The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 00:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:BIO. An unremarkable career in media. Coverage mainly confirms she appeared on Big Brother.
LibStar (
talk) 23:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Lots of hits, none from reliable sources, mostly tabloids, in GNews.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete if we consider her as an actress as she appeared in Big Brothers, as per
WP:NACTOR she fails. We cannot get her passing as we apply sigcov.
Cirton (
talk) 07:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:CREATIVE. Fails
WP:ACTOR. Essentially a non-notable person who appeared in a TV reality show 20 years ago, and now works in radio. And very unlikely to become notable on her current trajectory.
Cabrils (
talk) 21:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OUTCOMES,
WP:BP, and
WP:MILL. It is well-settled for over a decade that only the win/place/show in reality show contests are presumed notable. This page is a mashup of a BLP violations. The claims in the article are
especially vague.
Bearian (
talk) 20:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I really don't see how she passes
WP:NBIO; a google search is not able to reveal sources that would make her able to pass and I don't suspect that sources only available in print will change the notability calculation. —
Mhawk10 (
talk) 18:53, 7 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 00:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Just want to say that just because we can't find much on the internet doesn't mean the article's subject fails
GNG. The article's subject lived before mass adoption of the internet. That being said, I'm not able to find much so may fail GNG. GoldMiner24Talk 22:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I've tried the NY Times back files. He's listed in
this article with the title: Senate Unit Finds Red Link in Press. But he just gets a mention in a list of people brought up before the committee who took the fifth. He's mentioned in another similar article, just a name check. He also is listed in the
Senate report. Unfortunately he was just one of many hundreds who were hounded during the red scare of the 1950's, and he wasn't important enough, as far as I can tell, to merit more biographical information.
Lamona (
talk) 21:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I suggest keeping a revised version of this page. True he is one of many pursued in the 1950s "loyalty" hearings but his testimony is notable for its citation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution, as well as the First and Fifth, in support of his refusal to answer questions. Sources (at least one of which would need to be added to the page) are the published transcript of the testimony:
https://books.google.com/books?id=z6B9imvD-P0C&pg=PA1014&lpg=PA1014&dq, and this article in CQ Press:
https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal56-1347749, as well as other newspaper sources including the Galveston Daily News:
https://newspaperarchive.com/galveston-daily-news-jan-05-1956-p-2/ and the Billings Gazette:
https://newspaperarchive.com/billings-gazette-jan-05-1956-p-1/ . I've been unable to find any reference to any other "loyalty" hearing witness citing the Ninth or Tenth Amendment. His reliance on the Ninth Amendment in the loyalty hearings seems noteworthy in light of the limited history of use of this Amendment prior to the hearings, and the Amendment's more recent growing prominence, as reflected by its later discussion in Supreme Court decisions and the recent statement by US President Joseph Biden to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he wanted "a Supreme Court candidate with a judicial philosophy 'that suggests that there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and all the amendments mean something, including the Ninth Amendment.'”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/23/supreme-court-ninth-amendment-bork-biden-00010847. (Full disclosure: I am a family member.)
Delete, per nom, for failing notability guidelines at
WP:BIO. Removing the sentence in the article explaining why the subject's brother is notable would reduce the size of the stub by 25%. After this much time, it is unlikely further references will be found.
Ifnord (
talk) 18:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm actually seeing a lot of coverage in 1956 on newspapers.com, but it's mostly AP wire stories (or modified AP wire stories). A bunch of newspapers reporting that he refused to testify in front of congress, pleading a bunch of amendments, is clear
WP:BIO1E.
WP:SUSTAINED notes that If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. The lack of any meaningful follow-up in the 66 years since his testimony from anyone other than his cousin shows that reliable sources only cover him in the context of a single event. Since he remained low-profile throughout his life, I see no compelling reason to consider him notable. —
Mhawk10 (
talk) 22:20, 7 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 00:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Advertising/promotional piece about a subject with
dubious notability. Was written by a professional PR manager,
Noam Furer.
FASTILY 22:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete almost half the article is a list of articles she's written. Delete, non-notable.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I have added her 2016 book,[1] and a review[2] and mention[3] of the book. Her other book was published in Hebrew, so there might be more information available to someone who can read Hebrew. The page itself would need major pruning as so much of it is uncited.
DaffodilOcean (
talk) 13:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - If she were being cited in more works, or by the media, or had more references to her works elsewhere, then perhaps she'd creep into the range of notability, but I don't see much of any of that in searching around. Not quite above the bar.
Tony Fox(arf!) 18:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete – Examing the references in the article, above, sources elsewhere per
WP:NEXIST, and eyeballing
Google Scholar, Plato-Shinar seems to fail
WP:PROF and the
WP:GNG at present. If someone has proof to the opposite, they are welcome to tag me.
gidonb (
talk) 01:31, 2 March 2022 (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.
Completely unsourced since creation in 2007; did it even ever air on ZBC? I couldn't find anything on the ZBC website or archive related to this program. This is a possibly a hoax. Eyesnore 20:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: Every source I could find about this alleged show from a Google search seemed to be copied, likely by bots, from this article. This combined with the lack of sources from ZBC's website or archives means this is either extremely obscure and fails
WP:GNG or is a
hoax.
CJ-Moki (
talk) 04:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm not quite convinced that this is a hoax – for one thing, it was created by a seemingly good-faith contributor with no apparent history of fabrications – but ultimately that doesn't matter: as best I can tell, this show is isn't even
verifiable, much less
notable, and deletion is appropriate unless some significant coverage can be found.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 06:37, 7 March 2022 (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.
A day ago, I redirected this page. Apparently someone mentioned something about
WP:BEFORE, so this is why I'm doing this AFD. Back on point, this person is not notable. He has only participated in 2 games, and plus the North Hills dentist citation isn't even related.
Cranloa12n (
talk) 20:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep meets
WP:GNG with all the sources I added this morning. The wrestler and the denist are the same person, per his obit (ref #3), confirmed with his
Olympedia bio. The latter also states he was a three-time NCAA champ, and won a gold medal at the 1951 Pan American Games too. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 20:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Pan-Am gold medalist, Olympic athlete, National Wrestling Hall of Fame inductee. WP:GNG met, and notability clearly established.
GaryColemanFan (
talk) 23:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Won the NCAA wrestling championship six straight years (1952-1957), inducted into HOF, and thus passes
WP:NCOLLATH. See
here. Also passes
WP:GNG with abundant SIGCOV. See, e.g.,
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4].
Cbl62 (
talk) 01:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Cranloa12n: Please consider withdrawing this one as it's not even close.
Cbl62 (
talk) 02:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
no how would you even "withdraw"
Cranloa12n (
talk) 02:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
You just edit your nomination -- or specifically, add a comment immediately under your nom -- to say "withdrawn", perhaps with a brief indication of why. It's often considered the classy thing to do when you realize a nomination is, in hindsight, in error or generally doomed, so as to avoid more people spending time on it unnecessarily. Or someone else prematurely closing it on your behalf, per the multiple 'speedy keeps'.
109.255.211.6 (
talk) 18:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - ridiculous nomination, and if the nominator does not even know how to withdraw he has no business being on AfD.
StAnselm (
talk) 03:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep. Meets multiple notability guidelines, seems to have been a complete failure to do any kind of
WP:BEFORE. The fact that the nominator is proposing articles like this and
Harry E. Luther for deletion while writing stuff like
Project Nightfall themselves suggests they need to get a much better understanding of notability policies before any more involvement in deletion discussions.
192.76.8.77 (
talk) 04:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep I wish all AfDs were this easy and clear cut.
Papaursa (
talk) 05:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep If the nominatored AfDed some more we might end up with a few decent articles.
Nigej (
talk) 05:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Indeed. Though not too many, hopefully -- it might work as Target Article of the Day by stealth, but if we just AfD'd all our stubs at once, get a little out of hand, a little quickly.
109.255.211.6 (
talk) 18:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
You do realize that reply violates WP:Civility right?
Cranloa12n (
talk) 02:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - yeah, fair few references here to indicate this one meets notability.
Tony Fox(arf!) 18:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep following the impressive expansion and sourcing effort applied in the last couple of days. Doesn't quite meet the NOLYMPIC threshold -- though as a Panamerican Games gold-medalist, is very much NSPORT-adjacent -- but now clearly meets GNG.
109.255.211.6 (
talk) 18:43, 1 March 2022 (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 one source provided in the article does not demonstrate notability and is not independent, which also raises questions about the verifiability of the article's current information. My searches did not reveal further source material, so the best course of action seems to be deleting the article.
Toadspike (
talk) 20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
It is a true sign of the extent to which wild west conditions gave power to unscrupulous editors who were willing to advance false narratives that a scandal like this involving downright falsehoods is still not cleared up 14 years after it was first made mention of.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete concepts cannot be adequate sourced to a work that is the one expression of them, we would need sources that discuss the purposes and uses of this concept that are secondary, the one source here is primary.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:48, 1 March 2022 (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.
One line, 17-year-old article lacking inline citations. Two obscure sources listed a separate references. Article subject fails
WP:GNG and lacks
significant coverage.
Geoff | Who, me? 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to the efforts of
Piecesofuk, this is no longer the one-sentence article I found it to be when nominated, but a multiple-sourced, small biography worthy of Wikipedia. Request close as keep. Thanks, Piecesofuk.
Geoff | Who, me? 13:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Notability has not been demonstrated. Perhaps offline sources could provide more information, but until then this should not be kept around.
Toadspike (
talk) 20:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
On
ISBN9780198112341 page 458 this person is literally a 1-sentence footnote in history. Sadly, that's as much as I can find in any source. No-one has documented in depth the life and works of Scottish banker Henry Roberts, founder and sometime president of the Poets Club, and friend of
Charles G. D. Roberts.
Uncle G (
talk) 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I think he passes notability. There's a fair few mentions in the British Newspaper Archive. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and awarded an Honorary Life Fellowship for Services to Poetry and Letters, he was also Honorary Treasurer...
Aberdeen Press and Journal - Saturday 10 May 1947 He also didn't die in 1939 as the previous article shows
Piecesofuk (
talk) 16:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - The subject was a fellow and honorary treasurer of the Royal Society of Literature, and he wrote three books of poetry, which were all reviewed, plus the award of an Honorary Life Fellowship for Services to Poetry and Letters. Notability is also clearly shown in newspaper archives. Clearly passes guidelines for
WP:GNG and easily meets
WP:BIO. -
AuthorAuthor (
talk) 08:02, 3 March 2022 (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.
Alleged to be db-spam, however there is enough coverage in independent sources that I feel the article would be better served by AFD as opposed to CSD. Listing here for community input.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 19:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep The claim to notability (oldest tattoo shop, various awards) as well as the sources presented clearly demonstrate notability. The article does not seem overly promotional, unless listing accolades is unacceptable. If some editors disagree, the best course of action would be to rewrite or reword the article, rather than delete it altogether.
Toadspike (
talk) 20:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - The subject of this article is clearly notable and meets
WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in multiple, independent, verifiable reliable sources such as Los Angeles Times, LA Weekly, Orange County Weekly, Long Beach Post, and others. That her work has been featured in four museum exhibitions, and is included in books on contemporary tattoo art is additional evidence that she is notable. If the article still contains advertorial/promotional tone or language, that can be cleaned up. The article should be retained in the encyclopedia.
Netherzone (
talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Subject is notable and clearly satisfies
WP:GNG; totally agree with
Netherzone. —
Hebrides (
talk) 13:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Subject is clearly notable. Numerous write ups in independent and nationally recognized reliable sources, owner of oldest tattoo shop. Article meets
WP:GNG guidelines. Agree with
Netherzone and
Hebrides.
2600:1700:481E:2E0:D5C8:554D:715F:9928 (
talk) 00:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep- Subject is notable for reasons stated above and meets
WP:GNG guidelines.
Miosaurus (
talk) 00:36, 3 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 00:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
This article has been around for years but each iteration of it seems to be primarily promotional. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing the company. Google search brings up
fewer than 100 results. ...discospinstertalk 18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Sourcing is inadequate to demonstrate notability, especially with the higher requirements of
WP:NCORP.
Toadspike (
talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Easy to find independent coverage. There's a 3-page feature article in
Canadian Business. There's also this [
Globe & Mail] article that has come coverage.
Nfitz (
talk) 19:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete References fail
WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Both the "Canadian Business" reference above and the "Globe and Mail" reference relies entirely and solely on information provided by the company and fails
WP:ORGIND as it does not contain any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
HighKing++ 12:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Take a look at the
WP:SIRS section of the GNG which explicitly refers to NCORP and the stricter approach to references used to establish notability of companies/organizations - so saying GNG is met isn't the complete story, you need to consider NCORP also. Also, nobody suggested that those publications threw out their fact checking - but there's a difference between a publication faithfully reproducing "what was said" and reporting "what was said" accurately (a form of fact checking) and a publication that *analyses" what was said and *double checks* the content of what was said for accuracy. In the absence of any evidence of the latter, therefore and according to
WP:ORGIND (which requires fact checking that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject") it does not meet the criteria for establishing notability (although, of course, it may still be used within the article to support a fact or other information).
HighKing++ 21:15, 7 March 2022 (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.
Floyd Pierce - According to Pro Football Archives, the Tigers' guard was "Floyd", born in 1893 in Ypsilanti, Michigan, died in 1954 in Los Angeles County.
I created the article 12 years ago based on Pro-Football-Reference.com's assertion that it was "Dick." That assertion has now been called into doubt, and so we cannot verify whether or not
WP:NGRIDIRON actually applies. Further, and after 12 years, my searches have failed to turn up
WP:SIGCOV that would satisfy
WP:GNG. Accordingly, it's time for this one to go. At least until the mystery is solved, an entry at
List of National Football League players with unidentified given names would be the better place for this.
Note: Given the commonness of the name
Richard/Dick Pierce, I don't think a redirect is a good idea. Frankly
Dick Pierce should probably redirect to the
Richard Pierce disambiguation page.
Cbl62 (
talk) 17:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete we have no actual cases of significant coverage. I think this is a clear indication of why we need to stop creating articles based only on sports databases.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
FWIW, Pro-Football-Reference is a very reliable source, but the questions about this particular entry are too significant to ignore.
Cbl62 (
talk) 17:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Johnpacklambert: You literally
said earlier this month "it makes sense to consider anyone who played in maybe 3 games in the NFL to be default notable," yet now you're saying to delete an article on a person who played more than that amount of games.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 21:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
That was conditioned on a maybe. Beyond that, it may have been spoken too fast, as has much of the notability guidelines. Anyway, default notability is a consideration that when challenged needs to be supported by actual sources.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, these AFDs on NSPORT-passing people are saddening and make me feel like quitting WP. Pierce (it appears to be Dick Pierce from what I've seen) played four games in the National Football League, the highest level of the sport there ever was, and thus meets
WP:NGRIDIRON, which states: players and head coaches are presumed notable if they: Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues: ... National Football League And I read in NSPORT in bold: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. That's an or. And if that's "not a valid reason," then consider me !voting on
IAR grounds, as I think deleting NFL player articles do not at all improve the encyclopedia.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 21:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Beanie -- This case is really sui generis. And this AfD is not an attack on NGRIDIRON. Rather, and IMO, this is a really odd case in which we really don't have a sufficient basis here for even demonstrating that NGRIDIRON applies.
Cbl62 (
talk) 00:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete From what I understand, Cbl62 is not questioning NGRIDIRON. However, if we don't have any idea of who this player is, and especially if we can't find any RS about him, then that is grounds for deletion. At the very least, information about this player needs to be
verifiable, and it seems like it is not at this point.
Natg 19 (
talk) 22:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Just as an aside, it possible that there just happened to be 2 players with the same last name that played for the Chicago Tigers in 1920? I guess it would be an odd coincidence if they both happened to only play 4 games.
Natg 19 (
talk) 22:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
For there to have been two men with the same last name, both playing exactly four games, both at the same position and for the same team in the same year strikes me as highly, highly improbable. Rather, it appears that there was a single "Pierce" who played the four games at guard, and we just don't know if it was Dick or Floyd.
Cbl62 (
talk) 00:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per Cbl62. If we cannot verify who the subject of the article actually is and do so with reliable sourcing then there should not be an article. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 17:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. If someone has a Newspapers.com subscription, an old Coffin Corner article suggests there might be a limited accounting of 1920 Chicago Tigers players in the Rock Island Argus from Dec. 2, 1920, by Bruce Copeland. It's possible that could clear up his name (but unlikely to provide SIGCOV).
JoelleJay (
talk) 23:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Presumably, that's a reference to the all-pro team announced by the Argus on 12/2/20. Pierce was not among those selected. See
here for the actual clipping.
Cbl62 (
talk) 13:39, 7 March 2022 (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.
Keep References in the article contain non trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject and a quick search reveals many more, so
WP:GNG is met and the article does not violate
WP:ISNOT. The number of roles is not a requirement to meet
WP:GNG. --
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk) 18:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Tentative keep - the two major roles mentioned seem to be pretty established shows, with several hundred episodes each, which to me suggests notability. I suspect someone who knows the Bengali television industry better would be able to clarify this but right now I think there's enough for a keep.
Tony Fox(arf!) 18:20, 1 March 2022 (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete no actual identified sources about him.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete because there are no sources.
Toadspike (
talk) 20:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The two account names used by the article creator suggest that the "source" here was a direct family relationship to the article subject. The article creator wrote xyr own autobiography in another Wikipedia article, now "sourced" to the creator's autobiography elsewhere. Neither that, nor this article, nor
Unialphabet (
AfD discussion) have any independent sources to use that I can find. Delete.
Uncle G (
talk) 20:54, 28 February 2022 (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.
Peacocky promo piece on a non-notable company. The sources cited are the company's own website, a couple of interviews of the founder, and one article (FondsProfessionell.at) which looks like it might contribute towards notability, but isn't alone enough to satisfy
WP:ORGCRIT. Search finds nothing beyond the usual social media, company directories, standard business reporting / press release regurgitations, and again some interviews of the founder. Fails
WP:GNG /
WP:COMPANY. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - refers to a "well-known" fund that gets less than 50 Google hits when searched. The company itself doesn't do much better. There are some media mentions, but only a couple (some paywalled). I don't think there's enough for a keep here.
Tony Fox(arf!) 18:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Assets under management > 2 billion. it has Relevance criteria in reference to over two million securities transactions"; The company beates its bechmarks in every fund category which shows its relevance. Mor than 90 percent of companies are not beating its benchmarks...
Lucky-se7en (
talk) 12:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The amount of AUM or performance against benchmarks are not notability criteria. If you can find sources to satisfy
WP:ORGCRIT to support your article, please feel free to add them. Thank you. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk) 15:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: Lacking notability based on current citations.
Gusfriend (
talk) 06:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article describing the proposition of an investment management firm, without indication of encyclopaedic notability. Some references are about the firm's founder and his book, others are announcement-based. Clearly a company going about its business, but I am not seeing the
depth of coverage about the firm itself needed to demonstrate
notability here.
AllyD (
talk) 08:32, 7 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 13:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Non notable organization that fails
WP:NORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows hits predominantly to user generated sources such as
this I note also that this is a subtle ADMASQ to promote the owner of the organization. Celestina007 (
talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages or Directory service. Topic company fails
WP:NCORP notability criteria.
HighKing++ 12:10, 7 March 2022 (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 mathematical constants. There is consensus that this should not exist as a standalone but that some of the content would fit at the aforementioned link StarMississippi 01:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Unreferenced, indiscriminate table, with context supported only by links obscured with
LaTeX math markup, e.g.
(
Gauss's constant). A user removed all the continued fractions at
List of mathematical constants in 2019 because it was causing excessive clutter. Can't find similar tables online, but not 100% confident that it fails
WP:LISTN. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 23:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Valid list article. As it says at the bottom Although some of the symbols in the leftmost column are displayed in black due to math markup peculiarities, all are clickable and link to the respective constant's page. They do link to other pages. This article was created in 2002. This seems quite encyclopedic.
DreamFocus 00:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment No one in nearly 20 years has bothered to put the names of these constants into the page? That's the most impressive example of insular mathematics fandom that I have seen all weekend. I'm concerned that there are no discernible criteria for inclusion or exclusion here. I wouldn't object in principle to a list of constants whose continued fraction representations have themselves been noteworthy. For example, there is no algebraic or analytic expression for the Feigenbaum constants, so their continued fractions will just be translations of the known decimal approximations. I'd like to see this list saved (I'm always happier when a page can be
Heymanned instead of deleted), but it's definitely got problems, and I can see the case for letting it go.
XOR'easter (
talk) 02:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Why would the names be better than just the Symbols that represent them? If you don't recognize one are you going to recognize the other?
DreamFocus 03:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes. Very much so. The letter by itself has no unique meaning in mathematics, for example. The table itself demonstrates the necessity of names by giving two different meanings of (the
Hardy–Littlewood twin prime constant and the base-2
Champernowne constant). It gives meanings for and based on
Brun's theorem, but those could also be the second and fourth
Bernoulli numbers.
XOR'easter (
talk) 03:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Alright. I added a names column and half of the names done thus far.
DreamFocus 04:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I haven't been able to find a tabulation of constants sorted by continued-fraction representation in the literature. If one exists, it's pretty darn obscure, and thus not great evidence that we need to devote a whole page to the topic. It just doesn't seem to be anybody's priority, or the way that anybody has thought about the topic (as far as thoughts that survive peer review are concerned). The list assembles things that the academic literature has not. It doesn't advance a new conclusion; it's just
an indiscriminate collection. It includes the typical cruft that accumulates in articles on the more
recreational side of mathematics, like a constant that has had maybe three papers ever written about it, or an expression plucked out of a MathWorld page on
things that can be defined using continued fractions and then granted the name "Continued Fraction Constant". (MathWorld has gathered a lot of fluff over the years.) And there isn't an example to follow for how to build a reasonable list of this kind. I wrote above that I wouldn't object in principle to a list of constants whose continued fraction representations have themselves been noteworthy. Here we have the gulf between principle and practice. Having read more and thought more, I don't think this provides value beyond the examples already given in the main
continued fraction article.
XOR'easter (
talk) 04:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Aside from chapter 10 of
Annie Cuyt's book, do you mean? ☺
Uncle G (
talk) 07:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Handbook of Continued Fractions for Special Functions? It's not really a sorted tabulation, though, is it? It's much more like how the
continued fraction article presents the examples included there. That page already has , , the square and cube roots of 2, the golden ratio, the Euler–Mascheroni constant, and Khinchin's constant. Trim this page down to what that chapter can justify, and it's redundant with the main article. I tend to think that if we can't explain in prose the significance of expanding a particular constant as a continued fraction, we shouldn't bother with it. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not a replacement for the CRC handbook of old.
XOR'easter (
talk) 08:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Topic lacks sources supporting that a fractional representation of these numbers is notable.
MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Leaning towards Merge with
List of mathematical constants. It's not end-of-the-world bad that one or two entries are unsourced - the decimal expansions of these numbers are available in many places around the Internet, so it might be okay to permit a continued fraction expansion sans source per WP:CALC (although this is kinda pushing it - the simplest way I can think of to calculate a continued fraction expansion would be to write a ~10-line Python program, which is far beyond the current policy of "basic arithmetic"), although citing nothing would be borderline WP:SYNTH/WP:OR.
More importantly: Are there any reliable sources that discuss - or even mention - the continued fraction expansions of these numbers? (I looked up both the Cuyt et al. and Borwein et al. on Google Books and found nothing, though I’d like someone who actually has a physical copy of at least one of these two books to verify, and though I was also able to find a few of these sequences on OEIS.) Just because every real number has a continued fraction expansion doesn't mean that every interesting real number has an interesting continued fraction expansion - and I, for one, find these continued fraction expansions to be positively boring. As an inclusionist(-ish), I tend to be reluctant to get an article deleted, but also merging this with
Continued fraction might feel a bit
WP:UNDUE.
Duckmather (
talk) 22:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Cuyt chapter 10 not only has the regular continued fraction representations, but even has citations of sources for them in its turn. Chapter 10 has, in order, π, Euler's number, integer powers and roots of π and e, ln(2), sqrt(2), the cube root of 2, Euler's γ, the Golden Ratio, the rabbit constant, Apéry's constant, Catalan's constant, Gompertz' constant, and Khinchin's constant. The regular continued fraction for Apéry's constant is sourced to "[AZ97]", for example, which is
arXiv:
math/9804121v1.
Uncle G (
talk) 13:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus is against keeping, but are the "delete" people OK with the proposed merger? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
A merge would have to be selective. There are 35 entries in this table that aren't entirely trivial; the only source offered that might give a criterion for inclusion has about half that many (and that list only partially overlaps with this one).
XOR'easter (
talk) 19:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello Sandstein. Thank you for proposing an
WP:ATD. I agree with the approach of XOR'easter for the merger.
MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
This sounds reasonable, since many sources about specific constants list their continued fractions, including sources about specific continued fractions. Continued fraction expansions probably pass
WP:ROUTINE as well, since they are straghtforward to calculate if enough decimal places are known. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 21:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
"Only source offered" is a bit weak. I think that no-one has really looked to see what sources there are, to see what criteria for inclusion are supported. After all, it's not hard to turn up Stephen R. Finch's Mathematical Constants (CUP 2003) which has a chapter on well-known constants with their continued fractions. But I'm the first to even mention it. Haakon Waadeland has another book Continued Fractions (Springer 2008) with "mathematical constants" being the first section of Appendix A. If conclusions were based upon actual research, they would be a lot safer. We shouldn't be going by what sources are offered but by what sources we can find. After all, the first source offered for
Kinnoull was a bowling club WWW site (c.f.
Special:Permalink/207128450).
Uncle G (
talk) 21:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I did look for sources and found very little. And what I did find suggests to me that a table is the wrong way to present this information. For example, Finch (p. 46) gives three different expansions for . Lorentzen and Waadeland (p. 267) give five different expansions for . The right way to reflect the available sources could be to incorporate that information as prose discussions (maybe in
continued fraction, maybe elsewhere), but we'd be talking about writing new content, not a merge.
XOR'easter (
talk) 23:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Useful and informative list. Article went from being unreferenced to having references and more complete information. Not the article is not what it was
when nomiinated for deletion. Can be improved, but there is no valid reason proffered to delete. 7&6=thirteen (
☎) 13:17, 2 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 13:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
This page was
deleted in 2017 but then recreated by a colleague of Woodley in 2019 without the normal discussion that would typically be demanded of such action. Aside from the
WP:PROF concerns that we can address, I notice that many to most of the sources used for this
WP:BLP are not discussing the biography of the subject per se but instead are essentially
either a retelling of his published work and public appearances or deep dive into
WP:FRINGE areas to which this fellow seems particularly attracted for better or worse (see
WP:FRINGEBLP for considerations in that regard). It is absolutely the case that he has been mentioned in the context of lately salacious controversies that dominate, shall I say, "intellectually dark" corners of the internet, but
mere mention is typically not enough on which to base a biography. As an academic, his work is not particularly highly cited, as a public intellectual his reach is niche and
WP:FRINGE (note that I was first alerted to the existence of this biography through a notice on
WP:FTN about his recent forays into claims that look a lot like championing
parapsychology, though sourcing is weak), and besides that I see little in the way as to attestations of notability.
Should some of this material be included elsewhere? It's possible. There is an ongoing discussion at
WP:BLPN over his participation in the
London Conference on Intelligence, but I think his participation, if at all noteworthy, is better handled at that page rather than on a biography. His onetime enthusiasm for
cryptozoology might be worth a brief mention in a page like
Gloucester sea serpent or something like that, and the way in which he has positioned himself in
race and intelligence discussions may also lead to as much as a paragraph in some article on
Flynn effect where it is clear that some mainstream news kinda attached themselves, press-release-style, to his claim that human beings are losing their intelligence (but see
WP:SENSATION). All in all, there is essentially no attestation to notability here that I can find for this person as a subject of a biography. That does not mean all mention of Woodley needs to be excised from Wikipedia, but when asking the question of whether a
standalone article deserves to exist, I think we have to consider that when the sourcing is this precarious and the content this prone to problems, it is better to be conservative and remove the article than it is to have one sticking out like the sore thumb this one is.
jps (
talk) 13:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. In addition to the issues which jps has laid out, I'll just add that two of the secondary sources used in the article (which may give the impression of conferring notability) are authored by Woodley's collaborators: 1) the entry in Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science[5] was written by Matthew Sarraf (who has collaborated with Woodley on numerous papers, see e.g.
[6],
[7],
[8]) and Aurelio José Figueredo (see e.g.
[9],
[10],
[11]); and 2) the article "Cryptozoology at the Zoological Society of London" by Darren Naish
[12] (who collaborated with Woodley here:
[13]). Because neither of these sources is independent of the subject, it doesn't seem that either should count toward
WP:GNG.
Generalrelative (
talk) 15:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - Isn't the point of NPROF is to keep these academics' articles in order to summarise their contributions to academic fields rather than discuss their life outside that because they would otherwise flunk the GNG? You mention mainstream news often reporting on sensationalism, but what if RS like
New Scientist,
Psychology Today, and
Smithsonian Magazine are also discussing his work?
[14]Morbidthoughts (
talk) 18:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
New Scientist is a
sensationalist rag, the item on the Smithsonian Magazine website is too brief to be
WP:SIGCOV, and the item in Psychology Today is a passing mention that does not find it particularly credible. (Personally, I am rather sceptical of this theory as it rests on many questionable assumptions and some rather shaky evidence. In this article I don’t intend to go into too much detail...[15]) Overall, I'm not impressed with the quantity or depth of the news reporting available.
XOR'easter (
talk) 19:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
No. I mean
WP:BLOG especially with reference to its final exhortation: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
jps (
talk) 20:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
It's not self-published. The author did not publish it, since the publisher, Scientific American, still had to accept it. That should be obvious.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 20:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The text of the
WP:BLOG policy is clear. This counts as a blog according to it. Sorry. If you disagree, take it to
WP:RSN and ask for other opinions, but I'm pretty sure I know what the answer will be.
jps (
talk) 22:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
It's clear from plain language what "self-published" means and that Scientific American article is not it. I can let others in this AfD figure that out for themselves.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 22:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
"Tetrapod Zoology" or "Tet Zoo" is the personal blog of Darren Naish, which was hosted by the SciAm blog collective until he departed in 2018
[17]. Without more information about how much editorial control SciAm exerted over their bloggers at the time, it's actually hard to say whether Tet Zoo counts as
WP:SPS or not. (The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American, says a disclaimer in tiny font.) One could well argue that, to be prudent, it is not suitable for sourcing a contentious claim in a BLP. And since it's Naish blogging about something he did with Woodley, it's a
WP:PRIMARY source, meaning that we could only use it with extreme care, and that it doesn't contribute to notability. (I wouldn't magically become wiki-notable if my coauthors blogged about me.)
XOR'easter (
talk) 23:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
And that explanation makes more sense because it seemed like he was the equivalent to a columnist at a newspaper at face value.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 23:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
@
XOR'easter: is this because of its new ownership? Does the RSNP statement "There is consensus that New Scientist magazine is generally reliable for science coverage. Use New Scientist with caution to verify contentious claims." need revision? Because you seem to be basing your statement on two events that happened over a decade ago. I'm asking this as a general question not related to this AfD.
Doug Wellertalk 13:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doug Weller: There were many incidents other than those two from that time period
[18], none of which are easily forgiven, and the most recent discussion linked at RSP indicates that
they're just sleazy: They called me in two different occasions to ask for comments for an article, and badly misquoted me to make it more juicy, etc.
N. David Mermin took the trouble to make an
arXiv post about how New Scientist wouldn't quote him accurately about his own work
[19]. The new ownership is just icing on the cake, and an indication that nothing's going to improve.
XOR'easter (
talk) 18:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Then we need a new RSN discussion, right? Because I certainly have been relying on RSNP and knee none of this. Thanks.
Doug Wellertalk 19:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:NPROF asks us to consider the academic noteworthiness of a person which may diverge from typical biographical considerations. But in this regard, the situation is even more dire. The guy is not a particularly well-known academic according to the usual measures.
jps (
talk) 20:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Greatly disagree that this article "sticks out like a sore thumb". It's very much in line with other academic articles. The references are very mainstream and reliable. You mention it was created "without the normal discussion that would typically be demanded of such action" but don't explain.
Nweil (
talk) 19:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
When articles are recreated after being deleted, there is normally a discussion prior to "undeletion". See
WP:DRV.
jps (
talk) 19:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Weird that you think the article is "very much in line" with other academic articles given that by my reading most of the content relates to
WP:FRINGE theories. That's not particularly common.
jps (
talk) 19:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
This was not an undeletion request. It was created anew. As far I can tell, there was no end-around the policy as you imply. There are multiple print references to Woodley's work. His peers cite him with no caveat. This is fundamentally opposed to your claim of "fringe".
Nweil (
talk) 20:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, there is nothing that prevents longtime editors who are grandfathered into article creation from re-creating deleted material. Yes, this has historically been something that has been called out as problematic at AfDs as an end-run around
WP:DRV. I'm not saying sanction the article creator (though
WP:COI could be a consideration here). I'm merely saying that the article was once deleted and it probably deserves to stay deleted. Should I ask for
WP:SALT? Well, let's just see what happens in this discussion. The claim that "his peers cite him with no caveat" is not surprising when you are publishing in a backwater or walled garden. This is particularly common in
WP:FRINGE areas such as
race and intelligence or
cryptozoology, to be honest.
jps (
talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable fringe academic that was originally
[20] deleted but re-created by (
Personal attack removed)
B. Pesta(Redacted). Not enough reliable sources give details about Woodley's life. Most of the sources on the article are not in depth and only passing mention i.e. sources 9-15 are excessive and some do not even mention Woodley (for example,
[21] or mention him once only
[22], so these sources are being used inappropriately. (
Personal attack removed). It's a desperate attempt to create a whitewashed biography for Google ranking. Also the claim that Woodley has abandoned cryptozoology is not true, he is still researching the topic as of 2022 and has also co-written several crazy paranormal papers which are not notable. I understand there are notable fringe people, but this guy is not one of them.
Psychologist Guy (
talk) 20:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Nweil, your use of the word "million" might be excused as hyperbole, but this editor's last block for misconduct was about six years ago, and there is no record of sockpuppetry. False accusations against other editors are personal attacks. Consider yourself warned.
Cullen328 (
talk) 01:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Is this comment misplaced, because I can't figure out how this is a response to anything Psychologist Guy wrote.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 02:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, and I've adjusted the indentation to match better (outdented the first "reply").
Primefac (
talk) 11:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Actually no. I see how Primefac might have thought this but Nweil made it clear at ANI
[23] that they really were responding to Psychologist Guy, accusing him of "outing" despite the fact that B. Pesta's identity was self-declared. I've reformatted again to (hopefully) resolve the confusion.
Generalrelative (
talk) 18:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
This looks like Googlehacking to me which has been an increasingly common game played by fringe academics. Google Scholar does a pretty poor job of distinguishing between self-citations, churn, and pocket journal citations, for example. It's also clear that this list is one that is being monitored by the subject which Google Scholar now allows you to do, making it less unbiased for our purposes.
jps (
talk) 23:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
What do you mean "monitored by the subject"? Anybody can monitor any GS profile: they cannot alter it.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 00:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC).reply
Actually, you can alter it now by claiming the profile and linking to your papers.
It's game-able in a way it wasn't in the past (Note that I am not saying that this person has done the specific charge listed in this blogpost, but I just link here to show that it is possible to add things to one's profile].
jps (
talk) 00:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Has the subject added citations to other authors with the same name? If so please specify them. That is the only way a GS profile can be gamed. (Actually, the way the system works is that citations cannot be added; they can only fail to be subtracted from the profile).
Xxanthippe (
talk) 00:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC).reply
That is not the only way a GS profile can be gamed. You can explicitly add sources if they aren't identified in the default Google Scholar search. Some may call that "fair play", but it is a unique feature that Google Scholar has that no other index has (unless you think ResearchGate functions as an index of sorts).
jps (
talk) 00:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
OK But please show where he has done this.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 01:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC).reply
I did not say he has done this. I noted that he has claimed his profile. In response, you claimed he could not alter it, and I said that, contrariwise, it is possible to alter it. As far as I know, Google doesn't make public what things a profile user adds to their Google scholar profile.
jps (
talk) 02:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
If you still claim that the subject Googlehacked his citation record it would be useful to have evidence. A rather different case of citation shenanigans is
here.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 03:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC).reply
Googlehacking is something that happens through a lot of means in fringe contexts, as pointed out by XOR'easter in a more eloquent fashion below.
jps (
talk) 03:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
There's a curious anomaly in Google Scholar: there will often be a slightly different different set of papers if you go to it through the user profile, or if you search on "MA Woodley" or 'M Woodley" (and remove those from other people with the same initial). I've come across occasions where this is significant, though it does not appear to be for this individual. DGG (
talk ) 05:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I tend to discount straight-up citation counting as meaningful for
WP:PROF#C1 in
fringe fields, due to the commonality of walled gardens, citations from dubious journals, random web documents that Google Scholar happened to scrape, etc. Other than that, there just isn't much to go on.
XOR'easter (
talk) 23:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Request from user I have received an email from the subject of the article that he "would prefer that it be deleted". He made a similar request at the first AfD. DGG (
talk ) 05:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete There are insufficient sources to create an informative and neutral article. And no, he fails WP:PROF. WP:PROF incidentally is a guideline, not a policy. The assumption is that anyone who meets the criteria must be notable. Hence, "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." However, it has not been shown that he meet the criteria. Note also that the guideline says that published works alone do not make someone notable, "Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." But again, this subject does not meet the criteria. Finally, the debates about the content are what one expect when someone lacks notability and we are relying on fragments on information about them to sew together an article.
TFD (
talk) 05:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I went though the articles (that weren't paywalled for me) that should be the basis of his notability and they were mainly just quick mentions of his work. Konnikova mentions Woodley in the Smithsonian article probably the most, but it is only in one paragraph and only about his work. Woodley whom I had not heard of before seems to have many mentions of his work in various RS but no real content that would put him over the line for him to have his own stand alone article. I would be against salting as he still seems active and possibly in the future he might pass notability. Just not now.
Sgerbic (
talk) 08:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:BLPREQUESTDELETE seems pretty straightforward, an edge case where the subject himself calls for deletion as well.
ValarianB (
talk) 14:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per above, borderline notability, so
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE takes precedence over other concerns. --
Jayron32 16:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - When I see arguments like they are not notable (not a public figure) to justify exclusion of criticism which is required by policy to avoid GEVAL and the promotion of fringe beliefs, or that sources are lacking that criticize them, it's generally an indication that
WP:BLPN is not met. As for BLPREQUESTDELETE, it would also not matter if BLPN was really met: the article would stay and be properly sourced. —
PaleoNeonate – 17:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, unfortunately. While I personally think this individual passes the threshold of notability, this clearly is a borderline case, so I think the right thing to do in this situation is to respect the article subject's wishes for it to be deleted. -
Ferahgo the Assassin (
talk) 00:08, 5 March 2022 (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.
This appears to be a list of locations in Ukraine labeled by who currently controls them in the ongoing invasion. This fails
WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a live news ticker. During active hostilities, any information about the status of these locations will be contradictory, unreliable and likely to change by the day. After the conflict, any changes in territorial control will be better described in a prose article and by way of a map. Besides, many entries are unsourced (
WP:V), and what sources are cited are often several days old. Sandstein 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as we have never been at war with Eurasia, only ever with Eastasia. This is effectively just a list of towns, etc, in Ukraine, and as such duplicate material.
SN54129 14:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:IAR. This article houses the sources for
Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map. The template helps us in making map pictures for war articles following the procedure depicted in the figure below. So deleting this article will just disrupt the making of war maps.
Tradediatalk 16:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Figure
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong keep: While initially neutral, I changed my mind after seeing the nominator also intends to delete the module as well.
Dunutubble (
talk) (
Contributions) 03:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Tartan357, yes, as explained below, the map has the same problems as this list and should also be deleted. Sandstein 10:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong keep Per reasons from Tartan357 and Tradedia.
Elijahandskip (
talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep As per above. Showing the status of battle and whatnot.
Redoct87 (
talk) 22:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep The case that this article is required to source the war map which has obvious benefit to readers, is quite convincing.
Davey2116 (
talk) 00:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep This page is obviously used to supplement the war map and satisfy inline citation guidelines. I'd say
WP:SNOW might be in order here.
Firestar464 (
talk) 02:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per IAR, but we should probably formalize the war-map system a bit with some tracking categories and essays. We kinda have cats for templates and essays, but we don't have a category for source-list articles like this. --
Artoria2e5🌉 06:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong delete per nom and NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not for the day-to-day flow of a war. Wasn't done for the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan or any other recent conflict, and there's no reason to start here.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
What do you suggest be done about the map? If you're advocating eliminating all maps related to the invasion while it's ongoing, that's fine, but I want to be sure what we're talking about is clear. ―
Tartan357Talk 07:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The map has the same problems as the list: it is a current news ticker in a graphical format, which Wikipedia is not for (
WP:NOT). The list and its history show that they are not remotely updated and sourced well enough to be a reliable representation of the situation on the ground, which means that we are doing a disservice to our readers by providing them with unverifiable and/or outdated information. A map like this is something that news websites do much better than we can hope to do. Sandstein 10:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
It's still new, we should give editors a chance to improve it. The
Syria map became a gold standard of sorts on the internet; maps by news outlets are only approximations, whereas ours are based entirely on the control of individual cities. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Top 10 reasons why copying from maps is strictly prohibited on the Wikipedia Syria war map. I have great respect for
Tradedia and the other Wikipedians who spent a great deal of time creating a well-oiled system for detailed, verifiable war maps. In any case, it doesn't make sense to delete the references page before the map itself has even been nominated for deletion. ―
Tartan357Talk 10:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
In fact, there IS
a map for the war in Afghanistan. I'd recommend you all to read Elli's comment below.
Firestar464 (
talk) 02:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
We actually have modules for both the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also have some other modules on the ongoing wars in Ethiopia, the Central African Republic, Syria, Myanmar, Mali, Kivu, Mozambique, Yemen, and many others. For a more local alternative see the detailed map for the War in the Donbass.
Dunutubble (
talk) (
Contributions) 03:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Yes, of course the information in the list will quickly change and may not be fully reliable. However, one can say the same about any page about current events. As far as the list or the page is sourced, and the events are notable (as they certainly are), such list has every right to exist.
My very best wishes (
talk) 18:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong keep this is a rehashing of the numerous discussions that have been had over the Syrian map. Yes, this is not exactly a usual article, but it clearly has a useful function for the encyclopedia, is not harmful in any way, and does comply with our policy on
verifiability.
WP:NOTNEWS, if you read it, does not say we cannot have something like this. It isn't original reporting (it's all sourced to other reports), just a news report (we're not making an article for every attack, and a war isn't meaningfully routine; this is an appropriate way to handle information that changes), who's who (obviously), or celebrity gossip.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 22:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep definitely a good summary/overview of the current state. Can be revisited once this war is over. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 01:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong keep Definitely a good tool for further edits on the Map Template and a good guide for the current situation of events. Essential encyclopedic value. Must be kept.
Mr.User200 (
talk) 02:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep This article support the map and is needed.
Thingofme (
talk) 04:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep This article is vital for coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
WP:SNOW might apply said as said above.
ArsenalGhanaPartey (
talk) 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Wikipedia's coverage of the Syrian Civil War works exactly the same way, I don't see why we should change it. It's a pretty neat system --
Abbasi786786 (
talk) 21:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong KeepWP:NOTNEWS does not say that pages cannot be updated as events occur. It says that wikipedia is not for original reporting or reporting on insignificent events. It is likely, to me, that this event will remain significent in the future. This page is reporting information from other sources in a useful way. No comparable page on the internet exists right now. Finally, while I understand that significance is subjective and not a criteria, this article plays a VITAL role that no other website is acomplishing. To be able to see the timeline of events and news links without information about celebrety tweets or repeated clutter like CNN and every other news source is doing is CRUCIAL for humankind. -
SewerSocalist (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added 18:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep This article is used to support
Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map. Until there is consensus that either the Ukraine combat map or combat maps in general are inappropriate, this article should stay. If the nominator opposes Wikipedia having live combat maps, then this should be resolved with an RFC.
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 00:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong delete. Wikipedia is
WP:NOTNEWS and certainly NOT a progress tracker of a war, disaster, election, game, etc. Additionally, the title is in bad English ("a town during a war", what the hell is this about?) —
kashmīrīTALK 18:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, per Elli. An uncontested Ukrainian city does not need a citation to demonstrate that it belongs to Ukraine, as most reports simply won't write about untouched cities. The article plays a useful statistical and encyclopedic role, as
Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map suggests.
Pilaz (
talk) 00:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This is a harmless list, providing some detail in English of an emerging and worrying situation. When we know the outcome of the war, there will probably be a case for purging the list of uncontested places, if there are any.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. When an article has to be updated day by day, even hour by hour, it's NEWS.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 21:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Encyclopedic information.
WP:NOTPAPER. The disputable cases mostly seem to be sourced. This article supports
Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map, as in the case of several other recent armed conflicts for which en.Wikipedia has provided encyclopedic coverage, which have similar module-based relations to map files.
Boud (
talk) 23:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: Certainly, this article has news value, in that it describes a rapid-changing situation, and that it is up to date or nearly so. However, that is independent of the question whether the article has encyclopedic value. Imagine if the situation settles, would the article still prove useful to readers looking for encyclopedic information? This is debatable, but I believe the answer would be yes. The argument that news value precludes encyclopedic value is not valid. Though perhaps if consensus decides this article does not belong in mainspace, I would like to see it merged with
Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map over deleting it, since the article is used to provide reliable sources for information in the map, and also supports editing activity. --
Kakurady (
talk) 02:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: clear value per above, and it's not too difficult to cite reliable sources for the uncontested cities.
Oeoi (
talk) 16:11, 7 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 13:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Hasn't received any significant coverage, only mentioned in databases or in passing in results. Being allowed to play once because many actual pro players withdrew is not sufficient when the actual coverage is missing.
Fram (
talk) 12:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete lacks coverage that rises to the level of passing GNG.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Barr may technically pass
WP:NTENNIS, but I agree that an SNG pass isn't enough to overcome a GNG failure in this context. Since my search for GNG-qualifying coverage didn't find anything significant (only the same sorts of database entries and trivial mentions that Fram found), he isn't notable at the moment. Given Barr's youth, it's certainly possible that he may receive significant coverage in the future; administrators should feel free to restore the article if that ends up happening.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 01:36, 7 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 01:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. How many of these random obscure-as-heck schools are in India, anyway? In a big country of 1 billion individuals, probably a lot.
👨x🐱 (
Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Wholly not notable in any way, shape, or form.
71.179.1.78 (
talk) 14:26, 2 March 2022 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep : there has been already added many citation feom reliable sources.
Bloody Knight Rider (
talk) 09:47, 1 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 01:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. All the sources cited are either unreliable or not significant, and my search finds no coverage that would satisfy the GNG or any relevant SNG. I'm not seeing any indication that the outside world has taken any real notice of this aspiring celebrity's career.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 07:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:17, 28 February 2022 (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. Without any sources, there is not verifiable content to merge.
✗plicit 01:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per the prior consensus that led to similar lists being deleted and the fact that this one clearly isn't notable. Also, doing a bundled list for the rest would probably be a good idea now that there is a clear consensus about it. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 04:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non notable unsourced list. --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 12:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I would only support merge if reliable sources could be found for the content per
WP:V.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:50, 4 March 2022 (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.
Having a big fan following is irrelevant. Not a notable Youtuber, unable to find independent coverage.
Juggyevil (
talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Commentnews.com.au has no byline,
idntimes it is written by the contributor,
[24] is kind of good one but again, I can't see any journalist commentary in it and the quotes of Lucy Bella Earl is the proof of non independent coverage.
Juggyevil (
talk) 20:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not have sourcing that actually rises to the level to pass GNG.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Sorry, but none of the sources are helpful, in-depth or independent.
Sage Journal is itself having byline and Wikipedia is not Sage Journal.
Juggyevil (
talk) 06:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - Times, Business Insider and BBC articles are strong secondary sources, she's being used as a source by other media outlets from the looks of the NZ Herald piece and some other UK papers. Hard to define YouTube notability in regards to subscriber count, but 350k seems fairly strong.
Tony Fox(arf!) 17:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - update - Today, the number of subscribers is well in excess of 350k. It is 7.62 million, actually. I agree: 7.62 million seems fairly strong, indeed, and the said Wikipedia article deserves a Keep. --
Kggucwa (
talk) 19:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete due to the lack of sources that discuss her directly and in-depth, which from what I can tell none of them do. In the meantime subscriber count doesn't really matter. For all we know she got them through a click farm or something. Even if she didn't, there's zero in the guidelines about the notability of YouTubers being based on subscriber count. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 22:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
comment - erm... the Business Insider article is 800-plus words specifically about her, in-depth. The BBC article is also specifically about her, though shorter. The Times article is specifically about her, though paywalled. I'd strongly disagree with your first statement. Agreed that subscriber count can be manipulated, but it is certainly an indicator of notability, if not directly referred to in the guidelines.
Tony Fox(arf!) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Tony Fox: 800-plus words of an interview and some of those 800 words is her lamenting about the creative process in general and other YouTube creators. So no, it's not really "800 words specifically about her." Really most of it isn't about her, specifically or otherwise. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 21:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. The Times, BBC, and Business Insider provide obvious in-depth coverage passing
WP:GNG. Opposition appears to come from people who mistakenly believe that GNG-notability should be based on some evaluation of how important the occupation of the subject is rather than on the actual level of coverage of the subject herself in reliable sources. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Her work is the subject of at least one academic paper from an Indonesian University, which is obviously independent and in depth, she is featured in the BBC plus the Business Insider and The Times, I find it easy to say keep for this one, based on her meeting the general notability criteria.
CT55555 (
talk) 01:35, 6 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 12:07, 7 March 2022 (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.
Only mentions I can find of this company is about the layout of a single suburb in Mumbai. References don't have significant mention of anything else other than this. If that is all that is to be said, then I don't think this is notable enough for its own article.
Alpha Piscis Austrini (
talk) 08:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - purely promotional article, searches did not turn up enough to satisfy either
WP:GNG or
WP:CORPDEPTH.
Onel5969TT me 13:39, 28 February 2022 (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.
Delete – title/topic scope appears to be largely
WP:SYNTH.
Jr8825 •
Talk 07:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete in the current article state, and as of writing with the current status of the war, this is undeserving of a dedicated article as per
WP:GNG in my opinion.
Maxorazon (
talk) 07:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:CRYSTAL that there would be very much spillover. There have only been two relatively minor in scale incidents (an additional rocket attack occurred near
Rostov-on-Don). If this changes substantially over the next 7 days, then consider a keep, but as of right now, this is a clear delete.
Curbon7 (
talk) 17:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:NOTNEWS and nothing to show this will be an encyclopaedic topic.
Mztourist (
talk) 04:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Basically agreeing with all what has been said above. In general it's better not to have titles like that, but instead describe each and every skirmish separately.
Szmenderowiecki (
talk) 12:12, 1 March 2022 (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.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY: consensus to delete "just a list of postal codes" articles demonstrated in previous AfDs (
[25],
[26]).
asilvering (
talk) 06:32, 28 February 2022 (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.
This has been created, turned back into a redirect, and recreated too many times now. Let's have an actual discussion.
Arguments for deletion (or rather, restoring the redirect to
Surface Pressure) are straightforward: Jessica Darrow does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:NACTOR. Her only roles in productions notable enough to have Wikipedia articles look to be Encanto and Feast of the Seven Fishes (questionable whether that film is particularly notable or whether her role was significant). And I couldn't find enough significant coverage to meet GNG: there are mainly trivial mentions in articles about Encanto and gossip articles. The article as is cites only two useful sources (
[27],
[28]), and it looks to me like there aren't many more out there.
Yes however only one notable role is enough to have an article. there are many articles on actors with only one role. two is good enough for article. keep the article and allow others to work on it to add sources. she's one of the biggest starts in the most popular disney movie of last year. other sources can be found. allow others to add to article. There are better sources out there. They just need to be found. I know there are definitely sources to be used. And many of them that are linked are legit entertainment sites. Lets see what others think. Also Out magazine source no 3 is legit source. It is very popular Lesbian magazine.
Raja1011 (
talk) 06:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
If there are better sources out there, please find them yourself and share. See
WP:But there must be sources! (And also, yes, I literally mentioned the Out magazine source in my nomination and said that it isn't enough on its own.)
Aerin17 (
t •
c) 06:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Billboard interview, few others that show notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect - restore redirect to song. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG, and while they do technically meet MUSICBIO (as was pointed out to me on my talk page), that still does not preclude them meeting GNG. And unfortunately interviews, being primary sources, do not count towards GNG.
Onel5969TT me 12:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Billboard interview, numerous other websites that have covered and interviewed her, she has worked on acting roles as one of the main characters in Encanto (possibly the biggest Disney film of all time), GTA V, and Feast of the Seven Fishes, and has two charting songs on Billboard, one of which reached the top 10 in at least two countries. That alone should warrant an article, in my opinion, as it is not easy to do such a thing. The movie still has at least another few months of hype and circulation until it starts to wind down, so there ought to be more articles on Darrow regardless.
TrevortniDesserpedx (
talk) 13:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Beyond the Billboard interview, the Out article is significant coverage of the individual in an editorially managed secondary source. Those two are enough for GNG. A simple google search also shows me a Broadwayworld.com article specifically about her (for a theater role) and some minor Buzzfeed stuff that's not sufficient for GNG but adds evidence to existing notability. Ehh, and beyond that "Actor in a big role" is generally a pass, so the Nom's concern seems a bit more than necessary (although I respect attempts to prune bad articles). -
Markeer 01:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per above, appears to demonstrate notability. If references are a concern a {{
Sources exist}} tag can be added to the article.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 06:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, as
2 through 5 are all in depth enough to meet aforementioned guidelines. Goes past
WP:1EVENT, as she has both starred in Encanto and had chart success internationally—that's the foundations of notability, right there. That's not to say the article couldn't be improved though (indeed, as all articles could be); it's still a bare-bones stub in need of further expansion.
Sean Stephens (
talk) 13:06, 3 March 2022 (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. Despite multiple relists, there has been little participation and no agreement about the relevance of the sources or the appropriate disposition of the article.
RL0919 (
talk) 05:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The articles in The Providence Journal (2016) as well as Vanity Fair (2013) are about
Malala Yousafzai. The mentions about Jilani are trivial and it is ridiculous to claim that they contribute to the notability of our subject in any manner. (
WP:BASIC notes, trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.)
The article in The Times Standard (2020) is obviously a press-release and even then, a trivial mention.
Central Jersey.com has an
interesting form and I suspect the reliability of the media organization. No details about editorial policies or a list of staff can be located.
That leaves us with The Globe and Mail (2010) and The National News (2009) which are not sufficient for passing GNG.
TrangaBellam (
talk) 06:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
From my view, The National News and The Globe and Mail both provide significant, in-depth coverage about her and her career, and provide substantial support for notability per
WP:GNG. Per
WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, with the exception of trivial coverage, and I listed The Providence Journal first because it provides context for the Vanity Fair article, and includes biographical and career information for Jilani, in addition to her connection to
Malala Yousafzai, so it does not appear to be trivial. When combined with the notice from Vanity Fair in its extensive profile of Yousafzai, which also includes Jilani's biographical and career information, this does not appear to be trivial, and therefore adds some support to her notability.
I also share your concern about PR pieces, including because when I searched on Proquest, I found what appeared to be an article written by an advertising agency, and did not include it as a source here. However, the 2019 coverage in Dawn is bylined to a newspaper correspondent and notes progress since the founding of SRI and mentions Jilani's role as a co-founder and president, as well as some biographical information, so it does not appear trivial. I also included the 2018 Daily Times op-ed with commentary about her and SRI because the author is "the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, Washington, DC, and author of Journey into Europe: Islam, Immigration, and Identity".
Central Jersey.com appears to be a local newspaper publishing group, and the 2020 article is bylined to a staff writer, so while the publication clearly solicits press releases, this standard way of obtaining news leads from the community does not appear sufficient to eliminate the article as a source. The Times Standard publishes guidelines about
how it uses press releases and how they verify information and turn it into news coverage, so the ongoing coverage of Jilani, her work, and biographical information does not appear trivial or unreliable.
From my view, the first two sources provide a solid foundation to support notability, and then the ongoing coverage helps provide additional support per
WP:BASIC that can also help expand the article, which also needs editing to remove
puffery.
Beccaynr (
talk) 13:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Beccanyr TrangaBellam clearly does not how to determine notability or is trying to remove articles on Pakistani notables. Neither Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb or Miangul Zebunisa aka Zebunisa Jilani is notable solely for being a Royal or Noble. Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb is an Islamabad High Court Justice and I don't see TrangaBellam proposing deleting
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel. Zebunisa Jilani is a foundation director whose former intern is Malala Yusafzai.
RichardBond (
talk) 02:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 00:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:43, 28 February 2022 (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. A redirection has been proposed as an alternative, but would be problematic given that there's currently no mention in the target article. The redirect can be created if such a mention is added. Sandstein 08:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
This article was
WP:BLARed in 2019 by
User:Newslinger with the rationale Redirect to
General Motors. Highly promotional with no significant coverage in
independentreliable sources, and several citations to
sponsored content. Article was primarily written by
sockpuppet of undisclosed paid editor (
WP:SOCKSTRIKE), and recently
WP:RfDedhere, where consensus was to revert the BLAR and send to AfD. It was also previously AfDed in 2008 where the topic was determined to be non-notable. There is no reliable significant coverage at all (I actually had to delete some "secondary" sources when restoring the article as they were on the MediaWiki spam backlist), and the article is nothing short of
a concealed advertisement.
eviolite(talk) 03:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nomination. Wikipedia is not a site for promotional material masquerading as an article.
TH1980 (
talk) 03:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
General Motors. No significant coverage in
independentreliable sources. Routine announcements such as the
Adweek article do not count toward notability, per
WP:CORPDEPTH. Credit card blogs that are driven by
affiliate commissions, such as Creditcards.com and The Balance, are not reliable and not sufficiently independent of the article subject to establish notability.
WP:PRODUCT states, "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." The GM Card program is an extension of the General Motors brand, and a brief mention in the
General Motors article would be appropriate. (
GM Financial is not an appropriate redirect target, because it offers loans and leases, not credit cards.) — Newslingertalk 04:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I believe
General Motors is the best redirect target because the GM Card portfolio has changed hands a few times (as I've noted in my other comments here), first with a company that was acquired by
HSBC Finance, then with
Capital One, and finally with
Goldman Sachs. However, the portfolio has maintained its association with the General Motors brand the entire time. — Newslingertalk 16:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have retargeted
GM Flex Card to this article (which is where it was targeted when created) as whether it is kept, deleted or retargeted they should share the same fate (notifying per
Thryduulf in the
RFD).
A7V2 (
talk) 22:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose redirection unless and until mention is added at
General Motors, and I'm not sure I agree that such mention is justified. I think Delete per nom and TH1980.
A7V2 (
talk) 22:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Not sure if redirection to GM or
Ally Financial (which used to be GMAC, their finance company) is best but one of those two is appropriate. Deletion is fine, but redirection gives some information (even if there isn't text at the target page) and serves as a sort of soft-salting for these kinds of topics.
Protonk (
talk) 17:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The GM Card portfolio is now owned by
Goldman Sachs, after they
acquired it from
Capital One. I don't think Ally Financial has anything to do with GM's credit cards. — Newslingertalk 04:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Capital One as initial creators with a link to current owners.
Gusfriend (
talk) 11:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Capital One wasn't actually the original creator. According to Automotive News, GM Card was originally started in 1992 as a joint venture with Household Finance Corp, which was acquired by
HSBC Finance (a subsidiary of
HSBC) in 2003. Capital One acquired the GM Card portfolio from HSBC in 2012. — Newslingertalk 16:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I had one back in the day, no longer a thing. Could be a small subsection in the main GM article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:36, 1 March 2022 (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. LizRead!Talk! 04:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
An advertorially toned BLP on an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to online directories, passing metions, WP:SPIP or other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created and edited by a number of blocked socks;
Iamishwar (
talk) 09:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Would the civilian award make him notable?
Oaktree b (
talk) 18:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: as per nom. -
Hatchens (
talk) 17:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't think the
Padma Shri is enough on its own to meet
WP:ANYBIO #1: it's only the fourth-highest civilian award, and there have been over three thousand recipients. But although it's difficult to evaluate the reliability/independence of some of the coverage, I do think there's probably enough for Mr. Bikhchandani to pass
WP:BASIC/the GNG.
Here's some coverage in Mint, which
per RSN is reliable for business in India.
Forbes India has had
twopieces on Bikhchandani, both of which were written by staff; although they're definitely uncritical, I can't really say that they lack reliability or independence.
Here's some Hindi-language coverage from
Asianet News, which appears to be reliable; Business Today has
hadsome as well. There are many more sources out there, at least some of which likely are reliable and independent, but I think these should be enough to show notability. If someone familiar with the Indian press would like to explain why these sources are unreliable/non-independent/otherwise problematic, I'd be glad to listen, but until then I'm fairly confident that this billionaire is genuinely notable. Since the article isn't nearly in bad enough shape to necessitate
WP:TNT deletion, any problems with promotion or sockpuppetry can be dealt with through the normal processes;
deletion is not cleanup.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
User:Extraordinary Writ, this is very difficult but there are good reasons why most Indian news sources are problematic. The matter is well explained in our article on
Paid news in India but the essence of it is that most Indian news sources (a) accept payment for positive coverage and (b) don't disclose when they've been paid. Of the various newspapers we like The Hindu (
WP:THEHINDU) and The Indian Express (
WP:INDIANEXP), and we don't like any of the others. Of course, that's an issue because it creates a double standard: we like most of the sources from Western democracies. So we describe the US using US sources and Britain using British sources but we don't describe India using Indian sources. It's pure systemic bias, and it reduces the amount of Indian topics that we can cover, but I think it's probably better than allowing articles based on unreliable sources.—
S MarshallT/
C 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Oh, I don't doubt that we ought to look at Indian sources with a much more jaundiced eye than we do for sources from highly developed countries: although it's unfortunate, there's really no other choice if we don't want to be overrun by spam. But even if we limit ourselves to the crème de la crème of the Indian press – for instance, the twenty-some-odd
RSN-vetted sources listed as reliable at
Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#India – there's still probably enough coverage to establish that Bikhchandani is notable: see
[30] (The Indian Express),
[31] (Financial Express,
[32] (Business Standard), and
[33] (Mint). And there is some coverage from outside India: not enough to establish notability on its own, perhaps, but still enough to confirm that there's some substance to the Indian coverage. The Financial Times states that he's "lauded by entrepreneurs in India as the founder of one of the most successful start-ups"
[34], there's
BBC coverage, and he's
briefly mentioned in an American book published by
Wiley. Your broader point about the problematic nature of the Indian press is well taken, but, at the risk of sounding naïve, I think there's still room for a nuanced attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. Best regards,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 19:14, 28 February 2022 (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.
This is a non-notable branch of
Islamic Azad University since the article has been un-referenced since it's creation in 2012 and I couldn't find anything in a
WP:BEFORE that would justify keeping it either. Also, the article is extremely promotional. So I'm nominating it for deletion. Maybe someone else can find something to turn it into a half workable article though.
Adamant1 (
talk) 08:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the suggestions. From what I can tell the references in the Farsi article aren't usable for notability. Searching for its name in Farsi might result in something that is though. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 10:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:36, 28 February 2022 (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.
✗plicit 01:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: page now updated.
M.Billoo 22:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: it' s meet wikipedia criteria.
User talk:M5315k 02:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep- It meets the wikipedia criteria to remain published. It has strong resources. (
Ak131001 talk) 16:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per above arguments, there is no point in removing an article if the article has been improved to meet WP standards. Looking at it, it has what you can expect from the article for an unreleased film, and it has sigcov from
WP:RS. (
JayPlaysStuff |
talk to me |
What I've been up to) 11:54, 2 March 2022 (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.
Non-notable film, lacking significant independent coverage; the awards and festival circuit touted by the article are from awards mill style festivals with no notability, it also appears that the article may have been created by a COI editor looking to promote the film
BOVINEBOY2008 17:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm going to try to find sources, but I'm not terribly impressed by most of the sourcing in the article. For example, the awards don't seem to be very major. One of the film festivals is held monthly so they're giving out a lot of awards on a yearly basis.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。) 17:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
It looks like all of the festivals/awards are producer submitted, meaning any awards/coverage coming from them is not independent. It seems to be purchased notoriety.
BOVINEBOY2008 17:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
That's what I'm leaning towards. At worst they're vanity awards (albeit some of the least expensive ones I've seen) and at best they're just non-notable. Some of the links used to back up claims of awards just mentioned that they were screening at a given festival, which isn't really the same as winning an award. Also, one of them was the same source as one of the others - just a reprinted press release.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。) 17:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. After examining the sourcing in the article I decided to look for sourcing, which was a very short search. There's really not much out there. I'm aware that sometimes Google doesn't properly pick up all of the possible sourcing in other countries, but there's really not much out there. What's in the article is pretty much what's out there already - and some of the sources aren't even about the film, but about a deceased celebrity that is the namesake for the production company. I've trimmed this down to the basics and in the process, found that the aforementioned PR was actually used three times in the article, one for each of the different places it was published.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。) 17:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Independent movies dawn a new era in film making. "Welcome on Board" deals with some important social messages for its viewers. Hence its is imperative that movies like these should be in wikipedia. What is mentioned as mill style award is exactly the international award circuit which is approved by the respective countries film societies/board. The very reason that the movie is premiered in multiple awards circuit and is released in Disney+ Hotstar which is one of the most leading OTT platform globally show the notability of the movie. Independent movies cannot afford to buy media and awards hence the press coverage is limited unlike major Hollywood and Bollywood movies. The viewership picks up by work of mouth and all relevant movies should have a place in wikipedia. And wikipedia should not be a place only for movies highly promoted and money backed movies. The contributors referencing to delete the article are not aware of how the independent movies and international award circuit operate.
MM Junior (Aby) (
talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm actually fairly aware of how indie films work. I know that it's not easy to get coverage, as there are always more films then there are places to cover them. The horror genre - one of my personal favorites - is rife with thousands upon thousands of films that were independently released and gained little to no coverage. (And don't get me started on how easy it is to be overlooked in the horror lit world, even with there being more of a focus on horror nowadays. So many authors and books I wish I could make articles for.) Some manage to get that lucky break and have just enough coverage to pass NFILM. For example, most of the films done by
George Clarke (filmmaker) had very little budget. One was shot with a budget of £200.
Lawrie Brewster has a few films that were very indie and had low budgets.
Emily Hagins is probably one of the best examples of a low budget director. She made her first film at 12 years old, which took her two years to complete because of the difficulty of filming and getting funding. My point in listing these examples is that they're all people who made indie films with limited resources and funding. They were all fortunate enough that they gained attention from the media, which was far from a guarantee. The long and short of this is that most films aren't going to be notable. Most awards aren't going to be notable either - less than 1% of the awards out there will give notability, and that's taking into account all potential awards, from Oscars to Nobels. Only a fraction of that slim fraction will be notable enough to keep an article on the award alone. Now I'm aware that mainstream in any country means that minority groups of various types (minority based on income, gender, skin color, etc) will be more likely to be excluded, but Wikipedia isn't meant to
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。) 19:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:31, 28 February 2022 (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. Sandstein 08:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Film appears to fail
WP:NFILM. PROD removed when one review was added, but no others were found in a BEFORE. More than one review is required.
DonaldD23talk to me 17:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: Found another review by
OTT Play. Its apparently a "content discovery platform"
launched by
HT Media. --
Ab207 (
talk) 14:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment:
Shshshsh, can you find any additional sources/reviews for this Hindi film. We have two reviews so far but considering this is a 2021 release, we should be able to find more. Courtesy ping to nominator
Donaldd23. --
Ab207 (
talk) 15:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Can't find any, but I don't think more are needed to establish notability. Not all films get a wide release, and a film review by ToI is no mean thing.
Shahid • Talk2me 15:39, 4 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 01:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I can't find any evidence that Mr Sims ever played professional football. Previously discussed at AfD in 2009
here, leading to "no consensus". —
S MarshallT/
C 23:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment, I'll note that failing NGRIDIRON alone is not a reason to delete. Per NSPORTS, which it is a part of: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 00:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I voted "Keep" in the 2009 AfD, but frankly I'm not seeing it. The sources cited in the article (and referenced in the first AfD) appear to be passing mentions that do not constitute
WP:SIGCOV with in-depth coverage of Sims from reliable, independent sources. Based on my current view of the guidelines, this fails
WP:NGRIDIRON (did not actually play in one of the specified pro leagues) and
WP:NCOLLATH (none of the specified awards). My searches turned up
this piece of SIGCOV regarding his high school career, but without more, it's not enough to get Sims over the GNG bar. If others find more SIGCOV, I'm willing to reconsider.
Cbl62 (
talk) 01:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I seem to recall that he was working in to the CFL at the time of the last AFD with the Montreal Alouettes. My search capabilities are inconclusive there and I'm not ready to take a position. I was also on keep last time, but I'll hold back for some more research.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 01:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I think you are correct, Paul. He may have been on a CFL roster at the time of the first AfD, but if in the end, he never appeared in a regular season game, he doesn't get the benefit of a presumption of notability.
Cbl62 (
talk) 02:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Agreed, I just would like to let the AFD run its course so we can research properly and determine.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 02:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Understood. Likewise, I will keep an open mind if others find more SIGCOV.
Cbl62 (
talk) 02:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment,
this looks like it could be SIGCOV.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 19:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete we should not be signposting articles with "local person makes the area proud" type articles. That is not enough to justify having an article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree that purely local human interest stories for athletes shouldn't count towards GNG. Found one article about
a play he made while at Stanford but I'd still say it falls short of the significant coverage one would expect from an athlete that warrants a Wikipedia article.
Qwaiiplayer (
talk) 14:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Can anyone find the Scout.com article that's cited in the page (the current one is a dead link)?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 15:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
This might be it, but it's behind a paywall.
Qwaiiplayer (
talk) 16:13, 28 February 2022 (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.
Was unable to find any sources beside a passing mention, a couple of dubious magazines, and the website of the creators. That means a lack of significant coverage. This "educative sex comedy" fails
WP:N. The cartoon itself appears to be obscure, too obscure for Wikipedia. (
JayPlaysStuff |
talk to me |
What I've been up to) 03:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
CommentLibération (the source used in the second citation on the page) is considered a reliable source, per
WP:CiteUnseen at least. I don't have time to look into this myself, but my guess is if they've covered it, there are almost certainly other reliable French-language articles about the show out there.
Yitz (
talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Reassessed and changing my position to strong keep. The page still needs work, but I think it should be kept.
Historyday01 (
talk) 15:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Seems to be a lot of coverage, some of it reliable and significant. I found this
[35] pretty quickly. What an obscure, funny little cartoon. I will blame
Historyday01 for me being here, the notice was posted on his page, and it piqued my interest. Didn't take long to find some articles, although most are not English and take some effort to determine the quality of.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 01:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. In addition to the sources mentioned by those above me, the series is taken up as the main case study of
"Economic and industrial issues of French pornographic and erotic animation", a peer-reviewed article in French Information and Communication Sciences Review. I'm reading it through machine translation, so take this with a un grain de sel, but the article appears to cover some production and publication details; general plot patterns and themes; the history of the show; and analysis of what the show says about the marketability of debatably pornographic animation.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk |
contribs) 05:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Hmm, considering what you and Dennis Brown are saying, I think I will change my position to strong keep. If its in a peer-reviewed article, then that's a pretty strong reliable source to me.
Historyday01 (
talk) 15:02, 1 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 03:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Sources are all routine announcements of operations performed which do not appear independent. No in-depth coverage for
WP:NCORP found. PROD removed by author.
Hemantha (
talk) 03:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi. Mohak Bariatrics and Robotics is a one of its kind and a well known hospital in India dedicated to obesity surgery. The sources cited are not just the routine announcements of the operations performed but rare surgeries performed in India. Also, it is a centre that prepares surgeons for this disease. Many people around the globe search for it on a daily basis. The references cited are all independent ones. If there's an issue with the content, I suggest it should be properly tagged for improvement, rather than being deleted.
Edwige9 (
talk) 06:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't see any significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Most of these sources are either published by the subject, have either passing mentions or no mention at all, or won't load/404
Naleksuh (
talk) 06:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Hemantha: I searched for more references in Google but most of them mention the hospital name only. Although the entity exists but has no significant coverage as of now. Is it possible to remove the content and sources that don't look credible and add a maintenance tag. The reason being, I remember I was involved in one of the discussions about a remote religious place wherein the subject had no media coverage, but due to its physical existence, the editor didn't remove it. If this is not the case, then whatever the community decides. Please share your views.
Edwige9 (
talk) 10:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
See
WP:FAILORG for ways of preserving information of a non-notable organization without keeping this page. —
rsjaffe🗣️ 20:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I have tried very hard to find evidence that the subject, which has a good claim to significance, has the sources to meet GNG, but despite checking all the references and a Google search, I am unable to do so. The text as it stands is promotional, and with that many failed verifications/dead links it is difficult to assume good faith, so it seems best to delete the article.
Toadspike (
talk) 20:43, 28 February 2022 (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per
Subjects notable only for one event. King is only known for his participation in the
Canada convoy protest. While he was mentioned in a few news reports before the protest, there is not extensive coverage of him. There is nothing in this article beyond what one would expect to find in the protest article.
TFD (
talk) 01:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep (I created the article). There is extensive secondary reliable coverage of the subject's activism over a number of years around a number of events, therefore satisfying
WP:N and
WP:BIO. That alone should refute the AfD, but to specifically address the point that nothing in this article is found "in the protest article" (presumably
Canada convoy protest) then that is incorrect the protest article talks about the events in Ottawa in 2022 and the article we are discussing here mostly is about events the subject is notable for between 2019 and 2021.
CT55555 (
talk) 01:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep as meeting notability guidelines; no opinion on quality or completeness of article. I checked out nine of the sources, only ones that predated the 2022 convoy protest (earliest October 2019, most recent December 2021).
They are all reliable sources (AP News, Reuters, CBC News, Global News, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Moosejaw Today).
They focus in-depth on Pat King and his activities.
They cover a variety of things (anti-vax activity including his lawsuit against the Alberta government, before that, the Alberta/Western secessionist movement, a false information incident impacting Indigenous community, etc. And then there's the convoy itself.
Even pre-convoy, sources described him as "involved in the Canadian far-right ecosystem for some time", "a man well known in the COVID conspiracy movement", "[the duo] have become internationally famous for their willingness to get their message across".
So, pre-convoy coverage seems extensive and focussed on him, not just as a peripheral figure. signed, Willondon (
talk) 03:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Only known for his participation in the
Canada convoy protest" is a bizarre thing to say about the guy who co-founded
Wexit. This article leans pretty heavily towards covid-related news coverage, but earlier stuff is out there, and even most of the covid-related mentions in this article come from before the convoy protest. And as Willondon shows, the sources in the article at present already give us a
WP:GNG pass. And more news coverage will keep coming out, as his trial proceeds. If anyone wants to add this to the article, he was denied bail on Friday:
[36]. More sigcov will come out once he's back in court on March 18. --
asilvering (
talk) 06:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - the current sourcing satisfies
WP:GNG, and it's enough over time so that it is not an issue of
WP:BIO1E.
Onel5969TT me 13:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. Even ignoring his stuff before 2021, the man has a history of protesting and contesting the Canadian government's COVID policies, and the HQ sources have been there since 2021 to document that. On a side note, I did not even know the man's name, so all I initially saw was the name of the article; I was initially gonna make some joke about what MLK's later relatives were doing, but thankfully I did not have to do that.
👨x🐱 (
Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment for AfD nominator
TFD, I recognize your good faith nomination, but with regards to
WP:SNOWBALL I humbly suggest you close this AfD, as the feedback is unanimously keep, and made with appropraite reference to Wikipedia policy.
CT55555 (
talk) 17:57, 28 February 2022 (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 consensus to delete the American Samoa article, no consensus with respect to the others. Sandstein 08:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Nominator's original comment (superceded by below comment for clarity)
We don't need articles about events that don't exist just to let people know that it doesn't exist. It is using a very bad qualifier. Its non-standard not just per WP guidelines but also according to conventions of Elections related articles too. This article contains details about 2016 presidential caucuses but they have their own standalone articles (
2016 American Samoa Democratic presidential caucuses &
2016 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses). This article was subject of past AfD at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election in American Samoa, 2016. It appears that the name was never changed as per closing instruction. But even if it's name is changed, it will still be out of the pack among any other election year. Party-specific articles exist for every state in every year (unless incumbent goes unchallenged). For no other state in any year, or the territories in any year except 2016, do we have a cover all-party primary article, and there's no indication those kinds of articles are in the pipeline. Not to mention the false look it gave when left in
Template:2016 United States elections that it had representation when it factually did not. (I removed it from there). ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs) 15:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Reasons for deletion:
We don't need articles about events that don't exist just to let people know that it doesn't exist.
Title is first thing a reader notices, and the usage of "presidential election" as a qualifier gives the false impression that American Samoa has presidential representation when in fact it does not.
Only party delegates vote in caucuses, has nothing to do with ordinary citizens, like other "elections".
Presidential caucuses/primaries in territories do not form a part of the legally defined "presidential election" process.
Democrats Abroad, for example, conducts primaries in Canada. There were 19 polling stations across Canada and 622,000 voting-age U.S. citizens.[1] Yet we don't have a "20xx United States presidential election in Canada" article.
This article was subject of past AfD at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election in American Samoa, 2016. It appears that the name was never changed as per closing instruction. But even if it's name is changed, it will be non-standard. Party primary-specific articles exist for every state in every year. For no other state in any year, or the territories in any year except 2016, do we have a cover all-party primary article. It is simply repetitive to articles mentioned at point #3.
Note: I have added 3 more related articles to the deletion discussion due to the same reasons already stated above. ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Note: Guam is not included in this because of the presidential straw poll, I assume? Skarmory(talk •contribs) 03:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Puerto Rico, as it is labeled as presidential primaries in Puerto Rico. I would say Convert all the others to a presidential primaries style article, such as in Puerto Rico, if reasonable. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 03:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 01:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete American Samoa but Keep the others. I support the deletion of the article on American Samoa, as it is entirely unsourced (failing GNG and V) and nom has proved it redundant. However, I cannot support the proposed deletion of the other articles without any evidence (or even, it seems, proper PROD procedure, as none of the other articles are tagged).
Toadspike (
talk) 03:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: As far as Puerto Rico is concerned, the article may be misleading altogether anyway. In my understanding the alleged "primaries" held in Puerto Rico are not popularly held but held only for the Puerto Rican members of the GOP and DEM parties there. There are several (local) political parties in PR, but since only the
PNP Party supports
statehood, only members of that party vote in these alleged US presidential "primaries". In my understanding the PNP party limits voting in its US presidential primaries to only its party leadership, not the people at large. This leadership, I understand, consists of all its (PNP) senators, legislators and mayors as well as its legislative, gubernatorial and mayoral candidates. That would be a marked difference from presidential primaries held in the US mainland where any citizen can vote in the GOP or the DEM primaries so long as they are registered republicans or democrats respectively, and the reason I would argue the article title may be misleading altogether anyway and make it a candidate for Deletion regardless. Hope this helps!
Mercy11 (
talk) 22:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Skarmory,
Toadspike, and
Mercy11: pinging because I modified the nomination for better clarity. Also, I've added AfD notices on all nominated articles. Back when I started this AfD, I wasn't able to understand the instructions, asked for help at
WP:HD but didn't get much out of it. Now, I'm able to do it correctly, and so I've completed the steps that were left incomplete back then. Thanks for your kind consideration. ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs) 06:19, 2 March 2022 (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.
Redirect per Devonian Wombat. Redirects are cheap.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 11:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect as suggested.
Bearian (
talk) 20:48, 4 March 2022 (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 SNOW DELETE. No valid reason to not act now, no amount of time is likely to change the outcome.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 01:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
There's no indication that this individual is notable except for his recent death (
WP:BIO1E). Additionally, the article itself doesn't even describe anything about this individual that would be considered notable, even if it could be verified in reliable sources. I can't find any sources with significant coverage that aren't news articles from the last 24 hours reporting his death. I'd recommend that a mention of his death be added to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or another article about these events.
—ScottyWong— 00:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete – non-notable. The only reasons the media picked this up is because he would've been the first Russian commander killed in the conflict (though he is still pretty low down the command chain). It now transpires he's not even dead. Wouldn't have gotten a Wiki page prior to the false news reports. Fails
WP:GNG. --
Jkaharper (
talk) 00:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable Bio, only mere notability could be his death but it's proven Fake. He is alive and the main source claiming it's death don't suscribe the reliability of the report by Kyiv media. Daily Mail is also a secondary source and is currently blacklisted.
Mr.User200 (
talk) 01:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per reasons given above. Also pointing out that when I removed the PROD, I did suggest draftification over deletion, and less than 20 minutes later, this AfD started, so I am a little disappointed in the AfD starting without the AfD nominator reading the PROD removal reason or starting discussion on talk page. Nevertheless, it should be deleted now that the AfD began.
Elijahandskip (
talk) 01:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Note that draftication is a potential outcome of an AfD. Also, an AfD that results in the deletion of an article doesn't necessarily prevent a draft from being created on the same topic.
—ScottyWong— 02:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete In addition to the various policy failures presented by nom and others, previous votes have pointed out that this may be spreading false information. Better to stay away from this for now, and if it turns out he was notable we can re-create the article after we are certain of the facts and of lasting significance.
Toadspike (
talk) 03:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree that it's non-notable --
nycmstar (
talk) 04:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:NMILITARY along with several other guidelines as mentioned above.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 12:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per BASIC; and that being alive, even in a war, is not a claim of notability.
SN54129 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
NOT DELETE: _You_ may not have heard of him but he is not just one killed combatant but Russian/Chechen general, main ally of Kadyrov and instrigaror of LGBT purges in Chechenia. Of course, you may not care about all that or try to remove him for other reasons -
Skysmith (
talk) 17:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
What you and I "care about" is irrelevant. Was Tushayev the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources prior to his alleged death? If so, provide those sources. If not, then at best he's notable for a single event, and WP's policies don't allow an article to exist in that case. See
WP:BIO1E.
—ScottyWong— 19:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Claims of his death are questionable at best, and there are no sources outside of conflicting reports on whether he is alive.
Cookieo131 (
talk) 02:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge content into a related article. This individual doesn't warrant an article, and even his death is not confirmed and may not be true, due to the
fog of war.
Xcalibur (
talk) 03:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment – We're passed that stage now. Several new photos and videos have emerged of him since. He's alive, so what would merging to create a section of a non-notable commander achieve? --
Jkaharper (
talk) 15:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I wasn't updated on that. I suppose that tips the balance into DELETE. He may be worth a mention in the article on the Chechen anti-gay purges, and a brief mention in the invasion article if he's high enough rank. But I'll leave that to others to figure out.
Xcalibur (
talk) 23:15, 1 March 2022 (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.
Delete No sigcov, or significance in general. Sources provided are not remotely acceptable, being either non-independent or unreliable.
Toadspike (
talk) 03:51, 28 February 2022 (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.
✗plicit 00:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:BIO. An unremarkable career in media. Coverage mainly confirms she appeared on Big Brother.
LibStar (
talk) 23:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Lots of hits, none from reliable sources, mostly tabloids, in GNews.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete if we consider her as an actress as she appeared in Big Brothers, as per
WP:NACTOR she fails. We cannot get her passing as we apply sigcov.
Cirton (
talk) 07:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:CREATIVE. Fails
WP:ACTOR. Essentially a non-notable person who appeared in a TV reality show 20 years ago, and now works in radio. And very unlikely to become notable on her current trajectory.
Cabrils (
talk) 21:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OUTCOMES,
WP:BP, and
WP:MILL. It is well-settled for over a decade that only the win/place/show in reality show contests are presumed notable. This page is a mashup of a BLP violations. The claims in the article are
especially vague.
Bearian (
talk) 20:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I really don't see how she passes
WP:NBIO; a google search is not able to reveal sources that would make her able to pass and I don't suspect that sources only available in print will change the notability calculation. —
Mhawk10 (
talk) 18:53, 7 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 00:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Just want to say that just because we can't find much on the internet doesn't mean the article's subject fails
GNG. The article's subject lived before mass adoption of the internet. That being said, I'm not able to find much so may fail GNG. GoldMiner24Talk 22:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I've tried the NY Times back files. He's listed in
this article with the title: Senate Unit Finds Red Link in Press. But he just gets a mention in a list of people brought up before the committee who took the fifth. He's mentioned in another similar article, just a name check. He also is listed in the
Senate report. Unfortunately he was just one of many hundreds who were hounded during the red scare of the 1950's, and he wasn't important enough, as far as I can tell, to merit more biographical information.
Lamona (
talk) 21:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I suggest keeping a revised version of this page. True he is one of many pursued in the 1950s "loyalty" hearings but his testimony is notable for its citation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution, as well as the First and Fifth, in support of his refusal to answer questions. Sources (at least one of which would need to be added to the page) are the published transcript of the testimony:
https://books.google.com/books?id=z6B9imvD-P0C&pg=PA1014&lpg=PA1014&dq, and this article in CQ Press:
https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal56-1347749, as well as other newspaper sources including the Galveston Daily News:
https://newspaperarchive.com/galveston-daily-news-jan-05-1956-p-2/ and the Billings Gazette:
https://newspaperarchive.com/billings-gazette-jan-05-1956-p-1/ . I've been unable to find any reference to any other "loyalty" hearing witness citing the Ninth or Tenth Amendment. His reliance on the Ninth Amendment in the loyalty hearings seems noteworthy in light of the limited history of use of this Amendment prior to the hearings, and the Amendment's more recent growing prominence, as reflected by its later discussion in Supreme Court decisions and the recent statement by US President Joseph Biden to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he wanted "a Supreme Court candidate with a judicial philosophy 'that suggests that there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and all the amendments mean something, including the Ninth Amendment.'”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/23/supreme-court-ninth-amendment-bork-biden-00010847. (Full disclosure: I am a family member.)
Delete, per nom, for failing notability guidelines at
WP:BIO. Removing the sentence in the article explaining why the subject's brother is notable would reduce the size of the stub by 25%. After this much time, it is unlikely further references will be found.
Ifnord (
talk) 18:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm actually seeing a lot of coverage in 1956 on newspapers.com, but it's mostly AP wire stories (or modified AP wire stories). A bunch of newspapers reporting that he refused to testify in front of congress, pleading a bunch of amendments, is clear
WP:BIO1E.
WP:SUSTAINED notes that If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. The lack of any meaningful follow-up in the 66 years since his testimony from anyone other than his cousin shows that reliable sources only cover him in the context of a single event. Since he remained low-profile throughout his life, I see no compelling reason to consider him notable. —
Mhawk10 (
talk) 22:20, 7 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 00:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Advertising/promotional piece about a subject with
dubious notability. Was written by a professional PR manager,
Noam Furer.
FASTILY 22:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete almost half the article is a list of articles she's written. Delete, non-notable.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I have added her 2016 book,[1] and a review[2] and mention[3] of the book. Her other book was published in Hebrew, so there might be more information available to someone who can read Hebrew. The page itself would need major pruning as so much of it is uncited.
DaffodilOcean (
talk) 13:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - If she were being cited in more works, or by the media, or had more references to her works elsewhere, then perhaps she'd creep into the range of notability, but I don't see much of any of that in searching around. Not quite above the bar.
Tony Fox(arf!) 18:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete – Examing the references in the article, above, sources elsewhere per
WP:NEXIST, and eyeballing
Google Scholar, Plato-Shinar seems to fail
WP:PROF and the
WP:GNG at present. If someone has proof to the opposite, they are welcome to tag me.
gidonb (
talk) 01:31, 2 March 2022 (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.
Completely unsourced since creation in 2007; did it even ever air on ZBC? I couldn't find anything on the ZBC website or archive related to this program. This is a possibly a hoax. Eyesnore 20:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: Every source I could find about this alleged show from a Google search seemed to be copied, likely by bots, from this article. This combined with the lack of sources from ZBC's website or archives means this is either extremely obscure and fails
WP:GNG or is a
hoax.
CJ-Moki (
talk) 04:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm not quite convinced that this is a hoax – for one thing, it was created by a seemingly good-faith contributor with no apparent history of fabrications – but ultimately that doesn't matter: as best I can tell, this show is isn't even
verifiable, much less
notable, and deletion is appropriate unless some significant coverage can be found.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 06:37, 7 March 2022 (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.
A day ago, I redirected this page. Apparently someone mentioned something about
WP:BEFORE, so this is why I'm doing this AFD. Back on point, this person is not notable. He has only participated in 2 games, and plus the North Hills dentist citation isn't even related.
Cranloa12n (
talk) 20:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep meets
WP:GNG with all the sources I added this morning. The wrestler and the denist are the same person, per his obit (ref #3), confirmed with his
Olympedia bio. The latter also states he was a three-time NCAA champ, and won a gold medal at the 1951 Pan American Games too. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 20:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Pan-Am gold medalist, Olympic athlete, National Wrestling Hall of Fame inductee. WP:GNG met, and notability clearly established.
GaryColemanFan (
talk) 23:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Won the NCAA wrestling championship six straight years (1952-1957), inducted into HOF, and thus passes
WP:NCOLLATH. See
here. Also passes
WP:GNG with abundant SIGCOV. See, e.g.,
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4].
Cbl62 (
talk) 01:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Cranloa12n: Please consider withdrawing this one as it's not even close.
Cbl62 (
talk) 02:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
no how would you even "withdraw"
Cranloa12n (
talk) 02:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
You just edit your nomination -- or specifically, add a comment immediately under your nom -- to say "withdrawn", perhaps with a brief indication of why. It's often considered the classy thing to do when you realize a nomination is, in hindsight, in error or generally doomed, so as to avoid more people spending time on it unnecessarily. Or someone else prematurely closing it on your behalf, per the multiple 'speedy keeps'.
109.255.211.6 (
talk) 18:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - ridiculous nomination, and if the nominator does not even know how to withdraw he has no business being on AfD.
StAnselm (
talk) 03:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep. Meets multiple notability guidelines, seems to have been a complete failure to do any kind of
WP:BEFORE. The fact that the nominator is proposing articles like this and
Harry E. Luther for deletion while writing stuff like
Project Nightfall themselves suggests they need to get a much better understanding of notability policies before any more involvement in deletion discussions.
192.76.8.77 (
talk) 04:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep I wish all AfDs were this easy and clear cut.
Papaursa (
talk) 05:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep If the nominatored AfDed some more we might end up with a few decent articles.
Nigej (
talk) 05:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Indeed. Though not too many, hopefully -- it might work as Target Article of the Day by stealth, but if we just AfD'd all our stubs at once, get a little out of hand, a little quickly.
109.255.211.6 (
talk) 18:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
You do realize that reply violates WP:Civility right?
Cranloa12n (
talk) 02:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - yeah, fair few references here to indicate this one meets notability.
Tony Fox(arf!) 18:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep following the impressive expansion and sourcing effort applied in the last couple of days. Doesn't quite meet the NOLYMPIC threshold -- though as a Panamerican Games gold-medalist, is very much NSPORT-adjacent -- but now clearly meets GNG.
109.255.211.6 (
talk) 18:43, 1 March 2022 (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 one source provided in the article does not demonstrate notability and is not independent, which also raises questions about the verifiability of the article's current information. My searches did not reveal further source material, so the best course of action seems to be deleting the article.
Toadspike (
talk) 20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
It is a true sign of the extent to which wild west conditions gave power to unscrupulous editors who were willing to advance false narratives that a scandal like this involving downright falsehoods is still not cleared up 14 years after it was first made mention of.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete concepts cannot be adequate sourced to a work that is the one expression of them, we would need sources that discuss the purposes and uses of this concept that are secondary, the one source here is primary.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:48, 1 March 2022 (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.
One line, 17-year-old article lacking inline citations. Two obscure sources listed a separate references. Article subject fails
WP:GNG and lacks
significant coverage.
Geoff | Who, me? 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to the efforts of
Piecesofuk, this is no longer the one-sentence article I found it to be when nominated, but a multiple-sourced, small biography worthy of Wikipedia. Request close as keep. Thanks, Piecesofuk.
Geoff | Who, me? 13:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Notability has not been demonstrated. Perhaps offline sources could provide more information, but until then this should not be kept around.
Toadspike (
talk) 20:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
On
ISBN9780198112341 page 458 this person is literally a 1-sentence footnote in history. Sadly, that's as much as I can find in any source. No-one has documented in depth the life and works of Scottish banker Henry Roberts, founder and sometime president of the Poets Club, and friend of
Charles G. D. Roberts.
Uncle G (
talk) 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I think he passes notability. There's a fair few mentions in the British Newspaper Archive. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and awarded an Honorary Life Fellowship for Services to Poetry and Letters, he was also Honorary Treasurer...
Aberdeen Press and Journal - Saturday 10 May 1947 He also didn't die in 1939 as the previous article shows
Piecesofuk (
talk) 16:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - The subject was a fellow and honorary treasurer of the Royal Society of Literature, and he wrote three books of poetry, which were all reviewed, plus the award of an Honorary Life Fellowship for Services to Poetry and Letters. Notability is also clearly shown in newspaper archives. Clearly passes guidelines for
WP:GNG and easily meets
WP:BIO. -
AuthorAuthor (
talk) 08:02, 3 March 2022 (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.
Alleged to be db-spam, however there is enough coverage in independent sources that I feel the article would be better served by AFD as opposed to CSD. Listing here for community input.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 19:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep The claim to notability (oldest tattoo shop, various awards) as well as the sources presented clearly demonstrate notability. The article does not seem overly promotional, unless listing accolades is unacceptable. If some editors disagree, the best course of action would be to rewrite or reword the article, rather than delete it altogether.
Toadspike (
talk) 20:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - The subject of this article is clearly notable and meets
WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in multiple, independent, verifiable reliable sources such as Los Angeles Times, LA Weekly, Orange County Weekly, Long Beach Post, and others. That her work has been featured in four museum exhibitions, and is included in books on contemporary tattoo art is additional evidence that she is notable. If the article still contains advertorial/promotional tone or language, that can be cleaned up. The article should be retained in the encyclopedia.
Netherzone (
talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Subject is notable and clearly satisfies
WP:GNG; totally agree with
Netherzone. —
Hebrides (
talk) 13:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Subject is clearly notable. Numerous write ups in independent and nationally recognized reliable sources, owner of oldest tattoo shop. Article meets
WP:GNG guidelines. Agree with
Netherzone and
Hebrides.
2600:1700:481E:2E0:D5C8:554D:715F:9928 (
talk) 00:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep- Subject is notable for reasons stated above and meets
WP:GNG guidelines.
Miosaurus (
talk) 00:36, 3 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 00:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
This article has been around for years but each iteration of it seems to be primarily promotional. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing the company. Google search brings up
fewer than 100 results. ...discospinstertalk 18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Sourcing is inadequate to demonstrate notability, especially with the higher requirements of
WP:NCORP.
Toadspike (
talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Easy to find independent coverage. There's a 3-page feature article in
Canadian Business. There's also this [
Globe & Mail] article that has come coverage.
Nfitz (
talk) 19:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete References fail
WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Both the "Canadian Business" reference above and the "Globe and Mail" reference relies entirely and solely on information provided by the company and fails
WP:ORGIND as it does not contain any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
HighKing++ 12:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Take a look at the
WP:SIRS section of the GNG which explicitly refers to NCORP and the stricter approach to references used to establish notability of companies/organizations - so saying GNG is met isn't the complete story, you need to consider NCORP also. Also, nobody suggested that those publications threw out their fact checking - but there's a difference between a publication faithfully reproducing "what was said" and reporting "what was said" accurately (a form of fact checking) and a publication that *analyses" what was said and *double checks* the content of what was said for accuracy. In the absence of any evidence of the latter, therefore and according to
WP:ORGIND (which requires fact checking that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject") it does not meet the criteria for establishing notability (although, of course, it may still be used within the article to support a fact or other information).
HighKing++ 21:15, 7 March 2022 (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.
Floyd Pierce - According to Pro Football Archives, the Tigers' guard was "Floyd", born in 1893 in Ypsilanti, Michigan, died in 1954 in Los Angeles County.
I created the article 12 years ago based on Pro-Football-Reference.com's assertion that it was "Dick." That assertion has now been called into doubt, and so we cannot verify whether or not
WP:NGRIDIRON actually applies. Further, and after 12 years, my searches have failed to turn up
WP:SIGCOV that would satisfy
WP:GNG. Accordingly, it's time for this one to go. At least until the mystery is solved, an entry at
List of National Football League players with unidentified given names would be the better place for this.
Note: Given the commonness of the name
Richard/Dick Pierce, I don't think a redirect is a good idea. Frankly
Dick Pierce should probably redirect to the
Richard Pierce disambiguation page.
Cbl62 (
talk) 17:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete we have no actual cases of significant coverage. I think this is a clear indication of why we need to stop creating articles based only on sports databases.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
FWIW, Pro-Football-Reference is a very reliable source, but the questions about this particular entry are too significant to ignore.
Cbl62 (
talk) 17:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Johnpacklambert: You literally
said earlier this month "it makes sense to consider anyone who played in maybe 3 games in the NFL to be default notable," yet now you're saying to delete an article on a person who played more than that amount of games.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 21:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
That was conditioned on a maybe. Beyond that, it may have been spoken too fast, as has much of the notability guidelines. Anyway, default notability is a consideration that when challenged needs to be supported by actual sources.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, these AFDs on NSPORT-passing people are saddening and make me feel like quitting WP. Pierce (it appears to be Dick Pierce from what I've seen) played four games in the National Football League, the highest level of the sport there ever was, and thus meets
WP:NGRIDIRON, which states: players and head coaches are presumed notable if they: Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues: ... National Football League And I read in NSPORT in bold: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. That's an or. And if that's "not a valid reason," then consider me !voting on
IAR grounds, as I think deleting NFL player articles do not at all improve the encyclopedia.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 21:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Beanie -- This case is really sui generis. And this AfD is not an attack on NGRIDIRON. Rather, and IMO, this is a really odd case in which we really don't have a sufficient basis here for even demonstrating that NGRIDIRON applies.
Cbl62 (
talk) 00:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete From what I understand, Cbl62 is not questioning NGRIDIRON. However, if we don't have any idea of who this player is, and especially if we can't find any RS about him, then that is grounds for deletion. At the very least, information about this player needs to be
verifiable, and it seems like it is not at this point.
Natg 19 (
talk) 22:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Just as an aside, it possible that there just happened to be 2 players with the same last name that played for the Chicago Tigers in 1920? I guess it would be an odd coincidence if they both happened to only play 4 games.
Natg 19 (
talk) 22:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
For there to have been two men with the same last name, both playing exactly four games, both at the same position and for the same team in the same year strikes me as highly, highly improbable. Rather, it appears that there was a single "Pierce" who played the four games at guard, and we just don't know if it was Dick or Floyd.
Cbl62 (
talk) 00:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per Cbl62. If we cannot verify who the subject of the article actually is and do so with reliable sourcing then there should not be an article. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 17:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. If someone has a Newspapers.com subscription, an old Coffin Corner article suggests there might be a limited accounting of 1920 Chicago Tigers players in the Rock Island Argus from Dec. 2, 1920, by Bruce Copeland. It's possible that could clear up his name (but unlikely to provide SIGCOV).
JoelleJay (
talk) 23:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Presumably, that's a reference to the all-pro team announced by the Argus on 12/2/20. Pierce was not among those selected. See
here for the actual clipping.
Cbl62 (
talk) 13:39, 7 March 2022 (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.
Keep References in the article contain non trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject and a quick search reveals many more, so
WP:GNG is met and the article does not violate
WP:ISNOT. The number of roles is not a requirement to meet
WP:GNG. --
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk) 18:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Tentative keep - the two major roles mentioned seem to be pretty established shows, with several hundred episodes each, which to me suggests notability. I suspect someone who knows the Bengali television industry better would be able to clarify this but right now I think there's enough for a keep.
Tony Fox(arf!) 18:20, 1 March 2022 (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete no actual identified sources about him.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete because there are no sources.
Toadspike (
talk) 20:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The two account names used by the article creator suggest that the "source" here was a direct family relationship to the article subject. The article creator wrote xyr own autobiography in another Wikipedia article, now "sourced" to the creator's autobiography elsewhere. Neither that, nor this article, nor
Unialphabet (
AfD discussion) have any independent sources to use that I can find. Delete.
Uncle G (
talk) 20:54, 28 February 2022 (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.
Peacocky promo piece on a non-notable company. The sources cited are the company's own website, a couple of interviews of the founder, and one article (FondsProfessionell.at) which looks like it might contribute towards notability, but isn't alone enough to satisfy
WP:ORGCRIT. Search finds nothing beyond the usual social media, company directories, standard business reporting / press release regurgitations, and again some interviews of the founder. Fails
WP:GNG /
WP:COMPANY. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - refers to a "well-known" fund that gets less than 50 Google hits when searched. The company itself doesn't do much better. There are some media mentions, but only a couple (some paywalled). I don't think there's enough for a keep here.
Tony Fox(arf!) 18:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Assets under management > 2 billion. it has Relevance criteria in reference to over two million securities transactions"; The company beates its bechmarks in every fund category which shows its relevance. Mor than 90 percent of companies are not beating its benchmarks...
Lucky-se7en (
talk) 12:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The amount of AUM or performance against benchmarks are not notability criteria. If you can find sources to satisfy
WP:ORGCRIT to support your article, please feel free to add them. Thank you. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk) 15:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: Lacking notability based on current citations.
Gusfriend (
talk) 06:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article describing the proposition of an investment management firm, without indication of encyclopaedic notability. Some references are about the firm's founder and his book, others are announcement-based. Clearly a company going about its business, but I am not seeing the
depth of coverage about the firm itself needed to demonstrate
notability here.
AllyD (
talk) 08:32, 7 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 13:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Non notable organization that fails
WP:NORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows hits predominantly to user generated sources such as
this I note also that this is a subtle ADMASQ to promote the owner of the organization. Celestina007 (
talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages or Directory service. Topic company fails
WP:NCORP notability criteria.
HighKing++ 12:10, 7 March 2022 (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 mathematical constants. There is consensus that this should not exist as a standalone but that some of the content would fit at the aforementioned link StarMississippi 01:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Unreferenced, indiscriminate table, with context supported only by links obscured with
LaTeX math markup, e.g.
(
Gauss's constant). A user removed all the continued fractions at
List of mathematical constants in 2019 because it was causing excessive clutter. Can't find similar tables online, but not 100% confident that it fails
WP:LISTN. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 23:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Valid list article. As it says at the bottom Although some of the symbols in the leftmost column are displayed in black due to math markup peculiarities, all are clickable and link to the respective constant's page. They do link to other pages. This article was created in 2002. This seems quite encyclopedic.
DreamFocus 00:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment No one in nearly 20 years has bothered to put the names of these constants into the page? That's the most impressive example of insular mathematics fandom that I have seen all weekend. I'm concerned that there are no discernible criteria for inclusion or exclusion here. I wouldn't object in principle to a list of constants whose continued fraction representations have themselves been noteworthy. For example, there is no algebraic or analytic expression for the Feigenbaum constants, so their continued fractions will just be translations of the known decimal approximations. I'd like to see this list saved (I'm always happier when a page can be
Heymanned instead of deleted), but it's definitely got problems, and I can see the case for letting it go.
XOR'easter (
talk) 02:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Why would the names be better than just the Symbols that represent them? If you don't recognize one are you going to recognize the other?
DreamFocus 03:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes. Very much so. The letter by itself has no unique meaning in mathematics, for example. The table itself demonstrates the necessity of names by giving two different meanings of (the
Hardy–Littlewood twin prime constant and the base-2
Champernowne constant). It gives meanings for and based on
Brun's theorem, but those could also be the second and fourth
Bernoulli numbers.
XOR'easter (
talk) 03:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Alright. I added a names column and half of the names done thus far.
DreamFocus 04:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I haven't been able to find a tabulation of constants sorted by continued-fraction representation in the literature. If one exists, it's pretty darn obscure, and thus not great evidence that we need to devote a whole page to the topic. It just doesn't seem to be anybody's priority, or the way that anybody has thought about the topic (as far as thoughts that survive peer review are concerned). The list assembles things that the academic literature has not. It doesn't advance a new conclusion; it's just
an indiscriminate collection. It includes the typical cruft that accumulates in articles on the more
recreational side of mathematics, like a constant that has had maybe three papers ever written about it, or an expression plucked out of a MathWorld page on
things that can be defined using continued fractions and then granted the name "Continued Fraction Constant". (MathWorld has gathered a lot of fluff over the years.) And there isn't an example to follow for how to build a reasonable list of this kind. I wrote above that I wouldn't object in principle to a list of constants whose continued fraction representations have themselves been noteworthy. Here we have the gulf between principle and practice. Having read more and thought more, I don't think this provides value beyond the examples already given in the main
continued fraction article.
XOR'easter (
talk) 04:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Aside from chapter 10 of
Annie Cuyt's book, do you mean? ☺
Uncle G (
talk) 07:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Handbook of Continued Fractions for Special Functions? It's not really a sorted tabulation, though, is it? It's much more like how the
continued fraction article presents the examples included there. That page already has , , the square and cube roots of 2, the golden ratio, the Euler–Mascheroni constant, and Khinchin's constant. Trim this page down to what that chapter can justify, and it's redundant with the main article. I tend to think that if we can't explain in prose the significance of expanding a particular constant as a continued fraction, we shouldn't bother with it. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not a replacement for the CRC handbook of old.
XOR'easter (
talk) 08:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Topic lacks sources supporting that a fractional representation of these numbers is notable.
MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Leaning towards Merge with
List of mathematical constants. It's not end-of-the-world bad that one or two entries are unsourced - the decimal expansions of these numbers are available in many places around the Internet, so it might be okay to permit a continued fraction expansion sans source per WP:CALC (although this is kinda pushing it - the simplest way I can think of to calculate a continued fraction expansion would be to write a ~10-line Python program, which is far beyond the current policy of "basic arithmetic"), although citing nothing would be borderline WP:SYNTH/WP:OR.
More importantly: Are there any reliable sources that discuss - or even mention - the continued fraction expansions of these numbers? (I looked up both the Cuyt et al. and Borwein et al. on Google Books and found nothing, though I’d like someone who actually has a physical copy of at least one of these two books to verify, and though I was also able to find a few of these sequences on OEIS.) Just because every real number has a continued fraction expansion doesn't mean that every interesting real number has an interesting continued fraction expansion - and I, for one, find these continued fraction expansions to be positively boring. As an inclusionist(-ish), I tend to be reluctant to get an article deleted, but also merging this with
Continued fraction might feel a bit
WP:UNDUE.
Duckmather (
talk) 22:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Cuyt chapter 10 not only has the regular continued fraction representations, but even has citations of sources for them in its turn. Chapter 10 has, in order, π, Euler's number, integer powers and roots of π and e, ln(2), sqrt(2), the cube root of 2, Euler's γ, the Golden Ratio, the rabbit constant, Apéry's constant, Catalan's constant, Gompertz' constant, and Khinchin's constant. The regular continued fraction for Apéry's constant is sourced to "[AZ97]", for example, which is
arXiv:
math/9804121v1.
Uncle G (
talk) 13:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus is against keeping, but are the "delete" people OK with the proposed merger? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
A merge would have to be selective. There are 35 entries in this table that aren't entirely trivial; the only source offered that might give a criterion for inclusion has about half that many (and that list only partially overlaps with this one).
XOR'easter (
talk) 19:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello Sandstein. Thank you for proposing an
WP:ATD. I agree with the approach of XOR'easter for the merger.
MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
This sounds reasonable, since many sources about specific constants list their continued fractions, including sources about specific continued fractions. Continued fraction expansions probably pass
WP:ROUTINE as well, since they are straghtforward to calculate if enough decimal places are known. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 21:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
"Only source offered" is a bit weak. I think that no-one has really looked to see what sources there are, to see what criteria for inclusion are supported. After all, it's not hard to turn up Stephen R. Finch's Mathematical Constants (CUP 2003) which has a chapter on well-known constants with their continued fractions. But I'm the first to even mention it. Haakon Waadeland has another book Continued Fractions (Springer 2008) with "mathematical constants" being the first section of Appendix A. If conclusions were based upon actual research, they would be a lot safer. We shouldn't be going by what sources are offered but by what sources we can find. After all, the first source offered for
Kinnoull was a bowling club WWW site (c.f.
Special:Permalink/207128450).
Uncle G (
talk) 21:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I did look for sources and found very little. And what I did find suggests to me that a table is the wrong way to present this information. For example, Finch (p. 46) gives three different expansions for . Lorentzen and Waadeland (p. 267) give five different expansions for . The right way to reflect the available sources could be to incorporate that information as prose discussions (maybe in
continued fraction, maybe elsewhere), but we'd be talking about writing new content, not a merge.
XOR'easter (
talk) 23:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Useful and informative list. Article went from being unreferenced to having references and more complete information. Not the article is not what it was
when nomiinated for deletion. Can be improved, but there is no valid reason proffered to delete. 7&6=thirteen (
☎) 13:17, 2 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 13:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
This page was
deleted in 2017 but then recreated by a colleague of Woodley in 2019 without the normal discussion that would typically be demanded of such action. Aside from the
WP:PROF concerns that we can address, I notice that many to most of the sources used for this
WP:BLP are not discussing the biography of the subject per se but instead are essentially
either a retelling of his published work and public appearances or deep dive into
WP:FRINGE areas to which this fellow seems particularly attracted for better or worse (see
WP:FRINGEBLP for considerations in that regard). It is absolutely the case that he has been mentioned in the context of lately salacious controversies that dominate, shall I say, "intellectually dark" corners of the internet, but
mere mention is typically not enough on which to base a biography. As an academic, his work is not particularly highly cited, as a public intellectual his reach is niche and
WP:FRINGE (note that I was first alerted to the existence of this biography through a notice on
WP:FTN about his recent forays into claims that look a lot like championing
parapsychology, though sourcing is weak), and besides that I see little in the way as to attestations of notability.
Should some of this material be included elsewhere? It's possible. There is an ongoing discussion at
WP:BLPN over his participation in the
London Conference on Intelligence, but I think his participation, if at all noteworthy, is better handled at that page rather than on a biography. His onetime enthusiasm for
cryptozoology might be worth a brief mention in a page like
Gloucester sea serpent or something like that, and the way in which he has positioned himself in
race and intelligence discussions may also lead to as much as a paragraph in some article on
Flynn effect where it is clear that some mainstream news kinda attached themselves, press-release-style, to his claim that human beings are losing their intelligence (but see
WP:SENSATION). All in all, there is essentially no attestation to notability here that I can find for this person as a subject of a biography. That does not mean all mention of Woodley needs to be excised from Wikipedia, but when asking the question of whether a
standalone article deserves to exist, I think we have to consider that when the sourcing is this precarious and the content this prone to problems, it is better to be conservative and remove the article than it is to have one sticking out like the sore thumb this one is.
jps (
talk) 13:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. In addition to the issues which jps has laid out, I'll just add that two of the secondary sources used in the article (which may give the impression of conferring notability) are authored by Woodley's collaborators: 1) the entry in Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science[5] was written by Matthew Sarraf (who has collaborated with Woodley on numerous papers, see e.g.
[6],
[7],
[8]) and Aurelio José Figueredo (see e.g.
[9],
[10],
[11]); and 2) the article "Cryptozoology at the Zoological Society of London" by Darren Naish
[12] (who collaborated with Woodley here:
[13]). Because neither of these sources is independent of the subject, it doesn't seem that either should count toward
WP:GNG.
Generalrelative (
talk) 15:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - Isn't the point of NPROF is to keep these academics' articles in order to summarise their contributions to academic fields rather than discuss their life outside that because they would otherwise flunk the GNG? You mention mainstream news often reporting on sensationalism, but what if RS like
New Scientist,
Psychology Today, and
Smithsonian Magazine are also discussing his work?
[14]Morbidthoughts (
talk) 18:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
New Scientist is a
sensationalist rag, the item on the Smithsonian Magazine website is too brief to be
WP:SIGCOV, and the item in Psychology Today is a passing mention that does not find it particularly credible. (Personally, I am rather sceptical of this theory as it rests on many questionable assumptions and some rather shaky evidence. In this article I don’t intend to go into too much detail...[15]) Overall, I'm not impressed with the quantity or depth of the news reporting available.
XOR'easter (
talk) 19:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
No. I mean
WP:BLOG especially with reference to its final exhortation: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
jps (
talk) 20:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
It's not self-published. The author did not publish it, since the publisher, Scientific American, still had to accept it. That should be obvious.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 20:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The text of the
WP:BLOG policy is clear. This counts as a blog according to it. Sorry. If you disagree, take it to
WP:RSN and ask for other opinions, but I'm pretty sure I know what the answer will be.
jps (
talk) 22:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
It's clear from plain language what "self-published" means and that Scientific American article is not it. I can let others in this AfD figure that out for themselves.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 22:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
"Tetrapod Zoology" or "Tet Zoo" is the personal blog of Darren Naish, which was hosted by the SciAm blog collective until he departed in 2018
[17]. Without more information about how much editorial control SciAm exerted over their bloggers at the time, it's actually hard to say whether Tet Zoo counts as
WP:SPS or not. (The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American, says a disclaimer in tiny font.) One could well argue that, to be prudent, it is not suitable for sourcing a contentious claim in a BLP. And since it's Naish blogging about something he did with Woodley, it's a
WP:PRIMARY source, meaning that we could only use it with extreme care, and that it doesn't contribute to notability. (I wouldn't magically become wiki-notable if my coauthors blogged about me.)
XOR'easter (
talk) 23:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
And that explanation makes more sense because it seemed like he was the equivalent to a columnist at a newspaper at face value.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 23:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
@
XOR'easter: is this because of its new ownership? Does the RSNP statement "There is consensus that New Scientist magazine is generally reliable for science coverage. Use New Scientist with caution to verify contentious claims." need revision? Because you seem to be basing your statement on two events that happened over a decade ago. I'm asking this as a general question not related to this AfD.
Doug Wellertalk 13:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doug Weller: There were many incidents other than those two from that time period
[18], none of which are easily forgiven, and the most recent discussion linked at RSP indicates that
they're just sleazy: They called me in two different occasions to ask for comments for an article, and badly misquoted me to make it more juicy, etc.
N. David Mermin took the trouble to make an
arXiv post about how New Scientist wouldn't quote him accurately about his own work
[19]. The new ownership is just icing on the cake, and an indication that nothing's going to improve.
XOR'easter (
talk) 18:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Then we need a new RSN discussion, right? Because I certainly have been relying on RSNP and knee none of this. Thanks.
Doug Wellertalk 19:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:NPROF asks us to consider the academic noteworthiness of a person which may diverge from typical biographical considerations. But in this regard, the situation is even more dire. The guy is not a particularly well-known academic according to the usual measures.
jps (
talk) 20:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Greatly disagree that this article "sticks out like a sore thumb". It's very much in line with other academic articles. The references are very mainstream and reliable. You mention it was created "without the normal discussion that would typically be demanded of such action" but don't explain.
Nweil (
talk) 19:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
When articles are recreated after being deleted, there is normally a discussion prior to "undeletion". See
WP:DRV.
jps (
talk) 19:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Weird that you think the article is "very much in line" with other academic articles given that by my reading most of the content relates to
WP:FRINGE theories. That's not particularly common.
jps (
talk) 19:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
This was not an undeletion request. It was created anew. As far I can tell, there was no end-around the policy as you imply. There are multiple print references to Woodley's work. His peers cite him with no caveat. This is fundamentally opposed to your claim of "fringe".
Nweil (
talk) 20:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, there is nothing that prevents longtime editors who are grandfathered into article creation from re-creating deleted material. Yes, this has historically been something that has been called out as problematic at AfDs as an end-run around
WP:DRV. I'm not saying sanction the article creator (though
WP:COI could be a consideration here). I'm merely saying that the article was once deleted and it probably deserves to stay deleted. Should I ask for
WP:SALT? Well, let's just see what happens in this discussion. The claim that "his peers cite him with no caveat" is not surprising when you are publishing in a backwater or walled garden. This is particularly common in
WP:FRINGE areas such as
race and intelligence or
cryptozoology, to be honest.
jps (
talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable fringe academic that was originally
[20] deleted but re-created by (
Personal attack removed)
B. Pesta(Redacted). Not enough reliable sources give details about Woodley's life. Most of the sources on the article are not in depth and only passing mention i.e. sources 9-15 are excessive and some do not even mention Woodley (for example,
[21] or mention him once only
[22], so these sources are being used inappropriately. (
Personal attack removed). It's a desperate attempt to create a whitewashed biography for Google ranking. Also the claim that Woodley has abandoned cryptozoology is not true, he is still researching the topic as of 2022 and has also co-written several crazy paranormal papers which are not notable. I understand there are notable fringe people, but this guy is not one of them.
Psychologist Guy (
talk) 20:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Nweil, your use of the word "million" might be excused as hyperbole, but this editor's last block for misconduct was about six years ago, and there is no record of sockpuppetry. False accusations against other editors are personal attacks. Consider yourself warned.
Cullen328 (
talk) 01:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Is this comment misplaced, because I can't figure out how this is a response to anything Psychologist Guy wrote.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 02:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, and I've adjusted the indentation to match better (outdented the first "reply").
Primefac (
talk) 11:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Actually no. I see how Primefac might have thought this but Nweil made it clear at ANI
[23] that they really were responding to Psychologist Guy, accusing him of "outing" despite the fact that B. Pesta's identity was self-declared. I've reformatted again to (hopefully) resolve the confusion.
Generalrelative (
talk) 18:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
This looks like Googlehacking to me which has been an increasingly common game played by fringe academics. Google Scholar does a pretty poor job of distinguishing between self-citations, churn, and pocket journal citations, for example. It's also clear that this list is one that is being monitored by the subject which Google Scholar now allows you to do, making it less unbiased for our purposes.
jps (
talk) 23:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
What do you mean "monitored by the subject"? Anybody can monitor any GS profile: they cannot alter it.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 00:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC).reply
Actually, you can alter it now by claiming the profile and linking to your papers.
It's game-able in a way it wasn't in the past (Note that I am not saying that this person has done the specific charge listed in this blogpost, but I just link here to show that it is possible to add things to one's profile].
jps (
talk) 00:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Has the subject added citations to other authors with the same name? If so please specify them. That is the only way a GS profile can be gamed. (Actually, the way the system works is that citations cannot be added; they can only fail to be subtracted from the profile).
Xxanthippe (
talk) 00:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC).reply
That is not the only way a GS profile can be gamed. You can explicitly add sources if they aren't identified in the default Google Scholar search. Some may call that "fair play", but it is a unique feature that Google Scholar has that no other index has (unless you think ResearchGate functions as an index of sorts).
jps (
talk) 00:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
OK But please show where he has done this.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 01:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC).reply
I did not say he has done this. I noted that he has claimed his profile. In response, you claimed he could not alter it, and I said that, contrariwise, it is possible to alter it. As far as I know, Google doesn't make public what things a profile user adds to their Google scholar profile.
jps (
talk) 02:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
If you still claim that the subject Googlehacked his citation record it would be useful to have evidence. A rather different case of citation shenanigans is
here.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 03:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC).reply
Googlehacking is something that happens through a lot of means in fringe contexts, as pointed out by XOR'easter in a more eloquent fashion below.
jps (
talk) 03:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
There's a curious anomaly in Google Scholar: there will often be a slightly different different set of papers if you go to it through the user profile, or if you search on "MA Woodley" or 'M Woodley" (and remove those from other people with the same initial). I've come across occasions where this is significant, though it does not appear to be for this individual. DGG (
talk ) 05:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I tend to discount straight-up citation counting as meaningful for
WP:PROF#C1 in
fringe fields, due to the commonality of walled gardens, citations from dubious journals, random web documents that Google Scholar happened to scrape, etc. Other than that, there just isn't much to go on.
XOR'easter (
talk) 23:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Request from user I have received an email from the subject of the article that he "would prefer that it be deleted". He made a similar request at the first AfD. DGG (
talk ) 05:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete There are insufficient sources to create an informative and neutral article. And no, he fails WP:PROF. WP:PROF incidentally is a guideline, not a policy. The assumption is that anyone who meets the criteria must be notable. Hence, "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." However, it has not been shown that he meet the criteria. Note also that the guideline says that published works alone do not make someone notable, "Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." But again, this subject does not meet the criteria. Finally, the debates about the content are what one expect when someone lacks notability and we are relying on fragments on information about them to sew together an article.
TFD (
talk) 05:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I went though the articles (that weren't paywalled for me) that should be the basis of his notability and they were mainly just quick mentions of his work. Konnikova mentions Woodley in the Smithsonian article probably the most, but it is only in one paragraph and only about his work. Woodley whom I had not heard of before seems to have many mentions of his work in various RS but no real content that would put him over the line for him to have his own stand alone article. I would be against salting as he still seems active and possibly in the future he might pass notability. Just not now.
Sgerbic (
talk) 08:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:BLPREQUESTDELETE seems pretty straightforward, an edge case where the subject himself calls for deletion as well.
ValarianB (
talk) 14:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per above, borderline notability, so
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE takes precedence over other concerns. --
Jayron32 16:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - When I see arguments like they are not notable (not a public figure) to justify exclusion of criticism which is required by policy to avoid GEVAL and the promotion of fringe beliefs, or that sources are lacking that criticize them, it's generally an indication that
WP:BLPN is not met. As for BLPREQUESTDELETE, it would also not matter if BLPN was really met: the article would stay and be properly sourced. —
PaleoNeonate – 17:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, unfortunately. While I personally think this individual passes the threshold of notability, this clearly is a borderline case, so I think the right thing to do in this situation is to respect the article subject's wishes for it to be deleted. -
Ferahgo the Assassin (
talk) 00:08, 5 March 2022 (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.
This appears to be a list of locations in Ukraine labeled by who currently controls them in the ongoing invasion. This fails
WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a live news ticker. During active hostilities, any information about the status of these locations will be contradictory, unreliable and likely to change by the day. After the conflict, any changes in territorial control will be better described in a prose article and by way of a map. Besides, many entries are unsourced (
WP:V), and what sources are cited are often several days old. Sandstein 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as we have never been at war with Eurasia, only ever with Eastasia. This is effectively just a list of towns, etc, in Ukraine, and as such duplicate material.
SN54129 14:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:IAR. This article houses the sources for
Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map. The template helps us in making map pictures for war articles following the procedure depicted in the figure below. So deleting this article will just disrupt the making of war maps.
Tradediatalk 16:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Figure
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong keep: While initially neutral, I changed my mind after seeing the nominator also intends to delete the module as well.
Dunutubble (
talk) (
Contributions) 03:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Tartan357, yes, as explained below, the map has the same problems as this list and should also be deleted. Sandstein 10:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong keep Per reasons from Tartan357 and Tradedia.
Elijahandskip (
talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep As per above. Showing the status of battle and whatnot.
Redoct87 (
talk) 22:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep The case that this article is required to source the war map which has obvious benefit to readers, is quite convincing.
Davey2116 (
talk) 00:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep This page is obviously used to supplement the war map and satisfy inline citation guidelines. I'd say
WP:SNOW might be in order here.
Firestar464 (
talk) 02:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per IAR, but we should probably formalize the war-map system a bit with some tracking categories and essays. We kinda have cats for templates and essays, but we don't have a category for source-list articles like this. --
Artoria2e5🌉 06:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong delete per nom and NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not for the day-to-day flow of a war. Wasn't done for the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan or any other recent conflict, and there's no reason to start here.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
What do you suggest be done about the map? If you're advocating eliminating all maps related to the invasion while it's ongoing, that's fine, but I want to be sure what we're talking about is clear. ―
Tartan357Talk 07:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The map has the same problems as the list: it is a current news ticker in a graphical format, which Wikipedia is not for (
WP:NOT). The list and its history show that they are not remotely updated and sourced well enough to be a reliable representation of the situation on the ground, which means that we are doing a disservice to our readers by providing them with unverifiable and/or outdated information. A map like this is something that news websites do much better than we can hope to do. Sandstein 10:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
It's still new, we should give editors a chance to improve it. The
Syria map became a gold standard of sorts on the internet; maps by news outlets are only approximations, whereas ours are based entirely on the control of individual cities. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Top 10 reasons why copying from maps is strictly prohibited on the Wikipedia Syria war map. I have great respect for
Tradedia and the other Wikipedians who spent a great deal of time creating a well-oiled system for detailed, verifiable war maps. In any case, it doesn't make sense to delete the references page before the map itself has even been nominated for deletion. ―
Tartan357Talk 10:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
In fact, there IS
a map for the war in Afghanistan. I'd recommend you all to read Elli's comment below.
Firestar464 (
talk) 02:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
We actually have modules for both the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also have some other modules on the ongoing wars in Ethiopia, the Central African Republic, Syria, Myanmar, Mali, Kivu, Mozambique, Yemen, and many others. For a more local alternative see the detailed map for the War in the Donbass.
Dunutubble (
talk) (
Contributions) 03:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Yes, of course the information in the list will quickly change and may not be fully reliable. However, one can say the same about any page about current events. As far as the list or the page is sourced, and the events are notable (as they certainly are), such list has every right to exist.
My very best wishes (
talk) 18:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong keep this is a rehashing of the numerous discussions that have been had over the Syrian map. Yes, this is not exactly a usual article, but it clearly has a useful function for the encyclopedia, is not harmful in any way, and does comply with our policy on
verifiability.
WP:NOTNEWS, if you read it, does not say we cannot have something like this. It isn't original reporting (it's all sourced to other reports), just a news report (we're not making an article for every attack, and a war isn't meaningfully routine; this is an appropriate way to handle information that changes), who's who (obviously), or celebrity gossip.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 22:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep definitely a good summary/overview of the current state. Can be revisited once this war is over. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 01:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong keep Definitely a good tool for further edits on the Map Template and a good guide for the current situation of events. Essential encyclopedic value. Must be kept.
Mr.User200 (
talk) 02:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep This article support the map and is needed.
Thingofme (
talk) 04:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep This article is vital for coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
WP:SNOW might apply said as said above.
ArsenalGhanaPartey (
talk) 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Wikipedia's coverage of the Syrian Civil War works exactly the same way, I don't see why we should change it. It's a pretty neat system --
Abbasi786786 (
talk) 21:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong KeepWP:NOTNEWS does not say that pages cannot be updated as events occur. It says that wikipedia is not for original reporting or reporting on insignificent events. It is likely, to me, that this event will remain significent in the future. This page is reporting information from other sources in a useful way. No comparable page on the internet exists right now. Finally, while I understand that significance is subjective and not a criteria, this article plays a VITAL role that no other website is acomplishing. To be able to see the timeline of events and news links without information about celebrety tweets or repeated clutter like CNN and every other news source is doing is CRUCIAL for humankind. -
SewerSocalist (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added 18:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep This article is used to support
Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map. Until there is consensus that either the Ukraine combat map or combat maps in general are inappropriate, this article should stay. If the nominator opposes Wikipedia having live combat maps, then this should be resolved with an RFC.
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 00:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong delete. Wikipedia is
WP:NOTNEWS and certainly NOT a progress tracker of a war, disaster, election, game, etc. Additionally, the title is in bad English ("a town during a war", what the hell is this about?) —
kashmīrīTALK 18:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, per Elli. An uncontested Ukrainian city does not need a citation to demonstrate that it belongs to Ukraine, as most reports simply won't write about untouched cities. The article plays a useful statistical and encyclopedic role, as
Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map suggests.
Pilaz (
talk) 00:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This is a harmless list, providing some detail in English of an emerging and worrying situation. When we know the outcome of the war, there will probably be a case for purging the list of uncontested places, if there are any.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. When an article has to be updated day by day, even hour by hour, it's NEWS.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 21:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Encyclopedic information.
WP:NOTPAPER. The disputable cases mostly seem to be sourced. This article supports
Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map, as in the case of several other recent armed conflicts for which en.Wikipedia has provided encyclopedic coverage, which have similar module-based relations to map files.
Boud (
talk) 23:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: Certainly, this article has news value, in that it describes a rapid-changing situation, and that it is up to date or nearly so. However, that is independent of the question whether the article has encyclopedic value. Imagine if the situation settles, would the article still prove useful to readers looking for encyclopedic information? This is debatable, but I believe the answer would be yes. The argument that news value precludes encyclopedic value is not valid. Though perhaps if consensus decides this article does not belong in mainspace, I would like to see it merged with
Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map over deleting it, since the article is used to provide reliable sources for information in the map, and also supports editing activity. --
Kakurady (
talk) 02:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: clear value per above, and it's not too difficult to cite reliable sources for the uncontested cities.
Oeoi (
talk) 16:11, 7 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 13:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Hasn't received any significant coverage, only mentioned in databases or in passing in results. Being allowed to play once because many actual pro players withdrew is not sufficient when the actual coverage is missing.
Fram (
talk) 12:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete lacks coverage that rises to the level of passing GNG.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Barr may technically pass
WP:NTENNIS, but I agree that an SNG pass isn't enough to overcome a GNG failure in this context. Since my search for GNG-qualifying coverage didn't find anything significant (only the same sorts of database entries and trivial mentions that Fram found), he isn't notable at the moment. Given Barr's youth, it's certainly possible that he may receive significant coverage in the future; administrators should feel free to restore the article if that ends up happening.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 01:36, 7 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 01:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. How many of these random obscure-as-heck schools are in India, anyway? In a big country of 1 billion individuals, probably a lot.
👨x🐱 (
Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Wholly not notable in any way, shape, or form.
71.179.1.78 (
talk) 14:26, 2 March 2022 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep : there has been already added many citation feom reliable sources.
Bloody Knight Rider (
talk) 09:47, 1 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 01:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. All the sources cited are either unreliable or not significant, and my search finds no coverage that would satisfy the GNG or any relevant SNG. I'm not seeing any indication that the outside world has taken any real notice of this aspiring celebrity's career.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 07:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:17, 28 February 2022 (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. Without any sources, there is not verifiable content to merge.
✗plicit 01:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per the prior consensus that led to similar lists being deleted and the fact that this one clearly isn't notable. Also, doing a bundled list for the rest would probably be a good idea now that there is a clear consensus about it. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 04:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non notable unsourced list. --
Jax 0677 (
talk) 12:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I would only support merge if reliable sources could be found for the content per
WP:V.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:50, 4 March 2022 (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.
Having a big fan following is irrelevant. Not a notable Youtuber, unable to find independent coverage.
Juggyevil (
talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Commentnews.com.au has no byline,
idntimes it is written by the contributor,
[24] is kind of good one but again, I can't see any journalist commentary in it and the quotes of Lucy Bella Earl is the proof of non independent coverage.
Juggyevil (
talk) 20:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete we do not have sourcing that actually rises to the level to pass GNG.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Sorry, but none of the sources are helpful, in-depth or independent.
Sage Journal is itself having byline and Wikipedia is not Sage Journal.
Juggyevil (
talk) 06:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - Times, Business Insider and BBC articles are strong secondary sources, she's being used as a source by other media outlets from the looks of the NZ Herald piece and some other UK papers. Hard to define YouTube notability in regards to subscriber count, but 350k seems fairly strong.
Tony Fox(arf!) 17:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - update - Today, the number of subscribers is well in excess of 350k. It is 7.62 million, actually. I agree: 7.62 million seems fairly strong, indeed, and the said Wikipedia article deserves a Keep. --
Kggucwa (
talk) 19:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete due to the lack of sources that discuss her directly and in-depth, which from what I can tell none of them do. In the meantime subscriber count doesn't really matter. For all we know she got them through a click farm or something. Even if she didn't, there's zero in the guidelines about the notability of YouTubers being based on subscriber count. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 22:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
comment - erm... the Business Insider article is 800-plus words specifically about her, in-depth. The BBC article is also specifically about her, though shorter. The Times article is specifically about her, though paywalled. I'd strongly disagree with your first statement. Agreed that subscriber count can be manipulated, but it is certainly an indicator of notability, if not directly referred to in the guidelines.
Tony Fox(arf!) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Tony Fox: 800-plus words of an interview and some of those 800 words is her lamenting about the creative process in general and other YouTube creators. So no, it's not really "800 words specifically about her." Really most of it isn't about her, specifically or otherwise. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 21:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. The Times, BBC, and Business Insider provide obvious in-depth coverage passing
WP:GNG. Opposition appears to come from people who mistakenly believe that GNG-notability should be based on some evaluation of how important the occupation of the subject is rather than on the actual level of coverage of the subject herself in reliable sources. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Her work is the subject of at least one academic paper from an Indonesian University, which is obviously independent and in depth, she is featured in the BBC plus the Business Insider and The Times, I find it easy to say keep for this one, based on her meeting the general notability criteria.
CT55555 (
talk) 01:35, 6 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 12:07, 7 March 2022 (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.
Only mentions I can find of this company is about the layout of a single suburb in Mumbai. References don't have significant mention of anything else other than this. If that is all that is to be said, then I don't think this is notable enough for its own article.
Alpha Piscis Austrini (
talk) 08:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - purely promotional article, searches did not turn up enough to satisfy either
WP:GNG or
WP:CORPDEPTH.
Onel5969TT me 13:39, 28 February 2022 (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.
Delete – title/topic scope appears to be largely
WP:SYNTH.
Jr8825 •
Talk 07:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete in the current article state, and as of writing with the current status of the war, this is undeserving of a dedicated article as per
WP:GNG in my opinion.
Maxorazon (
talk) 07:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:CRYSTAL that there would be very much spillover. There have only been two relatively minor in scale incidents (an additional rocket attack occurred near
Rostov-on-Don). If this changes substantially over the next 7 days, then consider a keep, but as of right now, this is a clear delete.
Curbon7 (
talk) 17:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:NOTNEWS and nothing to show this will be an encyclopaedic topic.
Mztourist (
talk) 04:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Basically agreeing with all what has been said above. In general it's better not to have titles like that, but instead describe each and every skirmish separately.
Szmenderowiecki (
talk) 12:12, 1 March 2022 (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.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY: consensus to delete "just a list of postal codes" articles demonstrated in previous AfDs (
[25],
[26]).
asilvering (
talk) 06:32, 28 February 2022 (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.
This has been created, turned back into a redirect, and recreated too many times now. Let's have an actual discussion.
Arguments for deletion (or rather, restoring the redirect to
Surface Pressure) are straightforward: Jessica Darrow does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:NACTOR. Her only roles in productions notable enough to have Wikipedia articles look to be Encanto and Feast of the Seven Fishes (questionable whether that film is particularly notable or whether her role was significant). And I couldn't find enough significant coverage to meet GNG: there are mainly trivial mentions in articles about Encanto and gossip articles. The article as is cites only two useful sources (
[27],
[28]), and it looks to me like there aren't many more out there.
Yes however only one notable role is enough to have an article. there are many articles on actors with only one role. two is good enough for article. keep the article and allow others to work on it to add sources. she's one of the biggest starts in the most popular disney movie of last year. other sources can be found. allow others to add to article. There are better sources out there. They just need to be found. I know there are definitely sources to be used. And many of them that are linked are legit entertainment sites. Lets see what others think. Also Out magazine source no 3 is legit source. It is very popular Lesbian magazine.
Raja1011 (
talk) 06:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
If there are better sources out there, please find them yourself and share. See
WP:But there must be sources! (And also, yes, I literally mentioned the Out magazine source in my nomination and said that it isn't enough on its own.)
Aerin17 (
t •
c) 06:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Billboard interview, few others that show notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect - restore redirect to song. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG, and while they do technically meet MUSICBIO (as was pointed out to me on my talk page), that still does not preclude them meeting GNG. And unfortunately interviews, being primary sources, do not count towards GNG.
Onel5969TT me 12:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Billboard interview, numerous other websites that have covered and interviewed her, she has worked on acting roles as one of the main characters in Encanto (possibly the biggest Disney film of all time), GTA V, and Feast of the Seven Fishes, and has two charting songs on Billboard, one of which reached the top 10 in at least two countries. That alone should warrant an article, in my opinion, as it is not easy to do such a thing. The movie still has at least another few months of hype and circulation until it starts to wind down, so there ought to be more articles on Darrow regardless.
TrevortniDesserpedx (
talk) 13:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Beyond the Billboard interview, the Out article is significant coverage of the individual in an editorially managed secondary source. Those two are enough for GNG. A simple google search also shows me a Broadwayworld.com article specifically about her (for a theater role) and some minor Buzzfeed stuff that's not sufficient for GNG but adds evidence to existing notability. Ehh, and beyond that "Actor in a big role" is generally a pass, so the Nom's concern seems a bit more than necessary (although I respect attempts to prune bad articles). -
Markeer 01:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per above, appears to demonstrate notability. If references are a concern a {{
Sources exist}} tag can be added to the article.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 06:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, as
2 through 5 are all in depth enough to meet aforementioned guidelines. Goes past
WP:1EVENT, as she has both starred in Encanto and had chart success internationally—that's the foundations of notability, right there. That's not to say the article couldn't be improved though (indeed, as all articles could be); it's still a bare-bones stub in need of further expansion.
Sean Stephens (
talk) 13:06, 3 March 2022 (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. Despite multiple relists, there has been little participation and no agreement about the relevance of the sources or the appropriate disposition of the article.
RL0919 (
talk) 05:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The articles in The Providence Journal (2016) as well as Vanity Fair (2013) are about
Malala Yousafzai. The mentions about Jilani are trivial and it is ridiculous to claim that they contribute to the notability of our subject in any manner. (
WP:BASIC notes, trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.)
The article in The Times Standard (2020) is obviously a press-release and even then, a trivial mention.
Central Jersey.com has an
interesting form and I suspect the reliability of the media organization. No details about editorial policies or a list of staff can be located.
That leaves us with The Globe and Mail (2010) and The National News (2009) which are not sufficient for passing GNG.
TrangaBellam (
talk) 06:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
From my view, The National News and The Globe and Mail both provide significant, in-depth coverage about her and her career, and provide substantial support for notability per
WP:GNG. Per
WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, with the exception of trivial coverage, and I listed The Providence Journal first because it provides context for the Vanity Fair article, and includes biographical and career information for Jilani, in addition to her connection to
Malala Yousafzai, so it does not appear to be trivial. When combined with the notice from Vanity Fair in its extensive profile of Yousafzai, which also includes Jilani's biographical and career information, this does not appear to be trivial, and therefore adds some support to her notability.
I also share your concern about PR pieces, including because when I searched on Proquest, I found what appeared to be an article written by an advertising agency, and did not include it as a source here. However, the 2019 coverage in Dawn is bylined to a newspaper correspondent and notes progress since the founding of SRI and mentions Jilani's role as a co-founder and president, as well as some biographical information, so it does not appear trivial. I also included the 2018 Daily Times op-ed with commentary about her and SRI because the author is "the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, Washington, DC, and author of Journey into Europe: Islam, Immigration, and Identity".
Central Jersey.com appears to be a local newspaper publishing group, and the 2020 article is bylined to a staff writer, so while the publication clearly solicits press releases, this standard way of obtaining news leads from the community does not appear sufficient to eliminate the article as a source. The Times Standard publishes guidelines about
how it uses press releases and how they verify information and turn it into news coverage, so the ongoing coverage of Jilani, her work, and biographical information does not appear trivial or unreliable.
From my view, the first two sources provide a solid foundation to support notability, and then the ongoing coverage helps provide additional support per
WP:BASIC that can also help expand the article, which also needs editing to remove
puffery.
Beccaynr (
talk) 13:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Beccanyr TrangaBellam clearly does not how to determine notability or is trying to remove articles on Pakistani notables. Neither Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb or Miangul Zebunisa aka Zebunisa Jilani is notable solely for being a Royal or Noble. Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb is an Islamabad High Court Justice and I don't see TrangaBellam proposing deleting
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel. Zebunisa Jilani is a foundation director whose former intern is Malala Yusafzai.
RichardBond (
talk) 02:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 00:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:43, 28 February 2022 (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. A redirection has been proposed as an alternative, but would be problematic given that there's currently no mention in the target article. The redirect can be created if such a mention is added. Sandstein 08:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
This article was
WP:BLARed in 2019 by
User:Newslinger with the rationale Redirect to
General Motors. Highly promotional with no significant coverage in
independentreliable sources, and several citations to
sponsored content. Article was primarily written by
sockpuppet of undisclosed paid editor (
WP:SOCKSTRIKE), and recently
WP:RfDedhere, where consensus was to revert the BLAR and send to AfD. It was also previously AfDed in 2008 where the topic was determined to be non-notable. There is no reliable significant coverage at all (I actually had to delete some "secondary" sources when restoring the article as they were on the MediaWiki spam backlist), and the article is nothing short of
a concealed advertisement.
eviolite(talk) 03:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nomination. Wikipedia is not a site for promotional material masquerading as an article.
TH1980 (
talk) 03:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
General Motors. No significant coverage in
independentreliable sources. Routine announcements such as the
Adweek article do not count toward notability, per
WP:CORPDEPTH. Credit card blogs that are driven by
affiliate commissions, such as Creditcards.com and The Balance, are not reliable and not sufficiently independent of the article subject to establish notability.
WP:PRODUCT states, "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." The GM Card program is an extension of the General Motors brand, and a brief mention in the
General Motors article would be appropriate. (
GM Financial is not an appropriate redirect target, because it offers loans and leases, not credit cards.) — Newslingertalk 04:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I believe
General Motors is the best redirect target because the GM Card portfolio has changed hands a few times (as I've noted in my other comments here), first with a company that was acquired by
HSBC Finance, then with
Capital One, and finally with
Goldman Sachs. However, the portfolio has maintained its association with the General Motors brand the entire time. — Newslingertalk 16:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have retargeted
GM Flex Card to this article (which is where it was targeted when created) as whether it is kept, deleted or retargeted they should share the same fate (notifying per
Thryduulf in the
RFD).
A7V2 (
talk) 22:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose redirection unless and until mention is added at
General Motors, and I'm not sure I agree that such mention is justified. I think Delete per nom and TH1980.
A7V2 (
talk) 22:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Not sure if redirection to GM or
Ally Financial (which used to be GMAC, their finance company) is best but one of those two is appropriate. Deletion is fine, but redirection gives some information (even if there isn't text at the target page) and serves as a sort of soft-salting for these kinds of topics.
Protonk (
talk) 17:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
The GM Card portfolio is now owned by
Goldman Sachs, after they
acquired it from
Capital One. I don't think Ally Financial has anything to do with GM's credit cards. — Newslingertalk 04:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Capital One as initial creators with a link to current owners.
Gusfriend (
talk) 11:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Capital One wasn't actually the original creator. According to Automotive News, GM Card was originally started in 1992 as a joint venture with Household Finance Corp, which was acquired by
HSBC Finance (a subsidiary of
HSBC) in 2003. Capital One acquired the GM Card portfolio from HSBC in 2012. — Newslingertalk 16:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I had one back in the day, no longer a thing. Could be a small subsection in the main GM article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:36, 1 March 2022 (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. LizRead!Talk! 04:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
An advertorially toned BLP on an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to online directories, passing metions, WP:SPIP or other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created and edited by a number of blocked socks;
Iamishwar (
talk) 09:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Would the civilian award make him notable?
Oaktree b (
talk) 18:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: as per nom. -
Hatchens (
talk) 17:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't think the
Padma Shri is enough on its own to meet
WP:ANYBIO #1: it's only the fourth-highest civilian award, and there have been over three thousand recipients. But although it's difficult to evaluate the reliability/independence of some of the coverage, I do think there's probably enough for Mr. Bikhchandani to pass
WP:BASIC/the GNG.
Here's some coverage in Mint, which
per RSN is reliable for business in India.
Forbes India has had
twopieces on Bikhchandani, both of which were written by staff; although they're definitely uncritical, I can't really say that they lack reliability or independence.
Here's some Hindi-language coverage from
Asianet News, which appears to be reliable; Business Today has
hadsome as well. There are many more sources out there, at least some of which likely are reliable and independent, but I think these should be enough to show notability. If someone familiar with the Indian press would like to explain why these sources are unreliable/non-independent/otherwise problematic, I'd be glad to listen, but until then I'm fairly confident that this billionaire is genuinely notable. Since the article isn't nearly in bad enough shape to necessitate
WP:TNT deletion, any problems with promotion or sockpuppetry can be dealt with through the normal processes;
deletion is not cleanup.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
User:Extraordinary Writ, this is very difficult but there are good reasons why most Indian news sources are problematic. The matter is well explained in our article on
Paid news in India but the essence of it is that most Indian news sources (a) accept payment for positive coverage and (b) don't disclose when they've been paid. Of the various newspapers we like The Hindu (
WP:THEHINDU) and The Indian Express (
WP:INDIANEXP), and we don't like any of the others. Of course, that's an issue because it creates a double standard: we like most of the sources from Western democracies. So we describe the US using US sources and Britain using British sources but we don't describe India using Indian sources. It's pure systemic bias, and it reduces the amount of Indian topics that we can cover, but I think it's probably better than allowing articles based on unreliable sources.—
S MarshallT/
C 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Oh, I don't doubt that we ought to look at Indian sources with a much more jaundiced eye than we do for sources from highly developed countries: although it's unfortunate, there's really no other choice if we don't want to be overrun by spam. But even if we limit ourselves to the crème de la crème of the Indian press – for instance, the twenty-some-odd
RSN-vetted sources listed as reliable at
Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#India – there's still probably enough coverage to establish that Bikhchandani is notable: see
[30] (The Indian Express),
[31] (Financial Express,
[32] (Business Standard), and
[33] (Mint). And there is some coverage from outside India: not enough to establish notability on its own, perhaps, but still enough to confirm that there's some substance to the Indian coverage. The Financial Times states that he's "lauded by entrepreneurs in India as the founder of one of the most successful start-ups"
[34], there's
BBC coverage, and he's
briefly mentioned in an American book published by
Wiley. Your broader point about the problematic nature of the Indian press is well taken, but, at the risk of sounding naïve, I think there's still room for a nuanced attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. Best regards,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 19:14, 28 February 2022 (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.
This is a non-notable branch of
Islamic Azad University since the article has been un-referenced since it's creation in 2012 and I couldn't find anything in a
WP:BEFORE that would justify keeping it either. Also, the article is extremely promotional. So I'm nominating it for deletion. Maybe someone else can find something to turn it into a half workable article though.
Adamant1 (
talk) 08:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the suggestions. From what I can tell the references in the Farsi article aren't usable for notability. Searching for its name in Farsi might result in something that is though. --
Adamant1 (
talk) 10:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:36, 28 February 2022 (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.
✗plicit 01:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: page now updated.
M.Billoo 22:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: it' s meet wikipedia criteria.
User talk:M5315k 02:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep- It meets the wikipedia criteria to remain published. It has strong resources. (
Ak131001 talk) 16:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per above arguments, there is no point in removing an article if the article has been improved to meet WP standards. Looking at it, it has what you can expect from the article for an unreleased film, and it has sigcov from
WP:RS. (
JayPlaysStuff |
talk to me |
What I've been up to) 11:54, 2 March 2022 (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.
Non-notable film, lacking significant independent coverage; the awards and festival circuit touted by the article are from awards mill style festivals with no notability, it also appears that the article may have been created by a COI editor looking to promote the film
BOVINEBOY2008 17:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm going to try to find sources, but I'm not terribly impressed by most of the sourcing in the article. For example, the awards don't seem to be very major. One of the film festivals is held monthly so they're giving out a lot of awards on a yearly basis.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。) 17:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
It looks like all of the festivals/awards are producer submitted, meaning any awards/coverage coming from them is not independent. It seems to be purchased notoriety.
BOVINEBOY2008 17:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
That's what I'm leaning towards. At worst they're vanity awards (albeit some of the least expensive ones I've seen) and at best they're just non-notable. Some of the links used to back up claims of awards just mentioned that they were screening at a given festival, which isn't really the same as winning an award. Also, one of them was the same source as one of the others - just a reprinted press release.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。) 17:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. After examining the sourcing in the article I decided to look for sourcing, which was a very short search. There's really not much out there. I'm aware that sometimes Google doesn't properly pick up all of the possible sourcing in other countries, but there's really not much out there. What's in the article is pretty much what's out there already - and some of the sources aren't even about the film, but about a deceased celebrity that is the namesake for the production company. I've trimmed this down to the basics and in the process, found that the aforementioned PR was actually used three times in the article, one for each of the different places it was published.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。) 17:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Independent movies dawn a new era in film making. "Welcome on Board" deals with some important social messages for its viewers. Hence its is imperative that movies like these should be in wikipedia. What is mentioned as mill style award is exactly the international award circuit which is approved by the respective countries film societies/board. The very reason that the movie is premiered in multiple awards circuit and is released in Disney+ Hotstar which is one of the most leading OTT platform globally show the notability of the movie. Independent movies cannot afford to buy media and awards hence the press coverage is limited unlike major Hollywood and Bollywood movies. The viewership picks up by work of mouth and all relevant movies should have a place in wikipedia. And wikipedia should not be a place only for movies highly promoted and money backed movies. The contributors referencing to delete the article are not aware of how the independent movies and international award circuit operate.
MM Junior (Aby) (
talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm actually fairly aware of how indie films work. I know that it's not easy to get coverage, as there are always more films then there are places to cover them. The horror genre - one of my personal favorites - is rife with thousands upon thousands of films that were independently released and gained little to no coverage. (And don't get me started on how easy it is to be overlooked in the horror lit world, even with there being more of a focus on horror nowadays. So many authors and books I wish I could make articles for.) Some manage to get that lucky break and have just enough coverage to pass NFILM. For example, most of the films done by
George Clarke (filmmaker) had very little budget. One was shot with a budget of £200.
Lawrie Brewster has a few films that were very indie and had low budgets.
Emily Hagins is probably one of the best examples of a low budget director. She made her first film at 12 years old, which took her two years to complete because of the difficulty of filming and getting funding. My point in listing these examples is that they're all people who made indie films with limited resources and funding. They were all fortunate enough that they gained attention from the media, which was far from a guarantee. The long and short of this is that most films aren't going to be notable. Most awards aren't going to be notable either - less than 1% of the awards out there will give notability, and that's taking into account all potential awards, from Oscars to Nobels. Only a fraction of that slim fraction will be notable enough to keep an article on the award alone. Now I'm aware that mainstream in any country means that minority groups of various types (minority based on income, gender, skin color, etc) will be more likely to be excluded, but Wikipedia isn't meant to
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。) 19:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:31, 28 February 2022 (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. Sandstein 08:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Film appears to fail
WP:NFILM. PROD removed when one review was added, but no others were found in a BEFORE. More than one review is required.
DonaldD23talk to me 17:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: Found another review by
OTT Play. Its apparently a "content discovery platform"
launched by
HT Media. --
Ab207 (
talk) 14:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment:
Shshshsh, can you find any additional sources/reviews for this Hindi film. We have two reviews so far but considering this is a 2021 release, we should be able to find more. Courtesy ping to nominator
Donaldd23. --
Ab207 (
talk) 15:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Can't find any, but I don't think more are needed to establish notability. Not all films get a wide release, and a film review by ToI is no mean thing.
Shahid • Talk2me 15:39, 4 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 01:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I can't find any evidence that Mr Sims ever played professional football. Previously discussed at AfD in 2009
here, leading to "no consensus". —
S MarshallT/
C 23:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment, I'll note that failing NGRIDIRON alone is not a reason to delete. Per NSPORTS, which it is a part of: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 00:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I voted "Keep" in the 2009 AfD, but frankly I'm not seeing it. The sources cited in the article (and referenced in the first AfD) appear to be passing mentions that do not constitute
WP:SIGCOV with in-depth coverage of Sims from reliable, independent sources. Based on my current view of the guidelines, this fails
WP:NGRIDIRON (did not actually play in one of the specified pro leagues) and
WP:NCOLLATH (none of the specified awards). My searches turned up
this piece of SIGCOV regarding his high school career, but without more, it's not enough to get Sims over the GNG bar. If others find more SIGCOV, I'm willing to reconsider.
Cbl62 (
talk) 01:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I seem to recall that he was working in to the CFL at the time of the last AFD with the Montreal Alouettes. My search capabilities are inconclusive there and I'm not ready to take a position. I was also on keep last time, but I'll hold back for some more research.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 01:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I think you are correct, Paul. He may have been on a CFL roster at the time of the first AfD, but if in the end, he never appeared in a regular season game, he doesn't get the benefit of a presumption of notability.
Cbl62 (
talk) 02:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Agreed, I just would like to let the AFD run its course so we can research properly and determine.--
Paul McDonald (
talk) 02:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Understood. Likewise, I will keep an open mind if others find more SIGCOV.
Cbl62 (
talk) 02:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment,
this looks like it could be SIGCOV.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 19:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete we should not be signposting articles with "local person makes the area proud" type articles. That is not enough to justify having an article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Less Unless (
talk) 04:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree that purely local human interest stories for athletes shouldn't count towards GNG. Found one article about
a play he made while at Stanford but I'd still say it falls short of the significant coverage one would expect from an athlete that warrants a Wikipedia article.
Qwaiiplayer (
talk) 14:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Can anyone find the Scout.com article that's cited in the page (the current one is a dead link)?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 15:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
This might be it, but it's behind a paywall.
Qwaiiplayer (
talk) 16:13, 28 February 2022 (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.
Was unable to find any sources beside a passing mention, a couple of dubious magazines, and the website of the creators. That means a lack of significant coverage. This "educative sex comedy" fails
WP:N. The cartoon itself appears to be obscure, too obscure for Wikipedia. (
JayPlaysStuff |
talk to me |
What I've been up to) 03:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
CommentLibération (the source used in the second citation on the page) is considered a reliable source, per
WP:CiteUnseen at least. I don't have time to look into this myself, but my guess is if they've covered it, there are almost certainly other reliable French-language articles about the show out there.
Yitz (
talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Reassessed and changing my position to strong keep. The page still needs work, but I think it should be kept.
Historyday01 (
talk) 15:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Seems to be a lot of coverage, some of it reliable and significant. I found this
[35] pretty quickly. What an obscure, funny little cartoon. I will blame
Historyday01 for me being here, the notice was posted on his page, and it piqued my interest. Didn't take long to find some articles, although most are not English and take some effort to determine the quality of.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 01:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. In addition to the sources mentioned by those above me, the series is taken up as the main case study of
"Economic and industrial issues of French pornographic and erotic animation", a peer-reviewed article in French Information and Communication Sciences Review. I'm reading it through machine translation, so take this with a un grain de sel, but the article appears to cover some production and publication details; general plot patterns and themes; the history of the show; and analysis of what the show says about the marketability of debatably pornographic animation.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk |
contribs) 05:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Hmm, considering what you and Dennis Brown are saying, I think I will change my position to strong keep. If its in a peer-reviewed article, then that's a pretty strong reliable source to me.
Historyday01 (
talk) 15:02, 1 March 2022 (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.
✗plicit 03:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Sources are all routine announcements of operations performed which do not appear independent. No in-depth coverage for
WP:NCORP found. PROD removed by author.
Hemantha (
talk) 03:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi. Mohak Bariatrics and Robotics is a one of its kind and a well known hospital in India dedicated to obesity surgery. The sources cited are not just the routine announcements of the operations performed but rare surgeries performed in India. Also, it is a centre that prepares surgeons for this disease. Many people around the globe search for it on a daily basis. The references cited are all independent ones. If there's an issue with the content, I suggest it should be properly tagged for improvement, rather than being deleted.
Edwige9 (
talk) 06:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't see any significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Most of these sources are either published by the subject, have either passing mentions or no mention at all, or won't load/404
Naleksuh (
talk) 06:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Hemantha: I searched for more references in Google but most of them mention the hospital name only. Although the entity exists but has no significant coverage as of now. Is it possible to remove the content and sources that don't look credible and add a maintenance tag. The reason being, I remember I was involved in one of the discussions about a remote religious place wherein the subject had no media coverage, but due to its physical existence, the editor didn't remove it. If this is not the case, then whatever the community decides. Please share your views.
Edwige9 (
talk) 10:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
See
WP:FAILORG for ways of preserving information of a non-notable organization without keeping this page. —
rsjaffe🗣️ 20:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete I have tried very hard to find evidence that the subject, which has a good claim to significance, has the sources to meet GNG, but despite checking all the references and a Google search, I am unable to do so. The text as it stands is promotional, and with that many failed verifications/dead links it is difficult to assume good faith, so it seems best to delete the article.
Toadspike (
talk) 20:43, 28 February 2022 (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per
Subjects notable only for one event. King is only known for his participation in the
Canada convoy protest. While he was mentioned in a few news reports before the protest, there is not extensive coverage of him. There is nothing in this article beyond what one would expect to find in the protest article.
TFD (
talk) 01:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep (I created the article). There is extensive secondary reliable coverage of the subject's activism over a number of years around a number of events, therefore satisfying
WP:N and
WP:BIO. That alone should refute the AfD, but to specifically address the point that nothing in this article is found "in the protest article" (presumably
Canada convoy protest) then that is incorrect the protest article talks about the events in Ottawa in 2022 and the article we are discussing here mostly is about events the subject is notable for between 2019 and 2021.
CT55555 (
talk) 01:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep as meeting notability guidelines; no opinion on quality or completeness of article. I checked out nine of the sources, only ones that predated the 2022 convoy protest (earliest October 2019, most recent December 2021).
They are all reliable sources (AP News, Reuters, CBC News, Global News, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Moosejaw Today).
They focus in-depth on Pat King and his activities.
They cover a variety of things (anti-vax activity including his lawsuit against the Alberta government, before that, the Alberta/Western secessionist movement, a false information incident impacting Indigenous community, etc. And then there's the convoy itself.
Even pre-convoy, sources described him as "involved in the Canadian far-right ecosystem for some time", "a man well known in the COVID conspiracy movement", "[the duo] have become internationally famous for their willingness to get their message across".
So, pre-convoy coverage seems extensive and focussed on him, not just as a peripheral figure. signed, Willondon (
talk) 03:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Only known for his participation in the
Canada convoy protest" is a bizarre thing to say about the guy who co-founded
Wexit. This article leans pretty heavily towards covid-related news coverage, but earlier stuff is out there, and even most of the covid-related mentions in this article come from before the convoy protest. And as Willondon shows, the sources in the article at present already give us a
WP:GNG pass. And more news coverage will keep coming out, as his trial proceeds. If anyone wants to add this to the article, he was denied bail on Friday:
[36]. More sigcov will come out once he's back in court on March 18. --
asilvering (
talk) 06:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - the current sourcing satisfies
WP:GNG, and it's enough over time so that it is not an issue of
WP:BIO1E.
Onel5969TT me 13:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. Even ignoring his stuff before 2021, the man has a history of protesting and contesting the Canadian government's COVID policies, and the HQ sources have been there since 2021 to document that. On a side note, I did not even know the man's name, so all I initially saw was the name of the article; I was initially gonna make some joke about what MLK's later relatives were doing, but thankfully I did not have to do that.
👨x🐱 (
Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment for AfD nominator
TFD, I recognize your good faith nomination, but with regards to
WP:SNOWBALL I humbly suggest you close this AfD, as the feedback is unanimously keep, and made with appropraite reference to Wikipedia policy.
CT55555 (
talk) 17:57, 28 February 2022 (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 consensus to delete the American Samoa article, no consensus with respect to the others. Sandstein 08:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Nominator's original comment (superceded by below comment for clarity)
We don't need articles about events that don't exist just to let people know that it doesn't exist. It is using a very bad qualifier. Its non-standard not just per WP guidelines but also according to conventions of Elections related articles too. This article contains details about 2016 presidential caucuses but they have their own standalone articles (
2016 American Samoa Democratic presidential caucuses &
2016 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses). This article was subject of past AfD at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election in American Samoa, 2016. It appears that the name was never changed as per closing instruction. But even if it's name is changed, it will still be out of the pack among any other election year. Party-specific articles exist for every state in every year (unless incumbent goes unchallenged). For no other state in any year, or the territories in any year except 2016, do we have a cover all-party primary article, and there's no indication those kinds of articles are in the pipeline. Not to mention the false look it gave when left in
Template:2016 United States elections that it had representation when it factually did not. (I removed it from there). ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs) 15:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Reasons for deletion:
We don't need articles about events that don't exist just to let people know that it doesn't exist.
Title is first thing a reader notices, and the usage of "presidential election" as a qualifier gives the false impression that American Samoa has presidential representation when in fact it does not.
Only party delegates vote in caucuses, has nothing to do with ordinary citizens, like other "elections".
Presidential caucuses/primaries in territories do not form a part of the legally defined "presidential election" process.
Democrats Abroad, for example, conducts primaries in Canada. There were 19 polling stations across Canada and 622,000 voting-age U.S. citizens.[1] Yet we don't have a "20xx United States presidential election in Canada" article.
This article was subject of past AfD at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election in American Samoa, 2016. It appears that the name was never changed as per closing instruction. But even if it's name is changed, it will be non-standard. Party primary-specific articles exist for every state in every year. For no other state in any year, or the territories in any year except 2016, do we have a cover all-party primary article. It is simply repetitive to articles mentioned at point #3.
Note: I have added 3 more related articles to the deletion discussion due to the same reasons already stated above. ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Note: Guam is not included in this because of the presidential straw poll, I assume? Skarmory(talk •contribs) 03:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Puerto Rico, as it is labeled as presidential primaries in Puerto Rico. I would say Convert all the others to a presidential primaries style article, such as in Puerto Rico, if reasonable. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 03:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 01:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete American Samoa but Keep the others. I support the deletion of the article on American Samoa, as it is entirely unsourced (failing GNG and V) and nom has proved it redundant. However, I cannot support the proposed deletion of the other articles without any evidence (or even, it seems, proper PROD procedure, as none of the other articles are tagged).
Toadspike (
talk) 03:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: As far as Puerto Rico is concerned, the article may be misleading altogether anyway. In my understanding the alleged "primaries" held in Puerto Rico are not popularly held but held only for the Puerto Rican members of the GOP and DEM parties there. There are several (local) political parties in PR, but since only the
PNP Party supports
statehood, only members of that party vote in these alleged US presidential "primaries". In my understanding the PNP party limits voting in its US presidential primaries to only its party leadership, not the people at large. This leadership, I understand, consists of all its (PNP) senators, legislators and mayors as well as its legislative, gubernatorial and mayoral candidates. That would be a marked difference from presidential primaries held in the US mainland where any citizen can vote in the GOP or the DEM primaries so long as they are registered republicans or democrats respectively, and the reason I would argue the article title may be misleading altogether anyway and make it a candidate for Deletion regardless. Hope this helps!
Mercy11 (
talk) 22:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Skarmory,
Toadspike, and
Mercy11: pinging because I modified the nomination for better clarity. Also, I've added AfD notices on all nominated articles. Back when I started this AfD, I wasn't able to understand the instructions, asked for help at
WP:HD but didn't get much out of it. Now, I'm able to do it correctly, and so I've completed the steps that were left incomplete back then. Thanks for your kind consideration. ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs) 06:19, 2 March 2022 (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.
Redirect per Devonian Wombat. Redirects are cheap.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 11:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Redirect as suggested.
Bearian (
talk) 20:48, 4 March 2022 (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 SNOW DELETE. No valid reason to not act now, no amount of time is likely to change the outcome.
Dennis Brown -
2¢ 01:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)reply
There's no indication that this individual is notable except for his recent death (
WP:BIO1E). Additionally, the article itself doesn't even describe anything about this individual that would be considered notable, even if it could be verified in reliable sources. I can't find any sources with significant coverage that aren't news articles from the last 24 hours reporting his death. I'd recommend that a mention of his death be added to
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine or another article about these events.
—ScottyWong— 00:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete – non-notable. The only reasons the media picked this up is because he would've been the first Russian commander killed in the conflict (though he is still pretty low down the command chain). It now transpires he's not even dead. Wouldn't have gotten a Wiki page prior to the false news reports. Fails
WP:GNG. --
Jkaharper (
talk) 00:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable Bio, only mere notability could be his death but it's proven Fake. He is alive and the main source claiming it's death don't suscribe the reliability of the report by Kyiv media. Daily Mail is also a secondary source and is currently blacklisted.
Mr.User200 (
talk) 01:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per reasons given above. Also pointing out that when I removed the PROD, I did suggest draftification over deletion, and less than 20 minutes later, this AfD started, so I am a little disappointed in the AfD starting without the AfD nominator reading the PROD removal reason or starting discussion on talk page. Nevertheless, it should be deleted now that the AfD began.
Elijahandskip (
talk) 01:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Note that draftication is a potential outcome of an AfD. Also, an AfD that results in the deletion of an article doesn't necessarily prevent a draft from being created on the same topic.
—ScottyWong— 02:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete In addition to the various policy failures presented by nom and others, previous votes have pointed out that this may be spreading false information. Better to stay away from this for now, and if it turns out he was notable we can re-create the article after we are certain of the facts and of lasting significance.
Toadspike (
talk) 03:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree that it's non-notable --
nycmstar (
talk) 04:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:NMILITARY along with several other guidelines as mentioned above.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 12:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per BASIC; and that being alive, even in a war, is not a claim of notability.
SN54129 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
NOT DELETE: _You_ may not have heard of him but he is not just one killed combatant but Russian/Chechen general, main ally of Kadyrov and instrigaror of LGBT purges in Chechenia. Of course, you may not care about all that or try to remove him for other reasons -
Skysmith (
talk) 17:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
What you and I "care about" is irrelevant. Was Tushayev the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources prior to his alleged death? If so, provide those sources. If not, then at best he's notable for a single event, and WP's policies don't allow an article to exist in that case. See
WP:BIO1E.
—ScottyWong— 19:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Claims of his death are questionable at best, and there are no sources outside of conflicting reports on whether he is alive.
Cookieo131 (
talk) 02:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge content into a related article. This individual doesn't warrant an article, and even his death is not confirmed and may not be true, due to the
fog of war.
Xcalibur (
talk) 03:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment – We're passed that stage now. Several new photos and videos have emerged of him since. He's alive, so what would merging to create a section of a non-notable commander achieve? --
Jkaharper (
talk) 15:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I wasn't updated on that. I suppose that tips the balance into DELETE. He may be worth a mention in the article on the Chechen anti-gay purges, and a brief mention in the invasion article if he's high enough rank. But I'll leave that to others to figure out.
Xcalibur (
talk) 23:15, 1 March 2022 (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.
Delete No sigcov, or significance in general. Sources provided are not remotely acceptable, being either non-independent or unreliable.
Toadspike (
talk) 03:51, 28 February 2022 (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.