in this AfD discussion! I would upgrade it to Speedy Keep, though the oppose votes have good points as well! I'll vote as keep for now!though I would improve the citations (including Reference 5, YouTube isn't generally a reliable source). Tails Wx 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Its amazes me how many people are willing to suspend Wikipedias consenus regarding established policy to save a brochure advertising article, in an attempt to help some friends, that looks awfully like canvassing. Pablo Picasso has nothing to do with it, as notability is not inherited and posting the vogue and the NY articles links as though they are valid references is a woeful, particularly when they are so obviously PR and read like PR is woeful. We will go through the references. Any suspicion of socking behaviour will immediately be reported to SPI. scope_creep Talk 17:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    No one is suspending a single item "regarding established policy", and cleanup was made regarding your initial comments which were valid. Your opposition now seems to be based more in a refusal to accept the consensus as it now stands regarding the article. You may continue to hammer your same points over and over, but that does not make them any more valid than previously. Maybe read up on what PR actually is. TY — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 17:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please everyone, assume good faith, in everybody. No need to name call or get into areas outside of the topic. Picasso, on her own, is notable, she doesn't have to inherit it from her grandfather. A known art curator and historian. This sourced page correctly takes her notability into account. Randy Kryn ( talk) 18:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Fair point Randy Kryn. Appreciate the reminder. It is always an important point that cannot be emphasized enough, the WP:AGF tenet. :) — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 19:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    She has plenty about her on her own too, you are 100% correct. Here is her page, Diana Widmaier Picasso. In no way was this about 'inherited notability' at any time. TY — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 19:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - passes GNG - (just added 7 more RS in comment below, including Barrons, Vogue, Financial Times), the NYTimes article is cited, as are several others but the company also has an article in Vogue (magazine), and Elle (magazine) that could be used to expand the article a bit more. The nom apparently did not perform an adequate WP:BEFORE because the sources are there. Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether or not the content about a notable business is promo or straight-up information describing why the business is notable - there is a fine line, especially when jewelry and fashion are involved. Liken it to use-distinction and how certain articles use terms like "hit a homerun", or "it was a successful year for the team", or describing a movie as "thrilling". In this particular case, it is gold jewelry by notable designers but with emphasis on the composition and weight of each piece. I toned it down a lot, but we cannot completely eliminate what makes the business notable, or that it mines gold and platinum in the US & Canada, and one of the company's unique aspects include its trademark, its designers, and its history. That type of content about a notable business is not promotion when the tone is matter-of-fact. Atsme 💬 📧 02:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Per policy WP:GNG doesn't apply for companies, it is WP:NCORP and has been since 2016. scope_creep Talk 10:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
No, it is not "per policy" because those are guidelines, not policies. In fact, GNG clearly states: WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). Based on this AfD discussion, the keeps are very strong, especially when matched against your single delete. The article satisfies significant coverage per GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.. Vogue magazine, Elle, the NYTimes, and the multiple listings in investment news such as Bloomberg, etc. are quite sufficient to satisfy our policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT and WP:NEXIST. Keep in mind, this company is about fashionable jewelry and investment, thus the citing of coverage in the sources used. That does not make it promotional – it is factual information in the Fashion and/or Investment sections. I doubt the company will be covered by CNN Headline News, unless they get robbed, or in a published book by an academic or historian, at least not this early in time. It's notable based on all the keep iVotes. Atsme 💬 📧14:05, February 26, 2023
  • Let me roll in here on this. There has been much debate on how NCORP is applied and the takeaway (i.e. consensus) is that NCORP does not change the requirements of GNG but instead lays out precisely how sources are to be examined with a view on notability. Put another way - if a topic passes GNG then it must also pass NCORP - if it doesn't, it means GNG wasn't correctly applied. Similary if a topic passes NCORP it must pass GNG. Other SNGs (usually the ones for specialized functions such as for academics and professors or for geographic features) have added additional criteria to establish notability - this isn't the case for NCORP. Also, the GNG section you've quoted from confirms all of this and says that SNG can provide *examples* of sources and types of coverage considered significant (which is what NCORP does) and goes on to confirm this saying the strict coverage requirements spelled our in the SNG for organizations and companies. Getting back to what you've said at the start - you say the article satisfies "significant coverage" as per GNG. I agree, there is a significant coverage but it is not "Independent Content" (see WP:ORGIND). Each source must meet all of the criteria (see WP:SIRS) so the other sections can't just be ignored willy-nilly. HighKing ++ 18:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • While your criticism is offered in GF, I've always been the kind of editor who gracefully accepts constructive criticism from collaborators, but this is not one of those times. Your criticism is based on the wrong guideline, and fails to take into consideration the last few sentences of WP:ORGSIG as follows: However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products, though articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable per WP:NOTADVERTISING. We already cleaned-up the prose - it's not PROMO - and we established the fact that Mene is not a local company that works out of a garage. One of the founders owns a goldmine or two, and the co-founder is an art historian and curator, and granddaughter of Picasso. Their products are on display internationally in notable museums, and we have barely begun to explore all the coverage per WP:NEXIST relating to some of the artful, historic design of the jewelry. You are also incorrect about "independent content" as well as independent sources, and it appears you don't have a really good handle on what makes a source independent, or perhaps I misunderstood you? Significant coverage in independent sources has already been established, so let's not belabor the obvious. There is zero connection with the cited sources and Mene. I just added an additional 7 independent sources below, such as Barrons, Vogue, Financial Times, Architectural Digest, and MarketWatch. Forgive me for taking advantage of this opportunity to suggest that you consider becoming an NPP reviewer after taking one of the tutorial courses at WP:NPPSCHOOL. We have highly experienced teachers who can help polish some of the rough edges in your approach to notability, and also validate what you already know to be true. It can be as much fun as you make it. We need confident, competent reviewers, who fully understand the process, and what makes an article notable or worthy of inclusion. NPPSCHOOL does a very good job at it, and we are always in need of good reviewers. Atsme 💬 📧 19:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • WP:NCORP (in conjunction with GNG) is the correct guideline for companies, big and small alike. It is notable that you mention the founders as a reason of notability but notability isn't inherited - see WP:INHERITORG. The products are not the subject of this article so articles that are about the product (without providing in-dept info on the company) don't assist in establishing notability of the company. Thanks for your opinion on what you believe my level of understanding of what makes a source "Independent" but for me, it is you that hasn't grasped the following part of WP:ORGIND - "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Can you point out a paragraph within any of the sources you've listed which contains something that meets this requirement? I'll post my analysis of sources below (actually I see that an analysis was already done and I agree with it). Thank you for your suggestion that I need to take a NPPSCHOOL tutorial - perhaps instead I'll point to my experience at NCORP-related AfDs where you will clearly see my !voting tends to be much more in line with consensus (and therefore an understanding of the guidelines) that your own. HighKing ++ 14:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The fact the reference has been written by the NY Times doesn't necessarily make it valid. The NY Times takes the advertising dollar as much anybody else on the planet and they are as good at writing PR as anybody else on the planet. Lets looks at the references.
  • Ref 1 [14] This is PR that fails WP:SIRS. It is not in-depth and is essentially an interview failing WP:ORGIND.
  • Ref 2 [15] A case report for buying stock. Most of the content comes from the website and company publications. It is not independent and fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 3 [16] This reads like PR and its interview failing WP:ORGIND.
  • Ref 4 [17] Press-release fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 5 [18] Interview with Roy Sebag. Non-RS It is non-rs, WP:PRIMARY and fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 6 [19] Not independent, reads like a press-release and fails WP:SIRS. Non-RS
  • Ref 7 [20] PR. Single paragraph, not significant coverage, fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 8 [21] The shop itself, which is non-RS and shows its a brochure article.
  • Ref 9 [22] Classic PR. "Though the line has just launched", "Cohosted by Mene’s Diana Widmaier Picasso" It a launch event. Fails WP:ORGIND, and WP:SIRS.

Looking at the 9 references, 2 are non-rs, 1 is a press-release, 3 are interviews 1 is a small case report that is not in-depth, 2 are PR. Not a single secondary source that satisfies WP:SIRS. There has been an attempt to update the article per WP:HEYMANN to remove very obvious WP:PROMO content that read like a marketing skit, but what is left is equallly worthless as its all comes from the company. The case report which is a direct copy of blog and company content including their public financials would have been the best ref if it was truly indepenent. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep Talk 10:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • WP:NEXIST, the cited sources pass "significant coverage", and there is no PROMO. Investment jewelry is quite notable as demonstrated in Marketwatch, yet another source I just found that includes information about Mene, and it is not trivial.
  • Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.

    Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

  • Reviewers should already know this. Atsme 💬 📧 18:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
This is a load of waffle and doesn't address the fact that the references are really weak and don't support WP:NCORP. scope_creep Talk 08:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Well, looky here - I found more RS, imagine that! I'd say this article is a WP:SK so upgrading my iVote.
  1. Barrons
  2. Vogue
  3. Financial Times
  4. Architectural Digest
  5. TMX Money
  6. The French Jewelry Post
  7. In Store Magazine
And there are more. I'm pretty sure notability has been established. This is what NPP reviewers are expected to do before nomming an article for AfD - WP:BEFORE Atsme 💬 📧 17:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Response Not a single source above meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. These are either PR, interviews or puff profiles, none of which contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Can you highlight a specific section or paragraph which you believe meets the criteria? HighKing ++ 15:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a public WP:LISTED company so surely analysts and the financial press are covering it to some extent. Investors need to know what they're putting their money into. At the least there should be press to be found around their IPO when they were selling the company to investors. – wbm1058 ( talk) 23:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    wbm1058, I don't think the TSX really meets the level of attention the NYSE to merit assumption of sources. If this company was listed on the TSX 60, I think that argument could be made, but that is not the case for Mene. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well it isn't listed on the CSE like Wikileaf, Curaleaf, and NameSilo. – wbm1058 ( talk) 12:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've been looking into the company to find other sources and it didn't have an IPO. Instead, the company stock was renamed in a long history of renaming. There was some post-IPO funding rounds, apparently, but no one reported on them. The company is listed on a comparatively minor stock exchange (TSXV, which is not the same as the TSX). There is a history of financial press releases from the company but no one seems to be republishing them, let alone doing any analysis on them. Even their own media press releases aren't being picked up.
    I don't know what counts as notable or not but all of this stock stuff is definitely routine. Cauldron bubble ( talk) 06:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
While there is usually consensus that listed company get an article, it contingent on the references being able to support it. These are type of arguments you don't mention at Afd, because Wikipedia isn't a investment advice company. Does it say that when you login in the morning, that its an investment advice company? It is has been five years since the IPO and yet the article still relies on crap PR and press releases to validate itself which fail WP:SIRS. scope_creep Talk 08:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Easy keep based on strong sources. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP guidelines apply which requires references that discuss the topic (ie the *company*) in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Also, quantity of "significant coverage" isn't relevant - a million "mentions" or single paragraph descriptions does not meet the criteria, nor can multiple sources be combined.
In this case, we don't have that. Most of the references rely on information provided by the company or are very generic repetitions of the company description. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 18:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
In this case, we actually do have that, several times over. Have you reviewed each of the sources? Some, you are right, might not. But tell me please how this one would not qualify based on WP:NCORP? — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 20:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Response Hi Moops, yes I have reviewed every source offered in the article and at this AfD (which is the way I always start with any AfD) and I have also looked for other articles and books including newspaper archives at the Wikipedia Library. The NYT article does not qualify because it does not contain sufficient "Independent Content" which is "in-depth". The article starts in a very generic way - it describes what the company does (sells jewelry, priced by weight, origin of name, recent investment) but this is not in-depth, it is a summary and one which pops up frequently. For example, this article written a year later has striking similarities and structure. The article moves on to the founders and their opinions on the business - it is clearly regurgitated without "Independent Content" which requires original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If I've missed some Independent Content which you believe is in-depth, please point to the specific paragraph. HighKing ++ 15:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Do you know about newspapers, how they make their money and how they actually work? scope_creep Talk 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that you want to change the entire way that Wikipedia works and the type of sourced content that is deemed reliable or independent. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 17:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User:Atsme in the comment added the following references. Lets looks at them:
  • Ref 1: Barrons This is an interview with the founder. Per WP:ORGIND, it fails the Independence of the content clause as the founder is talking about their own company.
  • Ref 2; Vogue Again fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH because it the founder and their partner talking about the business with a vogue photographer present. Not only a very short report that is not in-depth, it is classic PR in the simplest terms.
  • Ref 3 Financial Times This has a single para and in an another interview with the founder. It fails WP:ORGIND as its the founder is talking their own company again. This is typical of the type of PR that startups produce.
  • Ref 4 Architectural Digest This is interview with the founder, in her own house. Per WP:ORGIND it is a junk.
  • Ref 5 TMX Money This is a press-release which NON-RS.
  • Ref 6 The French Jewelry Post This is a plain advertisement which comes from a press-release. Its fails WP:SIRS. It is not independent and is PR. It is so plainly obvious that this is a press release that I'm starting to worry that the editor doesn't understand the difference between a good and a bad reference. It is non-rs.
  • Ref 7 In Store Magazine It states on the third para, according to a press release from the company. It is non-rs.
This attempt to supply WP:THREE references per Afd best practice has been a wholesale failure. The core problem is that company is spending a lot of money on PR to advertise their business which results in lots and lots of advertising articles. They are not historically or encyclopædically valid which is reflected in the fact they hit WP notability policies around companies. A WP:BEFORE that I did found the same of kind of PR coverage typical of a startups. I couldn't find a single valid secondary on the company. scope_creep Talk 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Enough! I'm not going to engage with you in this nonsense. Let the closer do their job. I have provided excellent sources for "sig coverage", and your comments are neither helpful nor applicable. Atsme 💬 📧 20:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Hang on - you've produced 7 references which you claim establishes notability. Other editors then have an opportunity to examine those sources against our policies and guidelines. Your argument would be better served by pointing out sections or paragraphs or content within those sources which you believe contains in-depth Independent Content. HighKing ++ 15:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • There are many notable sources listed, with nitpicking objections. You know, it would be nice if more nominators withdrew their noms at some point, it happens occasionally but not often enough for a collaborative project. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Hmmm ... "notable sources" is not a criteria for establishing notability but I see that editors occasionally form an opinion that articles published in well known publications must meet our criteria which isn't the case. What you call "nitpicking objections" are far from it, the sources fail at a very fundamental level which is they are not Independent. BTW, the same invitation extends to any editor who wishes to point to a particular section/paragraph in any of those sources which they believe contains in-depth Independent Content. HighKing ++ 15:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Not independent of the New York Times, Vogue, Architectural Digest etc? Well, Picasso's grandkid sure owns a lot of very high quality newspapers and magazines! Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • You might be referring to the "functional independence" part of being independent (i.e. no corporate links) but ignoring "intellectual independence" (i.e. independent content not regurgitated from company sources). I've posted the full definition from WP:ORGIND above. The invitation to refute the rejection of those sources by pointing to sections/paragraphs that contain in-depth independent Content still stands, but I would understand completely if nobody actually can manage to do so. HighKing ++ 17:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Second attempt at a rebuttal to this ongoing chat. The following was a correction issued by the New York Times piece. The article was written on May 10th, 2018, but the correction was issued on May 11th, 2018. Such a correction would not be issued on some pay-to-play 'PR piece', but then again, literally only one, maybe two contributors to this conversation have even made that unfounded allegation regarding the nature and type of the sources involved here. In this case, here is a quote taken from the source, and it is just a paragraph, if this too is deleted as a WP:COPYVIO then we have an issue of trying to censor dissenting opinion on this. However I suspect this post will be allowed to stand:

    A correction was made on May 11, 2018 An earlier version of this article, relying on incorrect information from a company official, misstated who photographed a campaign featuring Isabella Rossellini. The campaign was photographed by Paola Kudacki, not Inez van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin. [23] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/fashion/jewelry-mene-gold-value.html

    — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 22:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • See WP:STRAWMAN. The reason for my Delete !vote on this article is because I cannot identify any in-depth content about the *company* which is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Nobody said this was a pay-to-play PR Piece. HighKing ++ 12:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I became aware of this AfD from watching some comments at user talk pages, and I'll start by saying that editors need to discuss this civilly, and without seeing a deletion discussion as being a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've looked at several of the sources, and I come down on the side of believing that they satisfy the requirements for independent and significant coverage. Although some of the sources do indeed fail these criteria, there are enough that satisfy the criteria that the page passes GNG. Articles like those in the New York Times and Barrons are good examples of appropriate sources. It's a misunderstanding to say that they fail independence because they talk to or interview connected persons, or because they present the subject in favorable terms (something that tends to follow coverage of celebrities). These are independent journalists who made an independent determination that the subject is noteworthy, and, having done so, talk to people connected with the subject and present the subject as something that is interesting. That's not at all the same thing as reprinting a press release (although, again, there are some cited sources that are like that). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for reminding all of us (myself included) of that fact. :) — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 22:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I think we may also benefit from keeping the following essay in mind WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, in this case. While not perfect by any stretch, and no one was claiming perfection, the minimum sources required here are more than sufficient to meet SIGCOV and GNG—though the 'house' may still be in construction of the article—we do not wish to 'demolish' a work while it is still a 'house being built'. It is beyond draftspace stages, but not yet perfect per se.— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Discussion not salient to the Afd itself (although it appears to become more relevant each passing day)
  • You know what this is an example of?, a nomination which stays open way too long after it is obvious that a Keep "verdict" has been obtained. I've written about it a bit in a user essay WP:SHADOWOFKEEP. Some editors will take a look at their nomination, ascertain that it's not going to work, and withdraw it. Those editors deserve praise. When a "_fD" goes on too long editors start to bicker and call names, emotions are stirred up, and the result that is present is finally made obvious in a close and then everybody waits and carbs up until next time. These should be some of the highest quality conversations on Wikipedia, and when a Keep is reached much of the time it could be acknowledged and graciously accepted, yes? Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    That would be a wonderful outcome and I would be happy to move on to other matters... namely, reverting high volumes of vandalism, which is truly my favorite thing to do. :) — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 23:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Just finished that essay as well. Well done. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 23:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you Moops. I had just edited it, encouraged, driven forward, dog-and-pony-half-time-show, feeling verified by this AfD. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note Certain editors here appear to be in a hurry to rush to close this AfD. We don't decide by counting !votes btw. There are blanket statements that various sources meet the criteria. These sources have been rebutted, with reasons provided based on GNG/NCORP guidelines. Can those editors who disagree deal with these rebuttals - very simply, point to particular sections/paragraphs in whatever sources that you believe contains in-depth "Independent Content" and if you can do this, I'm sure the Delete !voters will agree the topic is notable. HighKing ++ 12:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'd like to perhaps know what exactly you are looking for that might be missing from the sources listed in your view. Let us take just one source at a time then.. I think the New York Times source is a good place to start. Nearly anything in that source qualifies from what I can see as reliable, independent and meet the requirements of GNG/NCORP guidelines. I mentioned a correction from a piece above as well, in reference to how this article in particular is not some 'pay-to-play' PR piece of puffery. I am at a loss for what else specifically might be requested here, but I am interested in helping, since somehow you don't seem to see what the rest of us see when looking at these articles. TY — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 16:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Hi Moops, good idea, lets get into details. I'll ignore the WP:STRAWMAN "pay-to-play PR" arguments - I've not said that at all. You say that "nearly everything from that source qualifies as reliable, independent and meets the requirements of GNG/NCORP". I've already provided commentary on why that NYT piece does not meet the criteria earlier above and you've not engaged with that there so I'll repeat here with added detail.
  • The article starts in a very generic way - it describes what the company does (sells jewelry, priced by weight, origin of name, recent investment) but this is not in-depth, it is a summary and one which pops up frequently. Most of the key points are from Mene's website. For example, the website explains that prices fluctuate in real-time based on the prevailing gold market price and the announcement of raising capital. The "ancient name" is also explained on the "about" page of the website. The listing and prices of the various products doesn't talk about the *company* - it doesn't add any information about the company. The article then moves on to discuss the *founders* and their opinions on the business - so information from persons associated with the company.
  • So first step, identify the content that meets WP:ORGIND and in the process ignore any remaining content which is *not* original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It could be argued that there is some degree of fact-checking in relation to the pieces for sale on the website, their prices and the identification of the most expensive piece and it could be argued that saying the "most unusual piece" is the fully functional gold mastercard is an opinion. None of that though is about the company so for me, that content is ignored for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • The information about the announcement of having raised finance is also on the website which also contains the news about the business about to create it "offline retain business". So that's not "Independent Content" either.
  • Then we're left with the information about the founders including direct quotes and their opinions on aspects of the business. There is no additional content here, the journalist/publication does not add any of their own opinion or analysis, just regurgitates the opinions and/or facts provided by the founders. None of that is "Independent Content" either.
  • We can also see that the company had a very comprehensive "Press Package" available in 2017 to coincide with their "invitation only" launch - still available here. There are also other announcements available on their website containing a lot of information you can see regurgitated in most of the articles - e.g. here.
  • I've also pointed to a very similar article from March 2019 in The Globe and Mail where you can see the similarities but also see how articles like these are merely regurgitating information provided by the company.
  • As per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability. Once you ignore the content that fails ORGIND, there's really very little left, and that is not enough to meet CORPDEPTH.
So, putting it bluntly, it seems that it is blatantly obvious to some of the editors here who spend a lot of time at NCORP-related AfDs that the sources are puff pieces, PR, spam, etc, which contain zero "Independent Content". It is coverage, sure, in reliable sources, sure. But it isn't significant - just common-or-garden business-as-usual corporate activity - and it definitely isn't "Independent Content" as you can see. HighKing ++ 12:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
An exellent and absolutely accurate exposition there @ HighKing:. scope_creep Talk 14:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not understanding what page you're looking at. The Vogue article alone is a full article, and the page is becoming better sourced daily. Per and in the spirit of WP:SHADOWOFKEEP (a non-award winning user essay) this discussion should have been closed long ago (probably on its first day). Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Doubtful. I've worked through the sources cited. 1 and 2 have some discussion of the company, but mainly say that the stock is down. 3 is a listing. 4,7,8,9,11,12 and 13 are not independent (suggesting that Randy Kryn does not understand what is meant here by notable). 5 seems a good source, but just one. 6 and 10 are, for me, behind paywalls so I can't check. Maproom ( talk) 18:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hmm.. 6 is the New York Times piece which is super important to this, not the only one, but an essential one. Anyone know how Maproom might be able to at least view the content if it is behind a paywall? Same question also for 10 (another good one, Marketwatch source). — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 19:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I have a subscription to the NYT, so I can read the entire article. I'll try to summarize it here, without directly copying:
    1. First two paragraphs: Says that there is a new trend in the jewelry industry, growing out of a trend in the fashion industry, and that a new company, Mene, exemplifies this, by "par[ing] jewelry back to its elements" and basing prices on weight.
    2. 3rd paragraph: explains what the company name means.
    3. 4th paragraph: lists the kinds of products sold.
    4. 5th paragraph: describes how prices fluctuate day-to-day.
    5. 6th paragraph: names most expensive piece, and most unusual piece.
    6. 7th paragraph: describes money raised, and names the co-founders as a financier, and Picasso's granddaughter.
    7. 8–13th: Ms. Picasso's background and reasons for being interested in the company.
    8. 14–15th: names friends of Ms. Picasso who have come to work for the company.
    9. 16–17th: describes financial success of the business.
    10. 18–26th: discusses another company, in France, as a second example of this new business trend.
    In my opinion, this is an independently written article by a journalist, about what the source considers a significant new trend in the jewelry business. It places Mene within this trend, and gives it a primary position in the trend. It begins with Mene, and devotes about two thirds of the article to Mene, presenting it as an important new company. All of it is written as statements in the NYT's voice, and not in language such as "according to the company....". It's written in a very favorable tone, but it still reads (to me) as journalistic rather than as a puff piece. To me, it is secondary, independent, and significant (at least as significant as anything about a jewelry website can be). -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    TY kindly for that Tryptofish for providing that for @ Maproom: or anyone else that may wish to see the above. I think this about sums up my thinking on this as well regarding the New York Times piece (or source 6 unless the order changes as more sources are added continually, "...an independently written article by a journalist, about what the source considers a significant new trend in the jewelry business. It places Mene within this trend, and gives it a primary position in the trend.... — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 21:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Also this is behind a paywall too, this one that was provided by HighKing. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 19:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This is a lot closer call than some would like. For the record, I come to this discussion after commenting in a marginally connected MfD. On the merits I find myself largely in agreement with the nominator's frustration and analysis of sources, apparently in some agreement with User:Maproom and User:HighKing. While sources exist, there's a lot of connected, semi-connected and routine business news. Some unfortunate badgering here (it's obviously NOT a speedy keep), and contributors would be wise to knock off extraneous characterization or pre-closing. This process is showering nobody with glory, and tarnishing some. BusterD ( talk) 20:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    The news here was that there was a new business model, while on the surface that may seem routine, bringing an entirely new business model to the Western world from what apparently has been ancient practice in the East is in large part the news here. Some sources at the very least I am strained to see how they might not establish notability of this company. Surely, there are mentions of other companies that are less notable, or not notable entirely, such as a French competitor that was spun up apparently after the creation of Mene called 'Le Gramme' which also uses this new technique of selling by weight and aiming to do things with a certain degree of transparently (also it would seem an old practice in the far east, but a novel one in the West). This sort of quote would not establish notability of 'Le Gramme', The French company Le Gramme also focuses on absolute minimalism, even naming its products by their metric weight., but then again, we are not trying to establish notability for 'Le Gramme', rather we are documenting the fact that the entirety of several pieces is dedicated to this firm, Mene Inc. Whether or not the reliable, secondary sources "get their information directly from the company" seems to me to be a bit beyond the scope of our job as wikipedia editors. We are to find reliable sources, as established by community consensus, clearly Vogue, The New York Times, and Marketwatch, at bare minimum are reliable, and their coverage is nearly entirely if not entirely on the subject at hand. That coverage is also independent, unless it were established that Mene Inc., or Roy Sebag, somehow is a majority shareholder in any of the related media companies, but to my knowledge, he is not. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 21:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    As I said above, I've been working on the article. This idea of jewelry as a way to invest in gold is not new or confined to the "East" (which is honestly a cringey term. It's better to name the specific countries since their existence need not be defined by their position relative to North America): this article from 2013 talks about that very concept.
    Everything I've seen written about the company is a regurgitation of its press releases and wording; no one is analyzing the company, its approach, its product quality, its market share, its relationship to the co-founder's mining company, or deviating from the press release script the company has provided.
    Instead, I just keep finding little weird things, like the series of stock renames, or claiming a trademark phrase that doesn't exist because they abandoned the filing, or stamping pure platinum with "24K" which is a gold-only measure of purity (platinum purity is always denoted by a zero followed by three digits to represent purity, 0.999 being the most pure). Cauldron bubble ( talk) 06:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Response – Named Countries in regards to the East, might include India as one of the most prominently cited, China, Japan, and others. India though is definitely the biggest in this context as to using jewelry measured by weight and by gram as a form of savings or investment. That is the 'novel concept' by and large here that makes this company stand out in some regards and differentiates them as notable from any standard/run-of-the-mill or other 'normal' jewelry company. The coverage reflects that in the ideas put forth by this company's founder as we can tell named Roy Sebag, and then artistically they work with the Diana Widmaier Picasso figure, though it is really Sebag's ideas that most establish a uniquely notable position for this company and its inclusion as an encyclopedic article. The stamping of '24K' pure and anything like that are important only because that is not common practice for nearly any other jewelry company in ' the West' (USA, UK, Europe etc.) today, especially with big brand companies such as Tiffany's which—if you are lucky—might sell you 18K metal products, and not by weight with a clear and transparent premium stating what the profit margin is (in the case of Mene it is around ~30%... though it used to be around ~15–20%... so clearly they have had to raise prices and tighten their profit margin... the business model does not work as well in the West as in the East). Those terms are expedients by the way, and not ideal, but I did not want to have to list out the entirety of the countries each and every time I spoke of them. Not everything written about these is 'regurgitation of its press releases', by any stretch, but it does depend on the source. Clearly some are more PR based, but others, such as The New York Times piece, are clearly not. Stock filings and sources of that nature are also not there to establish notability, but simply to present the ticker symbol as is present on other company pages per MOS guidelines, but those do not establish the notability, but rather just add details as presented. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 07:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    platinum purity is always denoted by a zero followed by three digits to represent purity, 0.999 being the most pure @ Cauldron bubble: thank you very much for working on the article by the way. I have noticed your edits and I appreciate any help to improve an article versus just delete it. I just wanted to point out that in the case of Mene, platinum purity is not always denoted that way by the way, on my Mene items, it says 24K just like on the gold items. So they made a deliberate choice to use 24K for both gold and platinum. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 07:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    When platinum is hallmarked (which includes purity: I was wrong, it's three digits like 900 or 950 or 999 along with a symbol, not 0.###), there are specific standards those hallmarks have to meet. 24K is not a valid platinum hallmark. Therefore I assume that 24K is part of their maker's mark but it's a misleading mark on platinum. Obviously it's a deliberate choice, but it's weird on top of other weird things.
    I don't know very much about notability but there's so little about this company out there. You write here as though you're doing a marketing campaign for them, like this is some new disruptor breakthrough company that is leading the way forward in gold investment but I'm just not seeing that this company or its product is all that special.
    Whatever either of us think of this company or its products, from what I'm reading on notability it's most important to find other sources (not based on press releases or fluff pieces) that focus on the company and then summarize what others think. Aside from a few small articles here and there, virtually no one is talking about the company. I've searched a lot and I'm coming up empty handed. Cauldron bubble ( talk) 07:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    No, but I am clearly a fan of their stuff. Look at the picture on here. I added that, and that shows on the far right one of my rings that is a platinum one and has a 24K marking visible from the inside of the band along with the visible Mene logo. I will admit, I think it is a bit of a weird choice, and I think that they might have been better off to have chosen .9999 or .999 and then also stamped 'PLAT' or something along those lines on the metal. Doing it the way they did might confuse some buyers into thinking that their products are silver, or palladium or some other metal upon resale in a third party transaction... I must imagine that many Apple enthusiasts write on the Apple page, and so on and so on. As long as we source our content, and write from a NPOV and in neutral wiki-voice etc., as well as are kept in check by the community at large, then all should be fine. — Moops ⋠ T⋡ 08:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The two main delete arguments are that (1) the article lacks RS when there are 18 cited sources, including the NYTimes, Vogue, Architectural Digest, and several others, and that (2) the article is noncompliant with WP:PROMO, despite it being toned down to a dispassionate tone that focuses on the facts and notability factors, which happens to be the jewelry line. It is possible that we are dealing with a use-mention distinction issue, especially considering the topic is jewelry, art and fashion, the notability of which can escape nonparticipants in the fashion and jewelry industry, for lack of a better term. The products by this company include specific lines of artistically historic styles of jewelry by notable designers. In a nutshell, the company is known for its product line–the jewelry–which is what makes it notable, along with the company's approach to the jewelry's investment value. WP:PRODUCT clearly states: In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. That is exactly what this article does. Notability is further established because of the international coverage of the product line, its designers, and its investment value, which are being covered in reliable investment publications such as Bloomberg, and Reuters; therefore, substantial coverage has unequivocally been met. Atsme 💬 📧 14:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    There's another concern, Atsme. The tag team bludgeoning on this page has been so extreme and dismissive to draw my attention. The nominator's original concern, as expressed in their review on the page creator's talk (and also mentioned by another editor on talk), is that this page resembles undisclosed paid editing ("an advert"). I think it still resembles upe. The frantic and methodical bludgeoning (and working the referees) on this page by the page creator also resembles the sort of response I often see from paid editors, who might suffer a financial cost of the page were deleted. The page creator may not have been paid, but this process and their behavior in it surely raises my hackles. And yes, I graduated NPP school. BusterD ( talk) 16:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would like to say the Moops has told me on Discord that they are worried that the article being deleted will make it so that they are unable to be granted NPP status when they reply which would probably explain the bludgeoning since they're trying to prevent the article from being deleted so they can get NPP status. I told them that 1 article being deleted will most likely not cause that to happen. They have told me about this AFD in DMs which may bring up WP:CANVASSing concerns, however the lead section of WP:CANVASS specifically says "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Moops simply wanted to make me aware that this was happening and did not intend for me to !vote (which I have not done both because of Moops' DM and also because i Don't have much experience in this specific area). ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment: Having had a similar situation as a beginner at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Topala, I can believe that Moops was simply worried about an article they created being deleted. Xtools shows that Moops has never had an article they created deleted ( aside from a few cross-namespace redirects created as a "newbie"), so this must be a shock. (Note: I came across this AfD after seeing a notice on Moops' talk page but have not been canvassed). Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I hope that Moops won't mind if I repeat this information here, but Moops has self-disclosed that he is on the autism spectrum. It's true that there has been a lot of WP:The Last Word here, but that should not be mistaken for UPE. And in fact, it seems to me that the ugliness in this discussion has been coming from both "sides", and the very fact that this has spawned a (now withdrawn) MfD of a user essay, and now, a COIN thread based on this flimsy evidence of UPE, is a pretty bad indictment of those on the "delete side". I'm getting very close to seeking administrator intervention. (I also feel sorry for whoever has to close this discussion.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As I said in the above comment, I have technically been canvassed, however it will not influence how I will !vote. I will be creating a source assessment table of all the sources in the article to make it a bit easier to see what sources are good and contribute to notability. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Blaze Wolf. I urge you not to create another source assessment table since one has already been created, and its accurate. At most your likely to make mistakes as your only at 64% efficacy on Afd Stats and at worst you will repeat the same arguments above, that have already been made, wasting everybodies time. Canvassing is problematic as well. SAT's don't contribute to notability although they make things clearer. scope_creep Talk 21:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • BusterD, as you know, all that glitters is not gold (forgive the pun). I never got the impression that Moops might have a COI, much less be a UPE. It is possible the editor may have an interest in high fashion and expensive jewelry, but I'm hard pressed to believe the interest rises to the point of conflict. Moops is neither a brand new editor (Feb 2022), nor a bold one relative to refusing to seek help or ask questions. If anything, Moops is more likely to be considered overzealous in a friendly way, which explains the scolding they received for sending out too many Happy New Year greetings. As a hard working member of the vandalism team, Moops has exhibited a sincere desire to learn and become a productive WP editor, so I'll just cut to the chase. If Moops is a PE, then please pull this wool cap off my head because it is covering my eyes. I seriously doubt a company the caliber of Mene Inc., would consider hiring anyone less qualified than someone on this list to create their article. (Oops, Moops - sidebar note: my comment is not a criticism of you, so please don't misinterpret it as such.) Atsme 💬 📧 21:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Agree with scope_creep and HighKing's analysis of the sources - they don't have independent analysis and content. If you look at the nytimes article, it is very careful to attribute essentially ever sentence to the company or one of its founders ("all said to be responsibly mined in the United States and Canada", "Mene announced it had raised as much as $21 million", "notion that unalloyed gold is considered “too soft” for jewelry is a product of marketing spin, too, she added") - I couldn't find a single paragraph with content that was truly independant, i.e. not straight from their website or obviously from them or their marketing materials. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 00:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I hope that you don't mind my replying to your comment, but since I had posted a comment of my own just above, in which I carefully read the same source, and reached the opposite conclusion about the tone in which it was written, I felt the need to look at it again with your comments in mind, and see whether I had missed something. My take is that the quotes you give are instances in which the author of the article was just doing attribution, but that the text as a whole still sounds to me like it is the independent assessment of the subject by the author. It is very much not the case that "essentially every sentence" is attributed. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hello Galobtter. Please realize that journalists use quotes for their articles, this is common practice and how journalism works. The New York Times of course will quote the sources in such an article, just as the New York Times is obviously independent of the company. Randy Kryn ( talk) 01:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sure, but for WP:NCORP we need independent analysis, e.g. opinions from someone other than the company or its founders. What isn't quotes in the article is taken straight from the company's website. The few sentences that aren't attributed like "has pared jewelry back to its elements and aligned prices with weight" sound very much like PR speak. One of the other sentences that looks independent "has even trademarked the phrase “investment jewelry”" is plain incorrect per Cauldron bubble's fact checking at Talk:Menē_Inc. - it doesn't seem like the New York Times really independently analyzed or fact checked the company. But of course you or Tryptofish are free to disagree with me on my view on the article - I just have to completely agree with HighKing on his analysis of the article. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 01:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    The New York Times is a reputable secondary source. That's all that's required by WP:NCORP. Randy Kryn ( talk) 01:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Brían Nguyen

Brían Nguyen (  | 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)

Looks like the subject is only notable for one event. -- IWI ( talk) 16:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. As per @ Willthacheerleader18. Criterion 3 of WP:BLP1E is clearly not met, and all must be met for it to apply. Criterion 2 is also unknown, but probably also not met. CT55555( talk) 05:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
How is it not met? This was a preliminary pageant win that attracted some low-quality (sportskeeda is generally unreliable, NextShark appears to be totally unreliable given their " editorial team" is just a list of their hundreds of mostly-anonymous "contributors") and non-notability-contributing press (the Herald Scotland and ABC4 pieces have just a couple independent sentences on her and the competition, with the majority of independent commentary in the latter conflating Miss America with an entirely different pageant system). That does not indicate it was a "significant event". JoelleJay ( talk) 17:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
BLP1E has three elements, all which need to be met.
And Criterion 3 within it has three sub parts (event not significant or individuals role is not substantial or well documented)
I think the event is significant (the first trans winner) and I think Nguyen's role in the event is central and well documented in the source.
I do see that it's up for debate how significant an event this is. Someone winning a competition like this, I think is not usually that significant (although I'm amazed how much wikipedia in general focusses on beauty pageant winners and I find it weird). But the first trans winner does seem significant. My perception of the significance is a judgement/opinion and is open to challenge, I see that. But of course, that is just taking criterion 3 in isolation, which makes that matter less, because also we'd have to imagine that Nguyen was likely to remain a low profile individual. Actually also we'd have to think Nyugen has been, this whole time, a low profile individual. Quoting WP:BLP1E: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. but Nguyen is all over the tabloid news, indeed in unreliable sources, so I cannot add them, but clearly Nguyen doesn't meet the definition of WP:LOWPROFILE. I quote from the nutshell summary ...who has not sought public attention.. People entering beauty competitions, are 100% seeking public attention. They are absolutely not low profile individuals. To me BLP1E is therefore clearly not met, probably on 2 out of 3 criteria. CT55555( talk) 17:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Significance is based on the sources, not our personal judgement/opinion. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and creating a WP:COATRACK in the article of negative opinions about her and the pageant seems problematic generally per WP:BLP. And per WP:LOWPROFILE, she is not a "media personality" nor has she voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like. She has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a limited group (Miss Greater Derry), which is a low-profile activity, and she has not/does not appear to [seek] or [hold] a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in a field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere, or other area of human endeavor and she is allegedly notable only for a minor role in one major event, although a local scholarship competition [24] is not a major event based on tabloid and low-quality coverage. We need higher-quality and sustained coverage to support a BLP. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I respect the views of those who disagree generally and the point about quality and depth of sources is agreeable. However, to say she has not "voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities" seems at odds with that I think a beauty competition is. I don't know much about beauty competitions, but can I persuade you that a trans women choosing to enter one in the US does seem to be at odds with what I think WP:LOWPROFILE is guiding us to consider low profile activities.
Of course your rebuttal of my point is wider than that specific point (noting the sourcing issues), but can we at least agree on that? And therefore conclude that she is not low profile? CT55555( talk) 18:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Based on the sources, I applied the factors outlined in the WP:LOWPROFILE essay and included a local news source describing the local pageant as a scholarship competition. An openly trans woman being permitted to enter a low-level competition is included in the Miss America article, but there do not appear to be independent and reliable sources that support the conclusion that this one event is "self-publicity activities" as described in the essay. Perhaps compare the Kataluna Enriquez AfD for a source-based analysis of WP:BLP1E for differences in activity levels and related coverage - when someone is not low-profile, we don't need to debate the technical wording of one part of the essay, we can look to sources and a pattern of activity over time. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I am not caught up in the technical wording of BLP1E, I believe that I am making a case based on the spirit and intention of the guideline. My understanding of BLP1E is heavily informed by the essay WP:NOTBLP1E.
Here's a link to Nguyen being interviewed for the Outsports podcast. Listen from 15m10s onwards.
I wonder if you find that persuasive in terms of seeing her as not low profile? CT55555( talk) 19:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
A podcast interview on a sports blogging network does not seem to contribute to a high-profile pattern of activity as described in the WP:LOWPROFILE essay. And I was referring to a debate over technicalities in the WP:LOWPROFILE essay, not WP:BLP1E. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
People enter pageants for many reasons other than "publicity" and there is no expectation that they will become "public profiles" at such low levels of competition; the people I know who participated did it for the scholarship money, or because they liked to showcase their talents, because it's fun to get glammed up, because they enjoyed performing, because they liked the socializing, etc. It's at best OR to assume that a trans girl did it just to make a statement and not for any of the other reasons girls compete, and even if she's proud to be "the first" with her identity that doesn't mean she wants or will be the subject of continued publicity. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I just want to clarify that any assumptions I made about motivations applies to trans and cis applicants, indeed I had not considered the wider (educational/prize winning) range of potential motivations beyond fame and profile. So that is helpful feedback and does reduce the strength of my argument. Although please also see the interview I linked to above, which I think supports my (possible initially badly formed) statement about profile. CT55555( talk) 19:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Update: now reconsidering....I think I am right about WP:BLP1E, but I think she may fail WP:GNG. Reassessing, thinking and also waiting to see what others say about that. CT55555( talk) 18:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
While I am mostly arguing the BLP1E point above, I think WP:GNG is really what matters here, as I think BLP1E does not apply. English language alone sources don't appear to support WP:GNG, but there is a lot of Spanish, Russian and other sources on her, but
  1. https://1news.az/news/20221110070148123-Transgender-pobedil-na-konkurse-krasoty-ot-Miss-Amerika-FOTO
  2. https://www.hispanidad.com/sociedad/eeuu-trans-gana-certamen-belleza-miss-greater-derry-2023-se-lleva-casa-beca-mujeres_12038271_102.html
Combined with ABC News here
I am not certain of a WP:GNG pass, but see this more like a weak keep. I'll more formally update my !vote later, depending on replies above, any source analysis that anyone can offer on the above, still reflecting on this difficult one. CT55555( talk) 19:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The 1news.az and Hispanidad pieces are fluff containing mostly primary/non-independent quotes. Nowhere close to SIGCOV, and Hispanidad is employing the usual right-wing tabloid press approach of platforming highly negative tweets instead of writing their own commentary (so as to avoid backlash). These shouldn't be linked on WP at all.
And interviews on podcasts don't make someone a public figure. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I trimmed the "Backlash" subsection in this brief article to remove a negative comment directed at this low-profile Miss Greater Derry winner, but per WP:BLP1E, there still seems to be undue weight on the event. Based on the few available sources, she appears to only be covered in the context of the pageant, the mostly low-quality sources do not seem to support the significance of the event, and her role does not appear substantial nor well-documented. She is already mentioned at the Miss America article, and a redirect could be created. Beccaynr ( talk) 13:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 04:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per above. I could see this turning around if she goes on to win the notable title of Miss New Hampshire and compete in the main Miss America pageant, at which point she'd meet WP:ANYBIO #1 and possibly #2 as well, but so far she's only won a local competition and is getting above average coverage for the novelty of her being trans. As a fellow queer person I always love to see victories like these for my people, but as a WP editor I have to recognize the rules in place. QuietHere ( talk) 14:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
comment just pointing out here that we had a similar discussion at Simple English Wikipedia. As an uninvolved admin I closed that one as a keep. My reasons for that were two-fold. 1) there seems to be foreign-language coverage of the event, so it must have generated some media echo 2) given that beauty-pageants are usually unisex (either miss-swimsuit, or mister-swimsuit, but not moe pageant for both), winning such a pageant as a transgender person is quite remarkable.Note however, that our article simple:Brían Nguyen isn't quite the same as yours. Eptalon ( talk) 10:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Trending towards keep given that nobody has rebutted the relevance of the sources provided towards the end of the discussion. Sandstein 09:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Toni Fiore

Toni Fiore (  | 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)

Fiore claims to be a “celebrity chef” but I’m unable to find articles on her besides actual recipes, book reviews, and blurbs. There may be more articles on her behind paywalls. Putting her up for discussion in case she is more well-known in the vegan/vegetarian world. LovelyLillith ( talk) 19:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep - Although the coverage isn't in abundance, there seems to be multiple sources with coverage that shows notability of this chef. -- Excutient Talk 19:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per the sources listed by Psychologist Guy, the PBS one is not independent because her short bio is there because she's been on PBS programs, the ranking of celebrity chefs name-checks her in a list (nothing about her), the Publisher's Weekly is a one-paragraph review of one of her cookbooks. Although she has had a PBS cooking show for years I find very little about her, and other sources are pretty thin, such as this which just name-checks her. She has one cookbook (and has collaborated on one more), and it is "#907 in Vegetarian Cooking" on Amazon. Admittedly, the book is not new, but proof of making a bestseller list would at least be something. Lamona ( talk) 05:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I managed to find a few more reviews of her books and shows [28] [29]. She was also featured as a guest in this podcast released by the PCRM, a notable vegan advocacy group (her wp article links here in one reference but makes no mention of the podcast in the text for some reason). In response to Lamona's comment, I tried to find the historic sales rankings of her book, but Amazon doesn't seem to archive subject-specific bestsellers lists; that said, the book was published in 2008, and 907 is an impressive ranking after 15 years. small jars t c 22:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    The second one you link to is a show that she is in, and therefore not an independent source. Again, the podcast is her speaking, and like an interview is not an independent source. The first one, "Vegetarians in Paradise" is hard to judge. It appears to be a personal web site of two people: "We're just a couple of adventurous pigeons named Zel and Reuben Allen who live in Los Angeles." So that probably does not count as a reliable source. In my searches I turned up that she had shows on PBS, but I couldn't find any write-ups about her outside of that gig. She has one book - that's not a lot for notability even if it did sell well. We'd still need reviews. Lamona ( talk) 05:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I'm with Lamona. I'm amazed to find someone with a cooking show with dozens of episodes can be this non-notable, but she really seems to be. Her website doesn't even have links to press coverage or any kind of press kit. None of the sources mentioned here are significant, independent coverage from reliable sources (I guess with the exception of the PW cookbook review). -- asilvering ( talk) 01:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 04:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete – insufficient independent sources to pass GNG, from the sources I have seen from the article, searches, and here. -- IWI ( talk) 11:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    1. Goad, Meredith (2008-08-13). "A new chapter for 'Delicious TV' chef Toni Fiore". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.

      The article notes: "The last time I spoke with Toni Fiore of Cumberland, her vegetarian cooking show, Delicious TV, had just been picked up by 21 public television stations nationwide. That was 2005. ... Fiore, who tapes the show in her own kitchen, now gets mail from vegetarians and vegans all over the world. People send her old family recipes and ask her help in making a meatless version. She cuts the fat and cooking time, too. ... Her own experiments in the kitchen, along with dishes submitted by viewers and recipes from guest chefs, result in about 30 to 40 new recipes in a season. ... The next step seems like a natural one: a companion cookbook to the TV show."

    2. Kamila, Avery Yale (2014-06-11). "'Mashup' back for new season of vegan goodness". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.

      The article notes: "Popular vegan chefs Terry Hope Romero, Miyoko Schinner and Maine’s own Toni Fiore star in each episode. ... jokes Fiore, who lives in Cumberland and often fields questions from local fans who have seen the reruns on MPBN. ... Carson and Fiore started filming “Totally Vegetarian” in 2002 for Portland’s local cable access station. They later began distributing it to PBS stations, and its 52 episodes have now aired more than 53,000 times. They started filming “Vegan Mashup” in 2012. Having spent her teens and 20s in Italy, Fiore learned to cook in a world where fast food didn’t exist and grocery shopping took place in an open air market. The whole foods and fresh ingredients in her recipes reflect these roots."

    3. Goad, Meredith (2005-11-30). "Veggie TV - Shot in Toni Fiore's Cumberland kitchen, this meat-free cooking show is simply 'Delicious.'". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.

      The article notes: "The show is currently shooting its second season in Fiore's Cumberland kitchen with Rob Draper of VisionMill, a high-definition production company in Camden. ... Fiore has not eaten meat for 18 to 19 years, and her two children are also vegetarian. ... After writing an article for the Maine Animal Coalition on slaughterhouses, she decided to make a complete transition. On the show, Fiore concentrates perhaps half the time on her casual Mediterranean cooking style. She recently returned from five days in Italy with a cooking crew, and will be incorporating her experiences into a future episode of "Delicious TV." ... Fiore promises that future shows will also be all-veggie, all the time."

    4. "Kitchen TV". Vegetarian Times. No. 341. May–June 2006. p. 96. ISSN  0164-8497. EBSCOhost  20553698.

      The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Hosted by Toni Fiore, a vegetarian for nearly 20 years, the show highlights healthful recipes with no-fuss preparation. Originally, the Food Network approached Fiore and her producer about airing the show. They were thrilled--until the network proposed adding chicken and fish to the program. Delicious TV said no thanks, and now Fiore brings compassionate cuisine to PBS viewers, with recipes such as tempeh fajitas, veggie wantons, tofu pot pie and sweet vegetable lasagna."

    5. Book reviews:
      1. Meola, Olympia (2008-12-24). "Cookbook Review". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.

        The review notes: "From thrifty tips, such as how to reuse paper towels and plastic bags, to a plug for the public television show hosted by author Toni Fiore, "Totally Vegetarian" at first seems like the equivalent of a box of plain couscous. ... Fiore's charm comes through in several places at the start of the book. She suggests you fill a sink with sudsy water, then sink pans and dishes in as you cook to cut down on cleaning time. Do that, she instructs, while water boils or simmers. If you still have time, "stay near the stove and knock out thirty or forty squats." ... Fiore uses the first 46 pages to introduce herself and to tell you how to stock the kitchen, what equipment to buy and which items are essentials in the pantry, fridge and freezer."

      2. McAvoy, Rochelle (2008-12-15). "Totally Vegetarian". South Bend Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review notes: "In her first cookbook, Toni Fiore has a passionate love of and experience with vegetable-based cooking. "Totally Vegetarian" is full of simple, easy to prepare dishes, from light appetizers to sophisticated breads and pastas, that use affordable as well as accessible ingredients. ... Fiore admits to using viewers' feedback from her television show to "reshape my style of cooking," which is why these recipes are best seen as guidelines."

      3. Bieselin, Robert (2008-08-18). ""Totally Vegetarian"". The Record. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review notes: "This book from Toni Fiore, the host of Delicious TV's "Totally Vegetarian," presents nearly 200 recipes of every sort and style. Separate sections give suggestions for soups, salads, breads, pizzas, burgers, sandwiches and desserts and center dishes on meat substitutes (tofu, tempeh, seitan) and veggies and grains."

      4. Houck, Jeff (2008-09-03). "Eat Their Words: Totally Vegetarian". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03 – via Newspapers.com.

        The review notes: "Subtitled "Easy, Fast, Comforting Cooking for Every Kind of Vegetarian," Fiore, who hosts the "Totally Vegetarian" series on public television, includes recipes for such dishes as corn bread, pizza and pot stickers that even nonvegetarians can enjoy. Especially helpful is the list of tips for keeping organic foods available on your table and within your budget."

      5. Giuca, Linda (2008-12-11). "Tasty Menu of Books For Cooks". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03 – via Newspapers.com.

        The first page of the article is here Internet Archive.

        The review notes: "The host of public television's "Delicious TV's Totally Vegetarian," Fiore brings a European sensibility to American comfort foods. Nearly 50 pages of introduction describe her transition to vegetarianism as well as offer advice on ingredients, equipment and stocking a pantry. The meatless recipes are flexible enough to adapt to a vegan lifestyle. Fiore also devotes a chapter to soybean-based tempeh and seitan, high-protein meat substitutes."

      6. "Totally Vegetarian: Easy, Fast, Comforting Cooking for Every Kind of Vegetarian". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 255, no. 24. 2008-06-16. p. 46. EBSCOhost  32958597. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.

        The review notes: "This all-purpose vegetarian cookbook from the host of the PBS series Delicious TV's Totally Vegetarian offers about 200 accessible recipes ... Fiore's reassuring voice makes even the (somewhat) complicated dishes seem doable; lots of variety in the ingredients and flavors make the book a handy resource for vegetarians in need of daily ideas."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Toni Fiore to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." After "combin[ing]" the multiple independent sources here "to demonstrate notability", Toni Fiore passes the guideline.

    Cunard ( talk) 10:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and kudos to Cunard for finding these sources, especially the articles from the Portland Press Herald. pburka ( talk) 18:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After I discount the "keep" opinions that were apparently canvassed on Reddit, the "delete" opinions are more numerous and more persuasive. The "keep" arguments are, first, that WP:NLIST is met, but this is only asserted and not argued on the basis of sources. Second, it is argued that this is a "list of episodes of a notable show", but this does not conform to the RfC consensus pointed out by the nominator that episode lists do need to meet NLIST on their own merits. Sandstein 09:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Comedy Bang! Bang! episodes

List of Comedy Bang! Bang! episodes (  | 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)

The list does not pass WP:NLIST because the episodes are not "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There was a recent RfC discussion which concluded that podcast episode lists must pass NLIST to merit a stand-alone article (disclosure: I opened the RfC). I recently WP:BLARed this list so redirecting to Comedy Bang! Bang! could be considered as an alternative to deletion.

With the exception of an WP:INTERVIEW with the host of the show at The A.V. Club, I don't see any reliable sources that discuss the episodes as a group or set, and none of the individual episodes appear to be independently notable. Considering the number of links I would think that WP:LINKFARM applies, and I think there is also an argument to be made that the list violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. TipsyElephant ( talk) 01:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep. This is a difficult one. First I checked if reliable sources dealt with them as a list WP:NLIST. I did't find anything significant. So that seems to suggest delete. But WP:ATD would guide us towards merge. But this is a very long list, at 216,950 bytes. Comedy Bang! Bang! is 14,756 bytes. WP:LENGTH subsection WP:SIZERULE is clear that anything over 100kb "Almost certainly" should be split. An article about something that is 93% list and 7% not list would seem silly. The rules don't help us here, they put me in a circle. But actually, we don't have rules, we are humans and we can make sensible decisions, especially where the rules prevents you from improving or maintaining wikipedia and WP:IAR gives us specific advice on what to do, which is to ignore the rule. With that long introduction, I think keeping this is the least bad of all the outcomes, even if it isn't an elegant solution, I see no harm in keeping the article, and I see the loss of encyclopedic information arising from deleting it. The lost of a list of episodes would not keep me awake at night, but it is still a net positive for the encyclopedia. CT55555( talk) 15:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I just realised I didn't give enough thought to the RfC. I think that puts me somewhere between mild delete and neutral. I may update this. If I don't, count me as neutral. CT55555( talk) 21:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per the RfC discussion, podcast episode lists, unlike episode lists for TV shows, have to pass WP:NLIST to be notable. There's no reason why the list of episodes has to be on Wikipedia at all in that case, we can simply delete it. There are other avenues for people who want a full list of podcast episodes. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am generally against such lists but this list is far from the general criteria we expect from episode lists. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 04:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - there are two keep !votes on the talk page CT55555( talk) 18:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep While I do acknowledge that the article does not conform to what is considered the standard rule set, I want to comment on the content of the article itself, as I feel it merits consideration as an exception. Said content is accurate and incomparably comprehensive, verified by simply cross-referencing episode number, title, and associated guest/character appearances on any podcast application, as well as the paid service offered by the podcast host which provides access to the entire catalogue of episodes. I do not believe one should have to pay a subscription fee in order to find information on archived episodes, information that at this point (as far as my efforts thus far have confirmed) can only be found in this article or an otherwise painstaking process of looking through each free episode available on various podcast applications. Other sites, including the Fandom page for the podcast that attempts to list episode numbers/names/guests/characters, has in my experience (as recently as yesterday 2/22/2023) been impartial or inaccurate. The result has been my return to this Wikipedia article that has allowed me to identify quickly and accurately with simple keyword searches the episode I am looking for. I strongly believe that anyone else who like me has a vested interest in the podcast and this article/list can confirm this. I also believe it would be a safe assumption to say that there are many other avid listeners of this podcast who rely on this page for the content it provides that cannot be found anywhere else. While the list does not pass WP:NLIST because the episodes are not "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", it should be stressed that the podcast episode archive itself, the only primary source that can technically exist, attests to the reliability of this article. Deleting it would be to the detriment of many, including myself, who reference it on a regular basis without issue. Yodas4sale ( talk) 21:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC) — Yodas4sale ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

I think we should keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.203.218.37 ( talk) 02:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC) — 185.203.218.37 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Keep: Someone brought notice of this article's potential deletion to me and I'd just like to say that as a long-time listener of the podcast in question, I would very much like this article to be kept, and would be willing to make edits to help do so.
The podcast in question has been in existence for nearly 14 years, and has its roots in a radio show/improv show from the early 2000s, which was a locus of talent in the alt-comedy scene. As you can see from the list of its guests and their appearances, it features some prominent comedians and cultural figures, often in the early parts of their careers and so this list may be of journalistic/historical importance. Occasional musical guests perform stripped-down versions of their songs in the recording studio, which fans of the artists may wish to find.
Although the content isn't necessarily high-brow, I feel confident in saying that fans of the show have a lot of affection for it, and in particular to episodes involving pairings of guests/characters and features (though the specific set of episodes will differ from listener to listener). Though the podcast is episodic and unscripted, there are recurring features, characters and story-lines that listeners often like to revisit or that new listeners seek out to better enjoy the performances. This list is a very helpful resource in that regard.
As the host often comments, the podcast began before the mid-2010s boom in the medium, and averages about 50 episodes a year, each about 80-100 minutes in length. It branched out into a TV show of more than 100 episodes, and now sits as part of a small network of "in-universe" podcasts involving characters from the main one. There is significant value and utility in maintaining a list of these episodes, and as there is a fairly comprehensive one contained in this page, it would be quite a loss to have it deleted. August Lindt ( talk) 06:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC) — August Lindt ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
How were you made aware of the deletion discussion? CT55555( talk) 12:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
They likely were made aware by a post on the Comedy Bang Bang Subreddit. Yodas4sale ( talk) 17:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The post that you made? Are you aware of the WP:CANVASS behavioural guideline? CT55555( talk) 17:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I am aware that my Reddit post is in violation of the written rule. However, I believe that the unique nature of this case, as outlined in previous posts, warrants unique action to support it. With all due respect I will illustrate, briefly to the best of my ability so as to not come across as standing on a soapbox, to try and make clear the sincere spirit of my position. Please bear with me.
In matters of Ownership, such as the holding of title to property by a private party, there are instances where the owner cannot enjoy their ownership free and clear due to complications arising from additional parties who may knowingly or unknowingly have a vested interest in said title in the form of some type of land rights. There may not be any knowledge of the existence whatsoever by the owner of who these other parties are. In order to perfect ownership, the owner is permitted by law to "delete" the interest the unknown parties may have by filing a suit of Quiet Title Action, wherein a judge will instruct the owner to serve those unknown parties claiming an interest in the property through publication. This case law can be found here: (Donel, Inc. v. Badalian (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 327, 332.)
The takeaway from this is that intent to delete the interest of unknown parties must be made known "through publication". The intent must be made public, in writing, so that anyone who may have interest in the title can contest the deletion of said interest. Furthermore, California Civil Code CCP § 763.010 states that "reasonable diligence" must be used to inform unknown parties. It has been precedented by Watts v. Crawford (1995) 10 Cal.4th 743, 749, fn. 5 that “Reasonable diligence” denotes “a thorough, systematic investigation and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney.”
Now it is clearly, clearly obvious that the letter of these laws has no jurisdiction here in any measure. But how does the spirit of this legislation apply to the matter at hand? It could be argued that "reasonable diligence" was used to inform unknown parties who have a vested interest in this page's content of its deletion, in the form of a notice on the top of said page. I would argue that such an effort actually does not denote a "thorough, systematic investigation" to inform interested parties, and that "reasonable diligence" in this case would include informing a modestly sized but well-established internet community of loyal fans of what is about to take place. Yes, this can be defined as Canvassing. But I believe that if there are principles of ownership well founded in matters of private ownership, how much more so should these principles, the spirit of the rules, be applied in this specific case to free information that has no private owner but belongs to us all as the public? Should this not merit by necessity an additional measure of reasonable effort, as I have taken with my Reddit post, however it may be classified, to inform those with vested interest in the public content in question and who will be needlessly disadvantaged should that content be deleted due to it not being in strict conformance to the guidelines? Should not such unknown parties be permitted to contest the decision even if it constitutes an overwhelming majority opinion and could be said to compromise the normal consensus decision making process? After all, the only ones who benefit from this page are the listeners of the podcast, represented in this case by the subreddit in which I posted.
I must stress that I believe these principles apply because of the existence of the Comedy Bang Bang subreddit, a place where reasonable diligence" can be exercised. Without it, there would be no reasonable manner in which to inform the public. This is why I do not believe my post there can be considered canvassing.
August Lindt made clear that the podcast has established a legacy. It has even won awards because of its popularity. There is indeed significant value and utility in maintaining a list of these episodes, especially as new fans of the podcast continue to be made. This is by far the best place to access this information. As you stated in a previous post, the rules do not help us here. We are humans and we can make reasonable decisions. The reasonable decision here is to refrain from deleting the page. Yodas4sale ( talk) 19:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I think you over-complicated that explanation, the way I see it is that this seems like canvassing. The reddit thread also indicates that there is a group of people who consider this page useful. It's interesting how posting notice of the AFD to a WikiProject would be considered a good thing to do, but to a subreddit would be a bad thing to do, and yet the intention is quite similar.
Seeing that a small and obscure community find this list helpful is something that I do find relevant. Is this page overall a net positive or a net negative to the encyclopedia? My views have shifted again towards net positive. I'll vote again below. CT55555( talk) 14:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, it was the post on the subreddit. I apologize if my behavior is against the formal rules here, but I wouldn't have known otherwise, as I haven't checked this page in a few weeks. August Lindt ( talk) 07:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep 2603:8081:1401:9410:DC99:D478:D924:A23B ( talk) 14:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC) — 2603:8081:1401:9410:DC99:D478:D924:A23B ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep i think keep it ok 120.29.68.253 ( talk) 10:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller ( talk) 04:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Lean keep. I voted keep. Then I was persuaded to revoke that, after someone pointed out the RfC, which I had not sufficiently factored into my analysis. So I updated to neutral. Then I saw the canvassing and WP:SPA votes, which I looked into and flagged. Then I saw how an obscure reddit community find this list to be a useful encyclopedic resource.
I'm struck about how posting notice of an AFD to a WikiProject is considered a good thing and doing the same to the relevant subreddit is a bad thing. I uncomfortable because this seems like I'm endorsing canvassing, but the chain of events and off wiki activity that I've noted has actually persuaded me that this list has encyclopedic value. I can only justify this argument by pointing to WP:IAR. CT55555( talk) 14:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
This discussion is the very embodiment of why posting notice of an AFD to a WikiProject is considered a good thing and doing the same to the relevant subreddit is a bad thing; notices to WikiProject attract Wikipedians who are interested in the fate of articles on the topic, whereas notices to reddit attract content-free WP:ITSUSEFULs like the above that the poster incorrectly thinks will influence the fate of this discussion. Finally, you said above that the intention is quite similar - language like This [deletion proposal] is absolutely ridiculous from the linked Reddit post wouldn't be tolerated even at a WikiProject, and makes it clear that the intention is fundamentally different. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I've struck my leaning keep !vote, I'm back to neutral, after reading the rebuttal of my point above. CT55555( talk) 13:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I erred in not specifying in the subreddit post that contributions to this RfC should only be made if meaningful arguments are presented. I updated my post to inform readers of this shortly after seeing that this is what was happening. My intention was certainly not to flood this RfC with spammed Keep comments. It was my assumption that any who took the time to look into the intent to delete the article would then follow up with their own thoughts on the matter should they feel inclined. As you can probably tell, I deeply value the information in the article, and my only intention is to hopefully demonstrate that there are others who feel the same way and that deleting it would be a disservice. I hope that this clarification can be taken in good faith by all. I do not mean to cause chaos and apologize since that is what has taken place. Yodas4sale ( talk) 18:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a giant mass of fancruft with only one source. None of the above keep arguments make any attempt to dispute the original reason for deletion: that notability providing sources, per the linked RfC, must be found, and none have been. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Is fancruft the best way to describe what is occurring here? I ask because I genuinely don't think that this Wiki article is exactly general interest. The information is beneficial for a niche group of individuals. Perhaps I'm mistaken in my understanding of the definition of the word though. In any case, on the matter of notability, I believe it has been commented already that the only primary source that can exist for this list is the podcast itself. Additionally, it has also been pointed out that it may not be a practical resolution to merge the article with the main page due to the amount of information contained within it. I'm seeing under the Notability guidelines that an alternative to merging or deletion is to "Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources." Could a note be written at the beginning of the article saying something to the effect of "Reference the podcast as a primary source" to satisfy that criteria? After all, the main reason anyone would reference the list is to then redirect to the podcast once they've found what they're looking for. I can attest that the information has been consistently accurate thus far. Just a thought. Yodas4sale ( talk) 18:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    [...] this Wiki article is [not] exactly general interest. The information is beneficial for a niche group of individuals is the very definition of fancruft. Re it has been commented already that the only primary source that can exist for this list is the podcast itself, I'm assuming you meant to omit the word "primary", in which case it self-evidently follows from your claim that the list is not notable. Re, Additionally, it has also been pointed out that it may not be a practical resolution to merge the article with the main page due to the amount of information contained within it, I suggested a delete not a merge. Re Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources, you misunderstand what that clause is about; it's a procedural rule, suggesting that people who doubt the notability of an article should sometimes ask the creator where to find the necessary third-party sources rather than trying to look themselves and nominating for deletion if they fail, and is inapplicable at this stage of the discussion. Re, I can attest that the information has been consistently accurate thus far. Just a thought. - see WP:ITSUSEFUL. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I from the outset acknowledged that the article does not conform to the letter of the law, so to speak. That includes notability. I was not referring to you when pointing out that a merge had been suggested. Another commenter made that suggestion. A clause from WP:ITSUSEFUL "Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'" Allow me to clarify what I mean when I say that I can attest that the information in the article has been consistently accurate thus far: The list on this page brings together the entire catalogue of episode numbers, names, guest celebrities, characters, features, and musical acts and is useful for navigating the subject of the podcast and its contents, and it does so in an accurate manner. No other resource available comes close to the level of thoroughness this article/list contains. Yodas4sale ( talk) 17:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Two comments: First, nothing motivates skeptical long-time Wikipedia editors to jump in to one of these debates like seeing a bunch of new users sign up just to vote. In other words, you're doing more harm than good to your own cause. Second, I didn't see the RfC linked at the top, but I fail to see anything conclusive coming out of it. We already have two ways lists of episodes, characters, etc. come about: notability via NLIST and article splits. That RfC doesn't somehow supersede long-standing style guidelines about what to do when part of an article gets too long. So the question is: does this meet NLIST, or would it be WP:DUE in the main article, but too long to include there? I don't know the answer to either. A search for sources returns a few (the podcast is among the most notable comedy podcasts, for whatever that's worth), but I do think this is going to hinge more on whether it should be included in the main article. A good hypothetical is: if there were 20 episodes instead of hundreds, would it make sense to include in the main article? If so, it's probably not crazy to spin it out to its own page. If not, well, there's always fandom.com. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I find your logic persuasive. Indeed if there were 20, it would seem logical to add them. The real number would make the page look strange. Which makes me change my mind again, I now !vote keep. CT55555( talk) 22:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP ( talk) 08:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 04:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Redd Velvet

Redd Velvet (  | 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 inline secondary sources and only a single source in external links which is not in-depth coverage. Obvious conflict of interest editing by Redd Alert ☰ Hamburger Menu ( talk) 04:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Alabama, and Nebraska. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 04:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO - my online searches with various keywords to help sort out coverage of the similarly-named K-Pop band has only found The Smithsonian coverage of her performance at the 32nd annual International Blues Challenge (3 grafs) and Tri-State Defender coverage of her performance at a Women in Blues event (3 brief grafs), and a blog with a brief overview of her career. This does not appear to be enough to support notability at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Don't meet WP:BASIC. the article is similar to self-promotion and has no worthwhile references to support the facts presented -- Loewstisch ( talk) 12:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller ( talk) 05:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

James Bowie (lawyer)

James Bowie (lawyer) (  | 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 individual seems non-notable. He received non-substantive media coverage in 2020 because he offered free legal services. To the extent that this individual is known at all (he is allegedly known for his Twitter activity but he has only 31.5k Twitter followers), it was because of a single event (i.e., WP:BLP1E) in 2022 during the Canadian trucker convoy, as indicated by the references on the article. He then received minor coverage related to ensuing scandals. The article also makes claims about this individual having been alleged to have committed crimes (which are not the primary basis of his alleged notability) and for which he has not been convicted, in apparent contradiction of WP:BLPCRIME. This seems very much like BLP1E to me. Bueller 007 ( talk) 03:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. (As article creator). WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant. The article makes no suggestion of criminality. I don't like him, but that's not relevant. WP:BLP1E would only apply if all three criteria were met, which would mean that:
  1. reliable sources only mentioned him in the context of one event (he is mentioned in context of three events, criterion not met)
  2. he is likely to remain low profile, as defined here: WP:LOWPROFILE (obviously not, he continues to make news and seek attention, criterion not met)
  3. he didn't play an important role in the event(s) he is notable for (that is open to debate)
BLP1E is only applicable if each of three conditions is met (I quote from WP:BLP1E) so that's an obvious fail. What is relevant is if he meets the WP:GNG. I believe he does; I perceive that he is notable for his provision of free legal services in 2020, for his citizen journalism in 2022 and for more than one investigation into his legal work between 2022 and 2023. I present some examples of significant coverage about him here:
  1. In 2020 https://ottawa.citynews.ca/local-news/lawyer-offers-free-legal-service-to-anyone-who-is-arrested-at-ottawas-anti-racism-march-2414073
  2. In 2022 https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/ottawa-lawyer-james-bowie-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-suspended-by-lso-in-unrelated-proceedings/372287
  3. In 2023 https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-lawyer-in-legal-services-for-sex-scandal-probed-for-mishandling-money
In summary: WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant, deletion on the basis of WP:BLP1E fails on at least two of three criteria (check out WP:NOTBLP1E if you have doubts), WP:GNG (the key thing here) is met. CT55555( talk) 04:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
"he was accused of offering cocaine and soliciting sexual contact" is accusing someone of a crime for which they are not notable and for which they have not been convicted. Bueller 007 ( talk) 04:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
That seems like WP:SYNTH. I have no idea if seeking sex or offering drugs is criminal in this context. But for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that offering cocaine might criminal. WP:BLPCRIME would guide us to avoid content that suggest acts are crimes (only you did, the article doesn't). It doesn't say we should not have articles of people who maybe did a crime. His notability is mainly about citizen journalism and law society investigations. If people who are notable for multiple things also maybe do a crime, does it mean we should delete articles about them? Let's focus on the key thing here: is he notable; does he meet WP:GNG. I think: yes. And also yes.
I see we may disagree on the relevance of BLPCRIME, and I suggest we sit with that disagreement and let others opine, I'm keen to avoid WP:BLUDGEON CT55555( talk) 04:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - much as I loathed the trucker convoy. Hmm talk about a buried lede. One sentence and the references that follow it don't support it. Here's one good reference: [30] There must be more, as I recognized the name. I see what part of the problem is: recent negative coverage -- gleeful, I would almost say. The convoy was really unpopular. and he's on Twitter. Looking deeper. [31] might not be familiar, but it's a mainstream Vancouver outlet. I'm actually not finding much more without going to twitter, but those are definitely better than the ones that are there. Not voting because ick. Elinruby ( talk) 13:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: In the context of the nomination referring to WP:BLP1E and that one event being his role around the Canada convoy protest, it seems important to mention that he was making news three days ago for unrelated reasons:
Embattled Ottawa lawyer James Bowie sued for sexual harassment CT55555( talk) 05:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. The argument that he might meet WP:GNG. the lawyer's activities are sufficiently covered and his contribution is noticeable not only at the local but also at the regional level. -- Loewstisch ( talk) 12:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 03:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

BigMuscle.com

BigMuscle.com (  | 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:NWEB and WP:GNG. Was unable to locate any reliable sources that provide in-depth information about the website on google. Vozul ( talk) 03:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller ( talk) 03:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

IdeaPad

IdeaPad (  | 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)

Where do i even start. The ENTIRE page is either an advert, unsourced, and poorly written mess. I'm actually surprised no one AfDed this before. 2603:6080:7C40:5E0:40F8:BD5C:5B36:5B3 ( talk) 02:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I had the wrong product line, but point still stands; this isn't going anywhere and at worst will be redirected. Nate • ( chatter) 17:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Still, thats not a vaild reason to keep a article. you need a reason 2603:6080:7C40:5E0:4D1E:928B:22C8:76F8 ( talk) 12:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Don't really need one for a nom with a poor rationale. WP:GNG is more than met for one, so I guess there's your reason. Nate • ( chatter) 01:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It looks like editing during this nomination period have addressed the concerns expressed in this nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

That'll Be the Day (musical)

That'll Be the Day (musical) (  | 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)

From AFD main talk page - This article about a UK theatre show has only two citations, one of which is a dead link and the other to its own programme 15 years ago. A web search returns only this page and its own website. Nobody notable appears in the show, or anybody with their own page.   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

-- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Molex. If there are questions about having a different redirect target, you can raise the question on the redirect talk page or at WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Keyssa

AfDs for this article:
Keyssa (  | 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)

Restored to userspace (courtesy @ Muboshgu: following a Refund request) but then restored to mainspace without going through AfC or addressing the issues raised at AfD. Still no WP:ORG level coverage Star Mississippi 14:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, and California. Star Mississippi 14:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Sigh, we just had this one. Should be merged or redirected to Molex. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    The nature of the semiconductor industry is consolidation of important technologies into larger companies - there are very few small companies left, but the importance of the acquired companies lives on as these companies have built the technology base of the large semiconductor companies that remain today/info/en/?search=Semiconductor_consolidation Kmr719 ( talk) 01:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Molex. To my eye, only one reference would meet WP:SIRS, the Stanford case, from which I am restricted. Rhadow ( talk) 19:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I've read a couple of HBR "case studies" in the past and they're a mixed bag of quality. They can be very thin on "Independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" (as per ORGIND). Looking at the summary for this case study, it reads as if it recounts events that has occurred already, I don't see any indications of independent content. Also, concerned that the company itself seems to be using it to "promote' themselves by providing "first-hand insights" on the case study. HighKing ++ 15:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for comments, references will be expanded and added shortly; Kmr719 ( talk) 01:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This is part of why this article should not have been moved back to mainspace. Star Mississippi 13:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify to give another chance at improving it before moving it to mainspace. A redirect to Molex could be left in mainspace. MarioGom ( talk) 19:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Koch Industries (or Molex although I don't believe Molex would survive at AfD either). Kmr719 participated in the original AfD for this topic company and we should take a very dim view of attempts to circumvent a previous decision at AfD by moving from drafts to mainspace without addressing the issues as he did. This topic company fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 15:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as the High King has suggested. Lightburst ( talk) 04:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 00:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect - Per arguments above. No opposition to merge as well, though don't see what content could be worth keeping. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Kong Lingxi

Kong Lingxi (  | 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)

Contested BLP-PROD. Article has existed since 2012 with the sole reference being an interview with the subject. A search for better references only turned up Wikipedia mirrors and several other people with the same name. No objection to an A7 speedy delete given the article as it currently stands, but maybe there are Chinese/Tibetan sources with which this can be improved? -- Finngall talk 00:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_February_25&oldid=1142892774"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE