Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 21 August 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Guttman Community College. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Stella and Charles Guttman Foundation

Stella and Charles Guttman Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find evidence this foundation meets N:ORG. This piece from the Times about the new community college is GNG/ORG level coverage, but it's mostly about the school, not the Foundation. The rest in the article and found online is press releases announcing their gifts. They're an active Foundation, but do not appear to be notable. I don't think a redirect to Guttman Community College is particularly helpful to the reader, but not against it as an ATD. The article has existed for about ten years so think it merits more than BLAR. Star Mississippi 21:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to Guttman Community College?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. This could be a No consensus but most of those advocating Keep are Weak Keeps and those arguing for Deletion make legitimate arguments that this brief article isn't suitable for the project. No penalty on a future article if this individual ever does something truly notable. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Nagendra Rai

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

Maybe pass WP:SIGCOV, but he is mainly notable because he is the nephew of Bihar's former Chief Minister, Lalu Prasad Yadav. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The phrase "nephew of Lalu Prasadh Yadav" can be found in almost every source's title. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 18:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep, examination of the sources in the article demonstrates SIGCOV well beyond relationships. There are multiple events with SIGCOV. This not BLP1E and it doesn't fall afoul of WP:CRIME, because they are known for multiple criminal events, not just one. There may still be BLP issues to clean up. — siro χ o 21:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, though sources are not sufficient, yet it is a notable topic.- Admantine123 ( talk) 18:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG. This is about yet one more run-of-the-mill criminal, whose sole claim to infamy are lame reports of his arrests and bookings. These are never enough as notability criteria: Otherwise, Wikipedia would be choking up with biographies of every criminal under the sun. Thankfully, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a criminology journal. And we certainly do not post up random information! Finally, it is telling that contributors to this AfD admit we dot have sufficient sources, yet they still assert this is a notable topic. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep - Seems to qualify WP:SIGCOV; I am not in favour of deletion! Ekdalian ( talk) 13:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; fails WP:CRIME, specifically in that the victim is not notable, and the motivation or execution of the crime was not unusual. ~ T P W 17:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If there was more than one editor advocating Keep, I'd close this as No consensus but this discussion has been relisted three times with limited participation and I have to close it as Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Renjilal Damodaran

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 11:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 11:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 12:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. An "important figure"? "Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? "Created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? His "work has become a significant monument? "No" to all, so he fails WP:NCREATIVE as well. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I can't find sourcing for this person. The assertion above that Criteria 3 is met, needs an explanation; what did this guy do to merit the "keep"? Oaktree b ( talk) 19:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well, ’this guy’ has directed 2 notable films and written one. See his Filmography please. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep as the Delete opinion is a Weak Delete, the article is no longer unsourced and we have at least two enthusiastic editors who can work on improving this article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Audrey Fildes

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced bio. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 09:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A basic internet search helps define WP:Notability. This actress has pages of search results for her acting work. I added her television work in the UK as well, one broadcast was from a live performance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky ( talk • contribs) 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 12:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete. Of the sources provided only one is usable for notability [1]. The others are simple mentions without commentary or databases. The level of work seen in her IMDb profile (nor the theatre work mentioned there) is not enough to presume notability in the absence of multiple independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in more detail than the ones we have. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep
Hoo boy. So, I found a lot of mentions of her. I'm thinking she does qualify for Wikipedia:NACTOR based on the number of productions.
The stage performances (none listed in the article) that I've found so far: Rodney Ackland's dramatization of Crime and Punishment; The Rivals; Ring Round the Moon; Noel Coward's Point Valaine; He Who Gets Slapped; Hamlet (1945); The Return of the Prodigal; A Trip to the Sourdough; The Relapse.
Mentions in Theatre Arts magazine in reviews of productions she was in:
-January 1945 (v 29, # 1, p 61) "Chanticleer Theatre" by Raymond Leader. Noted as part of Greta Douglas' troupe with Margaret Gordon, Peter Noble, Robert Marsden and Alan Adair. Also noted she was invited (whole troupe, actually) to play on Shaftesbury Ave.
-January 1946 (v 30, # 1, p 23) "English Spotlight: The Rivals" by Leslie Stokes. Mentioned as new actress.
-October 1946 (v 30, # 10, p 594) "Crime and Punishment". Mentioned as one of the "other actors in the large cast" of production of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.
-November 1946 (v 30, # 11, p 640) "Gieglud as Raskolnikoff" by James Reynolds. Mentioned as performance being ineffectual.
In Drama magazine:
-Summer 1950 (v 1, # 17, p 11) photograph for "Ring Round the Moon" with Paul Scofield.
In Variety:
- September 3, 1947 (v 167, # 13, p 117) Production of Noel Coward's "Point 'Valaine" at the Embassy theatre.
- October 1, 1947 (v 168, # 4, p 182) review of While I Live (misspelled as "While I Love")
- June 1, 1949 (v 74, # 12, p 259) review of Kind Hearts and Coronets.
In Films in Review:
- September 1950 (v 1, # 6, p 32) review with cast list of Kind Hearts and Coronets.
In Punch:
- July 10, 1946 (v 211, # 5506, p 37) review with cast list of stageplay of Crime and Punishment.
In Saturday Review:
- July 15, 1950 (v 33, # 28, p 30) review with cast list for Kind Hearts and Coronets.
In Ciné Revue
- August 26, 1976 (v 56, # 35, p 20) review of Kind Hearts and Coronets. (in French)
Playbills / cast lists:
- the listing of players in the 1946 London production of Rodney Ackland's dramatization of Crime and Punishment.
- United Artists pressbook for Kind Hearts and Coronets. (already listed in article as film)
-- Also in Photoplay from Jul-Dec 1950, p 199; The Film Daily from 1951, p 190; a copy of the screenplay with cast list from the production
- Showman's Trade Review of While I Live (already listed in article as film)
- listed as playing Consuela in "He Who Gets Slapped" in 1947, with plot description on page 199; a review on pages 219, 315-6; and a picture on page 281.
- a review of "The Relapse" (and the cast list).
-- a second on this production, and cast list, with a photograph
- in Claire Bloom's autobiography: 1, 2 productions (I'm not logged in on IA, atm, so I don't have the play names, sorry).
- cast listing for "Ring Round the Moon"
-- Also in the Christopher Fry Album
-- A copy of the stageplay with the cast list from the production.
- cast list for The Rivals and for Ring Round the Moon.
-- Also a picture for The Rivals, and notes on the September 25, 1945 production.
- as Ophelia in Hamlet.
- photograph with John Gielgud in The Return of the Prodigal; review of A Trip to the Sourdough.
- cast list for Coward's Point Valaine.
- - - - -
This isn't even close to everything that came up in the search, just what I've looked at.
- - - - -
I also found a one line mention about a " Four Seasons Ltd", which was apparently a theatre troupe she was part of at the Duchess Theatre in London.
Getty Images OIM20 ( talk) 03:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm thinking she does qualify for Wikipedia:NACTOR based on the number of productions. WP:NACTOR#1 says The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions (emphasis mine). I agree she has had multiple roles. How many were significant roles in notable productions? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Characters she played on stage from the cast lists linked above:
Sure, but was it a notable production? Just because the play itself is notable doesn't mean every production of it is notable? Your high school could put on a production of the same play and that (very likely) is not notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Well Point Valaine obviously is a notable production (the London premiere), but are you actually suggesting that performing on London's West End is equivalent to a high school production?
I'm not being facetious; I'm new to AfD and I thought providing a response on a relisted discussion would be more helpful than one that others are more likely paying attention to. So I'm actually asking. How notable does it need to be for it to be relevant?
From what I've read, the burden is on the person wanting to keep the article to prove significance, so if I'm to do that, I need to know what the determining factors are.
Also, should I be providing a detailed analysis of each link? I thought a summary would be fine b/c that's how I noticed it was done elsewhere. Is the burden higher on relisted discussions? OIM20 ( talk) 13:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
You should check out WP:NFILM for notability for films, etc. Actors gonna act... that doesn't mean they are notable. This is why we have WP:NACTOR. Start with that and NFILM to start gaining an understanding. As for relisted discussions, that just means no conclusion has yet been reached, and the closer doesn't see a need for an immediate ending; no additional burden is levied. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks! Can I assume that "film" can be replaced with "stageplay" for most of that, or is there something separate for stage performances?
_________________
@ Dusti, @ Liz - Since I need to prove that the performances themselves were significant despite the fact she played on London's West End, can I have a couple of days to go through the rest of the 260 returns on Internet Archive to determine how many are movie reviews, how many are play reviews, and then where, when, and how significant each stage performance was? I don't know that I can finish that by the 30th when this is set to close.
If the above is any indication, there's a good mix, and a lot of the references will be for the same performances.
(And I do know that at least one is actually a film that's on IA's servers. So there may be others that are similar content and not useful for showing she should remain due to Wikipedia:NACTOR.) OIM20 ( talk) 17:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
OIM20, please stop. AFDs are a forum for presenting arguments for a particular outcome for an article, typically based in Wikipedia policy regarding notability and sources that suport claims of notability. It's not the location for presenting article content so do not list every role this actor ever had. It will not convince other editors to suport your position which is usually how deletion discussions are determined. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Oh. Okay. OIM20 ( talk) 03:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Sorry - inadvertently left out He Who Gets Slapped: Consuelo. Wikipedia page on the play - main role. It's in the fifth paragraph of this section that one of her performances of the play is discussed, but not the one in 1947 I linked to information on above. OIM20 ( talk) 13:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it is now. It was a long time ago, but notable. Johnbod ( talk) 03:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Watsonville, California#Culture. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds

Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These fairgrounds don't seem to have any reason for an article entry. Information could likely just be included in the city or county's page, which even then would seemingly amount to "The city also has a fairgrounds".

A separate article could potentially be made for the Santa Cruz County Fair - though this also seems like it would best be included in the greater Santa Cruz, California article. A MINOTAUR ( talk) 23:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Aras Baskauskas

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

Notable for winning just Survivor: Panama. Not notable for every other activities he did, like releasing just one album, operating one clothing brand, and reappearing in Survivor: Blood vs. Water with his bro. WP:PAGEDECIDE should apply if neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E does. Must be redirected to Survivor: Panama (alternatively, list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants if more suitable) George Ho ( talk) 23:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Don't oppose the other redirect option, too. Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Nathaniel Lamptey

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

Despite playing at U17 level for Ghana, as far as I can tell, Lamptey never made a single professional appearance in his whole career and I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC nor any reason to ignore the guidelines in Lamptey's case. The best that I can find are Modern Ghana and Ghana Web 1, that mention him once in passing. Other than that, I found a basic transfer announcement at Ghana Web 2, about him initially signing for Karlsruher but transfer announcements like this one are rarely considered to be sufficient. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Tines

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine coverage, PR, monies raised. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. scope_creep Talk 22:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Ireland. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a promotional piece. WP:NOTPROMO — siro χ o 23:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Would appreciate any feedback on how to make it less promotional while highlighting the aspects that make this company notable. Salsakesh ( talk) 18:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No demonstration of notability as this fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've gone back and added further references, could you take a look? Salsakesh ( talk) 18:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Quantity of references was not the issue. Quality of the references is. There needs to be at least three references that have all three of these qualities: reliable, independent of the topic, and significant coverage of the topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Which of these do you feel is not being met? I strive to include only reliable sources in all articles I write, including this one. Most of the sources included provide significant coverage of the topic. Independence can be somewhat subjective, but I would consider sources such as The Times of London, Irish Times, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, WIRED magazine, Security Week, etct to be independent sources. Salsakesh ( talk) 19:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is a notable Irish tech company in the no-code space with many WP:RS references and coverage. Salsakesh ( talk) 00:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • 'Comment I will go through the references later. scope_creep Talk 07:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Spleodrach ( talk) 13:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and edit In addition to the many tech industry sources like this one from VentureBeat (plus the TechCrunch links about their funding rounds), there is this piece by The Irish Times that definitely counts as significant coverage, there is this piece by The Times. Those are both real newspapers not tech industry publications. The article needs significant editing to be less promotional, but there are sufficient sources for meeting the core guidelines of WP:CORP. Steven Walling •  talk 01:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
None of those are independent. The Times fail WP:SIRS. They are not idependent of the company. The Irish Times is also not independent. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH i.e. the "monies raised" clause. Its using company stats. The Venture beat article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH monies raises. Techcrunch is junk ref. Non-rs. There is a reason why these kinds of generic reference no longer are considered value, because they areso generic. WP:NCORP was rewritten in 2017-2018 by Tony Ballioni and that group specifically to remove these type of generic references. scope_creep Talk 07:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Your reply is extremely bizarre, verging on outright lying, unless you really don't know anything about these sources. The Times and The Irish Times are fully independent news organizations with an editorial staff that produce daily newspapers. They are not trade industry publications or press release factories. The Irish Times is the newspaper of record for Ireland, where the subject of the article is based. The Times is specifically listed as reliable in our list of perennial sources, as is VentureBeat, when covering businesses and technology. Steven Walling •  talk 16:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I do 6 or 8 of these Afd's every week particularly on non-notable companies and startups. I've done thousands of them over the last decade and a half. It is yourself that doesn't know what he is talking about. While the papers are indeed listed in the WP:RSP, they take the advertising dollar as much as any other newspaper. Looking at the Time ref. It states "Hinchy describes the experience as “stressful” but it’s one that set the ball rolling for Tines software. “It really helped shape a lot of what we are building in Tines today,” he says. We are allowing... " It goes on. That is an interview with the company founder. He paid the Times to do a piece on him, and the company to build his brand. It is called PR. WP:SIRS specifically precludes these types of references, because it is not independent from the company. It can't used to prove notability. What is worse is that your a WMF product manager and administrator on this wikipedia and yet you do not understand current Wikipedia policy around organisations particularly WP:NCORP. If you keep this up, you will get taken to WP:ANI because your espousing false consensus. This is the 2nd time I've seen you making statements at Afd that are patently false, that don't seem to show an clear understanding of WP:SECONDARY sourcing and what that actually means. The last time was about month ago. I'm going to look at your contribution at Afd over the next few days. scope_creep Talk 17:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
He paid the Times to do a piece on him, and the company to build his brand. It is called PR. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that major newspapers like The Times or The Irish Times publish articles in return for payments like a press release. That's quite simply a baseless conspiracy theory. The consensus view is that newspapers of record are typically some of the most reliable independent sources available, and the coverage here is significant in both cases. Steven Walling •  talk 01:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
[2], [3], [4]. scope_creep Talk 08:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
None of those links prove what you just said. One is an ad network, which everyone knows is how newspapers make money and is not the same thing as paid content. The other one is a press release agency. Many journalists get sent press releases every day, but the articles being used as sources here do not include material from any press release. None of those links show that two major newspapers wrote articles in return for payments, direct or indirect. Steven Walling •  talk 17:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is a four year old startup. Lets examine the references for the first block.
    Ref 1 [5] This is a non-rs and social media link.
    Ref 2 [6] Has several interview style paragraphs with photographs of the company.
    Ref 3 [7]] Archived at [8] This is an interview with the founder. It is not independent from the business failing WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS SIRS states to establish notability sources must be both Independent and WP:SECONDARY and that each source must be evaluated independently.
    Ref 4 [9] Another interview that predominantely discusses funding failing both WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
    Ref 5 [10] Profiele style segment in a overall much large article. It discusses comment in the context of no-code development from Hinchy again. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent of the company.
    Ref 6 [11] Another interview. Monies raised. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent as its an interview with the founder and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
    Ref 7 [12] Its an interview. Fails WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND
    Ref 8 [13] Monies raised. From a press-release. Names as a unicorn. Fails WP:SIRS
    Ref 9 [14] Written by Hinchy himself. Fails WP:SIRS
    Ref 10 [15] Conference paper. Describes a model no-code security architeture with the information take from [16] Fails WP:SIRS
    Ref 11 [17] Monies raised. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial coverage.
    Ref 12 [18] "Your security game plan is only as good as the information you have to work with" says Hinchy. Trade journal. This is not independent.
    Ref 13 [19] Behind a paywall. There is an image of both the founders present which suggests its an interview.
    Ref 14 [20] An X of Y article. Profile. Fails WP:SIRS as its not in-depth.

This is a four year old company who have been described as a unicorn. As its a company growing fast it has a large advertising budget. Branding and advertising are a standard way to build your company. But neither advertising nor growth are factors in notability. Only coverage that passes WP:SIRS and there is not a single reference here that passes that criteria. All the information about this company, comes from the company. None of it WP:SECONDARY. It fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND scope_creep Talk 08:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

— A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - sources identified by Steven Walling in this discussion appear to be the type of promotional sources that the WP:NCORP guideline seeks to address, as discussed at WP:ORGCRIT:
Beccaynr ( talk) 05:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Simpich Character Dolls

Simpich Character Dolls (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've done my own WP:BEFORE and the most substantial coverage I can find is this. I'm not seeing enough sources that would qualify under WP:NCORP. There's some further context at User talk:Clovermoss#Question from Simpich2 (03:02, 29 July 2023). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep Some of the text looked a little promotional, but that's easily fixed. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a WP:BEFORE suggests that the company, people involved with it and the dolls themselves are notable. The last source listed above (The Advocate) is excellent. This source is not bad [24] There's a lot of information in print, we can find some of it via TWL: [25] [26]. There's other verifiable information we can use that is not as in-depth, such as [27]. There's some travel guides with info on the company itself, would have to investigate the independence [28] [29]. The article as it stands is WP:IMPERFECT but not promotional, overall it complies with our WP:PAG and does not warrant deletion. — siro χ o 00:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks everyone for finding the significant coverage I was looking for. I really wasn't able to find anything but the one source myself so I appreciate the extra eyes that were able to. Liz, does it matter if even I agree with the !keep voters at this point? Ideally I'd like their before process so I can get tips on finding what I missed, but I can query that later. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Memphis Villarreal

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

A driver and crew chief with one appearance for each, in the third tier of NASCAR, so certainly no pass in WP:NMOTORSPORT. Failure of WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RELIABLE sources. Anything I could find in my WP:BEFORE is just WP:ROUTINE. Best case scenario this is several years WP:TOOSOON. IceBergYYC ( talk) 21:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sadanandan Rangorath

AfDs for this article:
Sadanandan Rangorath (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 11:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 11:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 11:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. Invocations of WP:NCREATIVE are erroneous: An "important figure"? "Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? "Created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? His "work has become a significant monument? "No" to all. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could have been closed as no consensus but I figure another week is okay to see if we at least get a little more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is against a standalone page, and title is an implausible search term. I can provide a userspace/draftspace copy to anyone who wishes to develop content toward a merger. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Fox Kids (Australia)

Fox Kids (Australia) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2015, and no indication that it meets WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no usable results either. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 08:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Actualcpscm, I tried to add more references to the article, and I also listed it on WP:RFU last week. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 20:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Anamaria Gorea

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

My searches did not turn up any evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best sources found were Prosport and Népújság, both of which are just squad list mentions. I also tried "Ana Maria Gorea", which didn't help much. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G3 Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Matthew James Stephenson

Matthew James Stephenson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biographical article has -zero- independent, reliable sources. All the sources are either written by the subject, trivial mentions (speakers lists, inclusion in indiscriminate databases), or a couple of IMDB listings for nonnotable films. I've done some looking and haven't found any better sourcing for this individual. There are some others with similar names that show up in searches, so keep an eye out for that. This doesn't meet either WP:GNG or any of the criteria in WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF and so should be deleted. I'll also note that this was created as a mainspace duplicate by a new editor (likely with WP:COI) who was having trouble navigating the AFC process. They have resisted all efforts to get this back into draft space, so here we are at AFD. MrOllie ( talk) 20:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Academic Citations: The article includes references to Matthew Stephenson's academic work, including articles on arXiv, his author identifier on INSPIRE, and his contribution to the field of quantum information. These references indicate that he has made significant contributions to his academic field and has been recognized by the academic community.
Medical Publications: The article mentions Matthew Stephenson's contribution to a medical case report published in the journal "Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery." This demonstrates his involvement in medical research and his contribution to the field of neurosurgery.
Educational Institutions: The article mentions his education at the University of Washington and Stanford University. These institutions are well-known and reputable, adding to his credibility and potential notability.
Differential Datalog Interpreter: The article highlights Matthew Stephenson's development of a "Differential Datalog Interpreter," which has been cited in multiple sources including the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System and Papers with Code. This indicates that his work has gained recognition beyond his own writing.
Former Childhood Actor: While the IMDB listings for his roles might be considered trivial by some, they still offer evidence of his involvement in the entertainment industry at actual roles integral to films with important actors like Cam Gigandet and Richard Jenkins. T
Speakers and Participants List: While some references are speakers lists from conferences, being included in such lists can demonstrate involvement and recognition within a specific field or community.
Lack of Alternatives: The claim suggests that the sources are the best available. If there are no better sources currently available, it might be reasonable to give some weight to the existing sources, especially when they span different areas of his life.
Avoiding Confusion: The claim acknowledges the possibility of confusion due to similar names. However, the article includes information specific to Matthew James Stephenson's medical and academic background, which can help differentiate him from individuals with similar names.
In conclusion, while there might be room for improvement in terms of additional independent sources, the existing references do provide a foundation for Matthew James Stephenson's notability as both a surgeon and an academic. The references span multiple aspects of his life, including his medical contributions, academic achievements, and involvement in the entertainment industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphenopetroclival ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) — Sphenopetroclival ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Again, not a single one of the cited sources meets the requirements of WP:GNG, and we'd need more than one such source to sustain an article. I'll also note here that the article creator, Sphenopetroclival, has been blocked for a bit after edit warring to remove the AFD tag from the article. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
First, merely having written papers doesn't make a person notable. Second, merely graduating from good schools doesn't make a person notable. Third, the ADS is just a database of papers, not a source that indicates that a paper has been influential. The same goes for "paperswithcode". I am reminded of a prior case where someone tried to use the ADS copy of an arXiv abstract as an "independent source from Harvard". XOR'easter ( talk) 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG no reliable independent sources and the "evidence of his involvement in the entertainment industry" is laughable. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no reliable sources, marginal notability, most likely a case of advertising oneself on the Wiki. W.G.J. ( talk) 21:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'd suggest Draftify if the page creator would agree to not preemptively moving it back to the main space. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
It already exists as a draft here Draft:Matthew James Stephenson. Theroadislong ( talk) 06:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Very low citation counts for a new doctorate adds up to no pass of WP:PROF, we have no other form of notability evident, most of this is either unreliably sourced (IMDB) or sourced only to the subject's own publications, and it is not even verifiable that the person who wrote the datalog paper, the person who wrote the adenoma paper, and the IMDB actor are the same person rather than different people with the same name. As for draftication, the kind of article for which that would be a good idea is one where the subject has a plausible case for notability or is notable but the article as written is far from acceptable in its writing or sourcing. This one is too far from notable for there to be any hope of getting an article from a draft, so draftification is a waste of time and a false hope. — David Eppstein ( talk) 12:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Update: After seeing evidence below that both the datalog and adenoma papers have been plagiarized my delete opinion only grows stronger. Delete the draft too. We should not host material that we have reason to believe is fabricated, even in draft space. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The authorship of the paper "A Differential Datalog Interpreter" for which he is supposedly known for is disputed (see, e.g, [30]). It appears that the article is an attempt at self-promotion, perhaps to bolster the position in this dispute. Mbs z ( talk) 13:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Wow! Good find. It's not just the titles, either. [31] and [32] have identical text. MrOllie ( talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Weird. See also [33]. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable under any academic criteria. Also --if the criteria @ Sphenopetroclival had were sufficient for notability, pretty much everyone with an MD or Phd would have their own wikipedia page. Mason ( talk) 13:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mathematical challenges

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

For most of this article's existence since its creation in 2006, it's been unsourced. Now (following an apparent copyvio of some encyclopedia.com article), it's sourced, but just barely. However, this isn't my main concern. Rather, I'm concerned that the article is quite unfocused and off-topic. It veers between math problems given in school, math competitions, and open conjectures, with no particular attention given to each. Since these topics are quite disparate and have little in common, I don't think there's any way to make this into a proper article, so I suggest deletion. However, I'd be open to replacing this article with a disambiguation page or setindex, or redirecting it somewhere. Duckmather ( talk) 19:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Duckmather ( talk) 19:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Unsourced, rambling essay that conflates various unrelated topics. Nothing could really be written about this subject without either violating WP:NOTDICT or duplicating the content of other articles. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Disambig, there are a number of notable mathematical challenges as linked in the article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Disambig (preferred, if possible) or Delete... the article is really quite disjointed. Not sure there's much saveable other than the list of challenges. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would anyone volunteer to turn this article into a disambiguation page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: it's too ambiguous a term for a disambiguation page. A mathematical "challenge" could be a competition, an unsolved problem or a solved problem. In other words, a mathematical challenge is maths. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non of the two references makes the case for the article. Cinadon 36 00:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗ plicit 23:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Tosh Masson

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NFOOT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. czar 03:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Rodney Stepp

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

Non-notable session musician. Once played in The Spinners backing band, but none of his primary projects seem to pass WP:NMUSIC. No independent sigcov to establish notability apart from that, just his own website and some blogposts. Jdcooper ( talk) 15:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm ( talk) 16:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - only one article detailing his recovery from COVID-19 is not enough to establish notability. Sgubaldo ( talk) 17:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. as I think a 3rd relisting would not bring forward any futher comments. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Kavana Sarma

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 14:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Khingz

AfDs for this article:
Khingz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Promotional piece showing some local fame. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. All we have are reviews of albums, some of them not even exclusively about our subject's creations. Nothing on Khingz that would support independent notability. Subject fails WP:GNG and, by a mile, WP:NCREATIVE. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - does not meet the criteria of notability, per the comments made above. W.G.J. ( talk) 21:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Information fuzzy networks

Information fuzzy networks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced, but has two external links that may have been intended as references. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Notifications left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The title is wrong. It should be "info-fuzzy networks"; the longer name is something people say because they read about it on Wikipedia [37]. Either way, there doesn't seem to be much secondary literature, i.e., things not at least co-authored by the originators, Oded Maimon and Mark Last. Most of the existing text is opaque not-prose. The second external link, "A Comparative Study Of Artificial Neural Networks And Info Fuzzy Networks On Their Use In Software Testing", is a dead link that turns out to be a master's thesis [38] (generally not a great kind of source) supervised at least in part by Last (so, not independent). XOR'easter ( talk) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The page title can be changed if it's decided to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. czar 03:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

CM Elangovan

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

Per Wikipedia:NCREATIVE and WP:Too early, draftify till more films with articles release. DareshMohan ( talk) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Rule Result
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or No
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or No
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or No
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No
DareshMohan ( talk) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sign comments in deletion discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

JD Doyle

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. An overabundance of non- WP:IS leads me to lean on the NN side. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Ironically, whether or not this phenomenon is real or made-up is irrelevant when we are considering whether or not these beasts are notable. But the consensus here is that notability for these creatures can't be established according to Wikipedia standards. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Barbegazi

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

I (and previous editors as seen in Talk:Barbegazi) have reason to believe this is a piece of fakelore and not a genuine legendary creature. The Fantasy Encyclopedia cited in the original article does have 1 mention of this myth (I accessed it through the Internet Archive), but it seems to be the only mention I can find, with no sources cited.

Although it is possible to Google the term and see many articles on Wikia and blogs about them, as well as a children's book published in 2018, a model of mountain bike tyre, and another (semi-related, but not the same) creature from The Witcher series, I believe the creation of this Wikipedia article in 2005 has led to these other pages making content about this myth.

I can't find any mentions of the Alpine legendary creature "barbegazi" online in a historical context in reliable secondary sources that document folklore, or academic papers on mythology/folklore, in both English and French (from searching barbes glacées). I would appreciate help searching for this term in French sources as my French is limited.

This is what the Fantasy Encylopedia cited in the article writes about barbegazi, if you are not able to access it through archive.org: The barbegazi are dwarves who live in the Alps in France and Switzerland. Their name comes from the French barbes glacées which means "frozen beards". Their white fur clothes, as well as the icicles in their hair and beards, make them very difficult to see in the winter. In the summer they hibernate in caves and tunnels in the rocks and do not come out until the first snowfall. Their greatest excitement is surfing on avalanches, although they will give low whistling cries to warn humans of the danger and will do their best to dig humans out if they become trapped.

pinktoebeans (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I think source-wise, barbegazi are probably notable, as there are also entries in Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids in Myth, Legend and Folklore, published by McFarland & Company, which should be reliable, right? And Nuevo inventario de criaturas fantásticas, A natural history of the unnatural world : selected files from the archives of the Cryptozoological Society of London, The Dictionary of Mythology, the mentioned Fantasy Encylopedia, and more. It is curious, though, that so far there seems to be no source earlier that the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were, though. Daranios ( talk) 19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The book by McFarland and Co seems legit, has source citations under each entry. I'll revise my !vote. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
For ease of future reference, the sources given in McFarland and Co ( Conway's The Ancient Art of Faery Magick and Maberry's Vampire Universe) date from 2005 and 2006 respectively, so still don't predate the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep based on the sources given above. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. A number of secondary sources on the topic have been collected, establishing notability. Some of them predate our Wikipedia article from 2005 here, excluding WP:Citogenesis from that side. The doubts based on Talk:Barbegazi and the - so far - absence of any sources earlier than 1985 remain a problem. But we do have sources on the topic, and only educated guesses and no sources on the doubts. So what's to be done in such a case? The least bad solution I can think of is keeping the article, putting up a Template:Disputed, and documenting the doubts on the talk page, until sources substantiating (or alleviating) the doubts show up. Daranios ( talk) 15:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Great research, this seems like a fitting solution and I'm more than satisfied these are a notable concept. I'm interested to know if any editors with expertise in folklore/historical research are able to find sources older than 1985. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Daranios. Excellent research and impeccable logic, especially on doubts=OR note. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 18:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and add a disputed tag, per the sound reasoning of Daranios above. – Michael Aurel ( talk) 20:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete none of these fantasy bestiaries are reliable sources for folklore. The authors of Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were are by no means qualified and they admit to some invention in their introduction. This also could be the creation of comic book writers and illustrators Pierre Dubois or René Hausman as there is an appearance in La Grande Encyclopédie des lutins but can't find a copy online and don't see anything likely in Spirou "Grand fabulaire du petit peuple". fiveby( zero) 14:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • That could explain the appearance of the barbegazi with the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were. But then what about the Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids in Myth, Legend and Folklore by McFarland & Company, The Dictionary of Mythology and the Larousse Dictionary of World Folklore? Daranios ( talk) 15:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • None of those authors appear to have any relevant academic credentials, or provide any source or evidence which would validate this as folklore. I sure haven't seen anything trustworthy yet. fiveby( zero) 16:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've tried a Quebec newspaper search from 1920 to 1987, nothing turns up. [43], to be fair, I can only find mentions of term from 2013 forwards in this database. A Swiss newspaper search has nothing [44], nor a Swiss German language magazine [45]. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm almost thinking these things are made-up [46] is not a reliable source, but a Czech store that sells curios, saying they're an Inuit word... Inuits are in North America, nowhere near France or Switzerland. Made up for he book in 1985? Oaktree b ( talk) 20:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Reaffirming delete Having done some more searches, regardless of whether the myth is traditional folklore or not, I don't believe the current sources available are enough to warrant inclusion of barbegazi in Wikipedia. Michael Fitzgerald Page, the author of the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were, is not a reliable source for folklore as he has no relevant credentials or history, much like the authors of the other encyclopedias. With regard to legitimacy of the myth (I know, WP:OR...), it may be worth noting other amateur folklorists have been unable to find sources pre-1985 as well (see [47] and [48]). Currently looking into finding Swiss/French sources, but haven't managed to find any mention of barbegazi in anything so far. pinktoebeans (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a recent invention, not a legendary creature. Reliable sources are lacking. There is a small entry for Barbegazi in Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology, but not enough to establish notability. I checked the cited sources in that book they are all modern. This has no real basis in folklore and it is not cited in academic or scholarly works on folklore or legends. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it seems likely that this was something that was invented that other authors included in compendia. In principle, this could make a fantasy beast notable if, for example, it gained traction beyond such lists. But if it is just a pro forma retelling of the same claim over and over again without any addition, we are not really in the realm of standalone inclusion here. Just too far out on the limb of WP:INUNIVERSE to be a reasonable argument for keeping an article. There are probably ways of including some information related to this on other pages. But that's a different question than the one posed here and I see no cogent argument for any merging, for example. jps ( talk) 13:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per ජපස. Seems to be something that someone made up and others repeated. – dlthewave ☎ 15:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Breakthrough Collaborative

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Oldman, Mark; Hamadeh, Samer (2003). "Breakthrough Collaborative (formerly Summerbridge National)". The Best 109 Internships (9 ed.). New York: The Princeton Review. pp.  54– 57. ISBN  0-375-76319-8. ISSN  1073-5801. Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "The Breakthrough Collaborative is a two- to three-year "Workshop in Education" for "talented students with limited educational opportunities" in the fourth through eighth grades. Nationwide, approximately 2,000 students participate in the Breakthrough Collaborative's two- to three-year program of six-week summer sessions, school-year tutorials, and year-round counseling. Having older students teach courses that prepare middle-school students for high school is not the Breakthrough Collaborative's only innovation—the school is also tuition-free. From 1978 to 1990, the Breakthrough Collaborative program was run in conjunction with San Francisco University High School only. Its success in preparing often economically and academically disadvantaged middle school students for the rigors of college-prep high school programs was so widely acclaimed that thirty new programs were established in the early 1990s, at schools in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Jose, CA; Denver, CO; New Haven, CT; Miami, FL; Atlanta, GA; Louisville, KY; New Orleans, LA; Cambridge and Concord, MA; Raleigh, NC; Manchester, NH; the Bronx and Locust Valley, NY; Cincinnati, OH; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, PA; Providence, RI; Fort Worth, Austin, and Houston, TX; Norfolk, VA; and Hong Kong. The thirty-six schools hire nearly 850 teachers every summer, employing an equal number of high school and college students."

    2. Delgado Gaitan, Concha (2013). Creating a College Culture for Latino Students: Successful Programs, Practices, and Strategies. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. pp.  72– 75. ISBN  978-1-4522-5770-9. Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: " Since 1978, the Breakthrough Collaborative (BC) is a national non-profit group that has changed the lives of more than 20,000 students in 33 locations across the country. Sixty-eight percent of the students qualify for free or reduced school lunch. The Collaborative accepts high-potential, low-income students who are the first in their family to attend college. Ninety-two percent of the BC students are students of color. Thirty-four percent speak English as a second language. And thirty-nine percent live in single-parent households. BC communicates with middle and high schools where BC students attend since they track students' academic performance and needs. The Collaborative has two main program groups-middle school students and the high school or college-aged teachers who instruct and mentor them. ... They attend two 6-week, academically intense summer sessions, year-round tutoring, and continuous college preparation and assistance."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Breakthrough Collaborative to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 08:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Michael Boxwell

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Ben Bodé

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Anton Berisha

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Literature, and Albania. UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep His life and career have been elaborated on by sources such as Robert Elsie, one of the most prominent Albanologists who is already cited in the article, and The Encyclopedia of Albanian Writers [49]. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 16:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per WP:NOTABILITY. He is a renowned Albanologist. – Βατο ( talk) 07:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Considering the above mentioned points, and after going through the sources, I am not in favour of deletion! Ekdalian ( talk) 13:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep given his importance for the local culture, importance as a scholar (even in a niche field), inclusion in an encyclopedia etc as mentioned above. -- hroest 18:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Searching Google Books finds an in-depth entry on him in Historical Dictionary of Kosova [50] which appears to be from a reputable publisher (and is referred to indirectly above by its author, Elsie). Together with the link already given by Ktrimi991 (which I verified to contain an in-depth entry on Berisha, although Google Books would not show me a preview of it) we have a clear pass of WP:GNG, better here than arguments based on his expertise or unsourced opinions of his importance. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I just want to mention that we see a lot of schools nominated for deletion (mostly through PRODs) and I don't think I've come across such a hotly contested discussion regarding one. But opinions are strong on both sides so I'm closing this as No consensus with thanks for the work done on this article during the period of discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Our Lady of Fatima Senior Secondary School, Aligarh

Our Lady of Fatima Senior Secondary School, Aligarh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a primary source provided. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 10:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, India, and Uttar Pradesh. — Karnataka talk 10:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. -- AlexandraAVX ( talk) 14:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • What's the reason to delete it when it's an existing and historical school in Aligarh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Atif Nazir ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 Aug 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Mainly a primary source, perhaps, but it seems to be an important school for Aligarh region, dating from 1961, which in Indian school terms is old. I suggest giving more time for people to include references and citations, particularly given most secondary sources in this part of the world are unlikely to be online. Also if the same criteria were used, how many schools would have to be deleted, see for example: /info/en/?search=Category:Welsh_school_stubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagmanst ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar ( talk) 23:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    While a few articles with similar issues existing is not reason to keep a page, when there are whole categories of western schools with similar issues, one does wonder what should be the appropriate level of notability (a subjective metric), and whether the same criteria should be applied uniformly to non-western schools. Nonetheless I found a media article from Aligarh that does show it is one of the top schools in the district, in terms of the number its students who are placed among the top 10 ranks in a district of 3.6 million+ people. That should help meet notability criteria in wikipedia space. (Though I personally was convinced on the balance of probabilities it was an important school in the real world from the primary sources, and wanted some leeway given to the article creators to find secondary sources). Jagmanst ( talk) 00:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    You are misrepresenting the source; it lists a handful of names and that's it. It does not show that this is one of the top schools in the district; just that the school itself reported that a half dozen of its students placed highly on a standardized test. One-liners do not constitute WP:SIGCOV, and neither do self-reported results, and whatever notability accrues to the students is not inherited by their school. Beyond that, the requirements and criteria of the WP:GNG pertain to all schools, whether they are in Massachusetts or Morbihan or Maharashtra. Ravenswing 12:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think you misunderstood the source. The source is reporting students who came in the top 10 rank in the board examinations for the entire district. The newspaper said they did not receive the scores directly from CBSE the examination board, but reached out to the schools in the district to provide them the data. Based on the data they received from all the schools in the district they published the list of top performing students in the district. The methodology to me seems perfectly legit, and I have no reason to doubt it.
    My point is that a large number of the students in the top 10 rank come from this school. This is evidence that it is leading school in the district.
    It is clear from my other searches that for people within this region, Aligarh, it is a famous school.
    Jagmanst ( talk) 12:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's exactly what I said: that the data came from the schools themselves. While I agree that doesn't mean that it's inaccurate, that makes it a primary source, and thus couldn't contribute to notability even if the article did provide significant coverage to the school, which of course it does not. Drawing conclusions from that list likewise has no place in an article. As to the clarity of your "other searches," if you have other sources, present them. Lacking any evidence of those sources, exactly what proof of your assertion did you find? Ravenswing 20:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The source is well known newspaper Amar Ujala. It is by definition a secondary source. It uses primary sources, i.e. data from the various schools, to make a report. That is what secondary sources do (hence the name). The article provided significant coverage to school by ascribing affiliations to the students on the list. Anyway I am convinced that on balance of probabilities this is important school for the people of Aligarh. I leave it to editorial community to decide what to do about the request for deletion. I have nothing further to add. Jagmanst ( talk) 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    In short, that was the only source you found; you found no others, and your conviction is based on zero actual evidence. Fair enough, so stipulated. Ravenswing 22:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    "That's exactly what I said: that the data came from the schools themselves. While I agree that doesn't mean that it's inaccurate, that makes it a primary source..."
    No it doesn't. The newspaper collected data from schools and made an analytical and editorial judgment about the date. That's the definition of a secondary source. Jahaza ( talk) 17:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Additional secondary sources have been added to article, including peer-reviewed articles and sociological studies of which the school was a subject. Jagmanst ( talk) 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (specifically, keep without prejudice against a second AfD in 3–6 months). Yes, other stuff exists is not a reason to keep an article, but Jagmanst raises a valid point that many Western secondary schools don't have any better sourcing than this—and further that the sources may exist but are not online—or are online but not in the Roman alphabet—which limits a monolingual en.wiki user's ability to search for them. At the least, I'd like to keep this article for a few more months to allow for further development. But if the community really feels that this article is not worthy of mainspace, then I'd request it be draftified to allow incubation. — C.Fred ( talk) 12:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    You do realise English is an official language of India? We don't give a free pass to articles in case sources may exist. LibStar ( talk) 12:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • WP:N guide does say "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.".
    Jagmanst ( talk) 04:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Provide evidence of sources then. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. I presume in the time spent commenting here you actually searched and found nothing. LibStar ( talk) 04:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged "- from your linked source. I.e. Linking WP is not an argument. Please try again.
    • As I have discussed on this page, there is sufficient evidence to believe this is an important school in this district. Not least given it is disproportionately represented in among the district rank holders.
    Jagmanst ( talk) 05:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Is that the best coverage you can find? It seems WP:ROUTINE at best and doesn't meet the requirements of WP:ORG. Translated from Hindi: CBSE has declared the results of class 10 and 12 exams. There is no toppers list released by CBSE. After the declaration of the result, the schools sent the list of their toppers. After which the top 10 names of the list of estimated toppers in Aligarh district have been revealed so far. LibStar ( talk) 05:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • You have failed to engage with the discussion. a) The school is located in area where sources are unlikely to be online. b) We have evidence the school is top performing. c) Putting links to a policy is not a discussion nor proves anything. These are guidelines, not mathematical algorithms, and need to be interpreted contextually and with common sense. I have nothing to add. Jagmanst ( talk) 05:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      "The school is located in area where sources are unlikely to be online". Why? Is there no internet available in Aligarh? You may provide evidence of offline sources like newspapers that are offline by stating the name of the paper, date of publication and page number. LibStar ( talk) 05:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Local news in India is predominantly non-online and in regional languages, as already explained.
      • I was not in involved in this article creation nor edited it before RfD, and I don't have access to local archives.
      • Editors should take this into account of time for the article to be updated, by those who have the resources, particularly since we have good reason to believe this is an important school. Jagmanst ( talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
        Being what you call "important" is not the same as notable in Wikipedia. LibStar ( talk) 05:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
        The guideline is pretty vague on what is'notable' actually- it says "worthy of notice". GNG is the recommended method, very broadly defined, to determin it. Jagmanst ( talk) 06:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ LibStar Can I get you on the record, then, both that you have done the WP:BEFORE searches and that you turned up nothing in the course of your searches for sources? — C.Fred ( talk) 13:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Correct. LibStar ( talk) 17:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per nom. There is no evidence that the subject meets the GNG, and we do not keep articles based on airy suppositions that somewhere, somehow, sources might exist; they must either be demonstrated to exist or an article cannot be sustained. That many Western secondary schools lack adequate sourcing is not an argument to keep this article, but a good reason to tag/PROD/AfD those other articles as well. (And with that, to suggest that online sources are tough to find for India, one of the most wired nations on earth with a vast English-language media, is curious.) Ravenswing 12:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Less than 7% of the population in UP speak English. To expect a large online English news coverage for this area is curious. Jagmanst ( talk) 18:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Uttar Pradesh is the most populous non-sovereign political entity in the world; just 7% of its population is equal to half the population of Canada, over twice the population of Ireland, a third of the population of the UK, two-thirds the population of Australia, and more people than all but three US states. To expect that it doesn't have significant English-language news coverage is curious.

    With that, we don't require that sources be in English. You're more than welcome to draw our attention to the non-English sources you've found. (You did find such sources providing significant coverage to this institution before advocating Keep, yes?) Ravenswing 11:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

    Local news, i.e. pertaining to state and districts is overwhelmingly in my understanding in regional languages and traditional non-online media. English media sources are typically national media, for which it isn't reasonable, imo, to expect coverage of school news, however, important the school may be to local communities. Jagmanst ( talk) 13:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The keep !voters are unable to provide evidence of multiple sources and significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. At best, is one article in Hindi which is a very routine report on student performance. I stand by my nomination. LibStar ( talk) 05:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The keep position is that there are strong reasons to believe this is a major school in the community it serves, the 3+ million people in the district of Aligarh. The school is is heavily represented among rank holders in the district. That 6 of the 22 highest performing students in this district in the year 10 examination came from this one school heavily suggests this is no ordinary school. While there are some online sources attesting its reputation and significance(for e.g this), the best sources are likely to be non-online archives of local media, hence some discretion should be used to allow more time for editors to improve the article before considering deletion. Jagmanst ( talk) 05:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    "School is likely important to the community it serves, the 3+ million people in the district of Aligarh" These are not criterion for notability. Many schools are important to their community but they don't necessarily warrant a Wikipedia article. LibStar ( talk) 06:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Ok re-written Jagmanst ( talk) 06:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    This article was created sixteen years ago. Especially since it should never have been created in the first place if the editor was not prepared to adequately source it, that is ample time and more than ample time for someone to step up and do so. For that matter, you have had time to do so. It is explicitly the responsibility of those editors who want to preserve information to come up with the sources to verify it, when challenged. You're the best judge of your own time, of course, but the only alternative to deletion is for those sources to be produced. Ravenswing 13:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." That the original editor did not do a satisfactory job is irrelevant. Th Jagmanst ( talk) 14:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Ravenswing, the article was perfectly within SNG for school at the time it was created. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools Graywalls ( talk) 18:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Last April, when a beloved bursar from this school passed away, a local news channel livestreamed the entire funeral.
    - This further undescores the importance and significance of this school to the community.
    - This is significant media coverage.
    - This is also indicative that there are likely more sources (which are difficult to extract for reasons already given).
    - Finally, notability criteria applies to the topic, not the content of the article, hence this reference does not need to be added to the article.

Jagmanst ( talk) 07:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Significant media coverage now referenced in the article:
Other significant media coverage not added to article:
Note:
"Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Jagmanst ( talk) 06:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: This article does not meet sourcing or coverage required under WP:NSCHOOL. Mostly passing mentions, related or trivia. The Banner  talk 11:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There are at least 6 media articles by major newspapers cited that are fully about this school. This is a school that frequently gets attention in national and local media. The funerals of its staff members get livestreamed by local media and receive coverage in major newspaper. Jagmanst ( talk) 15:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in view of the newspaper reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion and added to the referencing of the article that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per Libstar and Ravenswing's research (and argumentative ability). Though, weighing in for myself, half of the references seem to come from the school themselves, and the other half being passing mentions (WP:SIGCOV). I also see little reason that this school should be able to pass WP:NSCHOOL, just as those above me have determined. IncompA 04:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you list which sources you deem to be passing mentions. Since many of them to be fully about the school. Jagmanst ( talk) 05:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This article was created in 2007. Until February 2017, a high school was basically assumed notable under NSCHOOL SNG if it existed if the mere existence as a valid high school can be verified. This article predates the criteria change and it met the criteria. Whether to let it stay with notability criteria that was in place at the time of creation of to retroactively evaluate it under NCORP is something I don't have an answer to, but I would say keep for now until the community figures out how to handle high school articles created well before February 2017 but do not meet current GNG-NCORP based guidelines. Graywalls ( talk) 08:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources presented by Jagmanst appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist - we are almost entirely numerically tied (and within relist-bounds whether or not 1/2 poorly policy backed !votes are counted or not). Discussion has generally moved past community importance/existence of sources elswhere to sources now in the discussion and article, but there is a major disagreement as to whether the non-primary sources meet SIGCOV, or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete I'm not seeing coverage about the school itself, only about things it's been involved with or mentioned in articles about a different topic. I mean, the sources are reliable, but trivial coverage. I don't see this as being an important school, no more than any other high school in India. 64.16.24.247 ( talk) 15:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Argh, I posted that, but the vpn here at the office isn't playing nice today. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Even though WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is no longer enough for inherent notability, the fact still stands that most high schools are notable. So "being no more important than the average high school" is not a reason for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Some of the sources provided by Jagmanst (the coverage of the principal's funeral and COVID fees) seem to be independent, reliable sources of significant local coverage. The article's coverage of the school's historical importance needs better sourcing outside of primary sources. The article needs improvement, but as it has some good sources (particularly its use in academic studies), I believe the subject is notable. pinktoebeans (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

BTB Electric

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

Notability not established within article. Sources all appear to be press releases. — Trey Maturin™ 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Can't find any reliable sources. Salsakesh ( talk) 22:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Question: Could someone with a reading knowledge of Vietnamese please have a look at the references? To me they mostly look reasonable but some might be press releases as nom said, and some might be promotional. Well-sourced for a short article, but the source independence is going to be the deciding factor. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Before I nominated this, I ran the sources through Google Translate, which is, obviously, not very good, but was enough to give the gist of the stories.
1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 appear to be press releases, paid-for articles or puff pieces. Very promotional language of the "strives to provide the best…" type of thing. Most of the text is repeated in the other 5 articles, and simply describes what the company does (or aims to do in future), which suggests a press release.
3 is a report on a trade show, with a single quote from a director of the company just listing the products they have brought to show. — Trey Maturin™ 15:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete based on the explanation above. I can't find sources for this business either. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Thanks for the clarification, agreed. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 17:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Vietnam and Turkey. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — The lack of any Turkish-language sourcing for a supposedly 40+ year Turkish company is quite telling IMO. In my search for BTB Electric or BTB Elektrik, I only found articles on the Bursa Commercial Exchange Market (Bursa Ticaret Borsası), and absolutely nothing on this company. The trwiki article was speedied 4 days ago based on notability. Given that the Vietnamese sources are promotional, there is no way that this company meets WP:NCORP, which is a guideline that sets the bar really high for for-profit entities. Styyx ( talk) 19:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Also another interesting note, I tried to read some news stories on their official website (eg. this) and the Turkish used here is anything but natural. I wouldn't believe the person writing this actually knows Turkish. Styyx ( talk) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Not directly relevant to the delete discussion, but… yeah. The references to Turkey in the promotional articles used as sources came over as weird, gtranslate's weirdness notwithstanding. I wondered if this was a mistranslation of a place or term in the original language, although that would prove me wrong for how convinced I was/am that the article's creator has a CoI. — Trey Maturin™ 19:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Pikachu. To be honest, I'm not sure if this is the best target article but it was the only one identified by participants and I'm admittedly ignorant about the Pokemon universe. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Pichu

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

Article's receotion were filled with listicles and such. Zero WP:SIGCOV. A single usable source [51] doesn't help. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 13:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep no evidence of BEFORE asserted and nom admits one unquestionably usable source already in article. Odds of zero more? Pretty low. If not kept, should be merged into Pikachu, but I'm pretty sure there's enough coverage, given its proximity/relationship to the most popular/iconic Pokemon. Jclemens ( talk) 18:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Based on what? Do you assume every nomination that doesn't explicitly state a BEFORE search hasn't done one? Not sure there's any reason to jump to that conclusion without providing counter-evidence (sourcing) of your own first. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Of course I do. On what basis would you not? AGF expects us to presume that best practices have been followed, and if followed, documented. Do you want me to ABF and presume that a nom did a BEFORE and didn't follow best practices by posting the results? When a nominator fails to follow best practices, that itself is evidence for an outcome other than what they suggest. No editor is obligated to lift a finger to refute an assertion provided without evidence: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens. Jclemens ( talk) 03:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    You need to provide evidence that a BEFORE search wasn't done, not baselessly muse about it. Did you find other GNG-supporting sources or not? "Pretty sure there's enough coverage" doesn't cut it and you should know that by now. Sergecross73 msg me 11:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, but this is wrong as a matter of both policy and logic. "no evidence of BEFORE asserted" is a statement of fact: It's simply either true or disprovable. Calling neutral statements of fact casting aspersion is itself inappropriate behavior: address my arguments, don't accuse me of misconduct absent any misconduct. On a logical front, asking one editor to prove that another editor did not do something which leaves no on-wiki evidence is impossible and absurd. Contra your You need to provide evidence that a BEFORE search wasn't done I did not assert that no BEFORE had been done, rather that the nom had not asserted that one had. Sergecross73 feel free to retract and apologize for your posting, and once that's out of the way I will address your sourcing query. Jclemens ( talk) 06:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry, but the moment you opened your comment with the word "keep", it ceased to be a "neutral" comment. Feel free to keep trying to split hairs though, this line of reasoning hasn't persuaded a single person, nor has anyone provided a valid path to meeting the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep. While what's there isn't particularly strong, its sourcing isn't completely horrible. I would be unopposed to a merge if that's where the consensus leads, but I don't believe Pichu's sourcing state is so bad as to warrant a deletion.
I performed a search, though there isn't really too much beyond listicles such as these. While they can be used to buff the reception section a bit, there aren't too many sources beyond these that aren't already in the article.
I also found these two book sources, though they're relatively weak. I thought I'd bring them up just in case, regardless. I may have missed things though, so if anyone finds anything else semi useful, it can be added to the article or acknowledged via comment. Pokelego999 ( talk) 18:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Content farms make up the lion's share of coverage. The nomination contradicts itself by saying "zero SIGCOV" and then showing a piece of SIGCOV, and besides the Kotaku source mentioned above, there is also this profile of Pichu, but I still don't believe it fulfills the depth needed for GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep or Merge. The Kotaku article is good for GNG and the IGN profile article is at best partial. I feel there needs to be at least WP:THREE reliable, independent, secondary sources for this. The rest of the article is filler that could be merged with Pikachu. Conyo14 ( talk) 22:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per all. WP:BEFORE shows coverage that does not quite add up to WP:SIGCOV. But it's enough that this should be WP:PRESERVEd as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker ( talk) 01:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Into the related Pokemon list. While back tried to find sources with no luck of anything tangible. I thought at one point just how weak it was might've been a good angle to lean into, but it's not there. I definitely don't think Pikachu is a good merge target however.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. In spite of the claim of editors who will go unnamed, multiple users, including the nominator, conducted WP:BEFORE properly, and saying that it's okay to ABF because he didn't "follow the rules" is very silly. Regardless, after conducting multiple attempts to find any good sourcing, I was unable to come up with much at all. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 09:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Did I miss where the nom said somewhere a BEFORE was conducted? If so, please show me so I can apologize for my misstatement. Jclemens ( talk) 06:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - sourcing is weak and the source acknowledged in the nomination, while long, isn't particularly helpful in actually writing prose for a Wikipedia article. Complaints about not doing a BEFORE search are meritless without proof. Just one many many routine WP:POKEMON. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 ( talk) 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    That doesn't make any sense. The nomination advocates deletion or merger, and doesn't contain a valid keep argument, let alone advocate for that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - As per points already discussed, I believe merging with the related list would be the best option. Ekdalian ( talk) 13:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 13:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Profiteering

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

Not a valid disambiguation page - War profiteering is a subtopic of Profiteering (business), which should be moved to this title. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 13:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Isa Adamu

Muhammad Isa Adamu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear case of one event. Does not meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 13:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Abdullah Eksioglu

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

Does not seem to pass WP:BIO. No cited sources, looked up the subject under "news" and ultimately found nothing. shelovesneo ( talk) 11:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Erkan Geniş

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

A 2005 article about a Turkish painter which makes big claims of notability, but for whom there are no actual reliable sources supporting any of this. All the information online I can find about Geniş are mirrors of his Wikipedia article or WP:USERGENERATED content like this bio on turkishpaintings.com. There isn't a Turkish language Wikipedia entry. He doesn't have an entry in Biyografi.info (which other articles about Turkish people seem to cite a fair amount). His article here says he has "been accepted as one of the Greatest 100 Turkish Painters who Ever Lived, announced by the Ministry of Culture of Turkey" - which would be some evidence, but there's no reference for this either, and I can't find any evidence for this list - there seems to be no mention of it on the articles of any of the artists mentioned at List of painters from Turkey (which surely would include many of the "100 greatest"). Indeed, the Ministry of Culture does have some articles about noted Turkish artists, such as Bedri Rahmi Eyüboğlu ( [52]) but not Erkan Geniş.

Concerned that there might be more sources in Turkish that I can't find myself, I asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey. There, GGT - who has experience with the Turkish art scene - has similarly found little to suggest notability.

In summary, this is an effectively unsourced article about a living person which has lain since 2005 without improvement, for whom there is no evidence at all of notability. Finlay McWalter··–· Talk 09:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hololive Production. ✗ plicit 12:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Motoaki Tanigo

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

Disputed draftification. WP:ADMASQ with multiple references to primary sources. Suspected self publicity. Definitely a puff piece. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Lets examine the references, in the first block.
  • Ref 1 [53] Landing page. Non-rs.
  • Ref 2 [54] Reads as a partial interview with PR. Looks and reads like manufactured clickbait.
  • Ref 3 [55] Another business insider ref. A full interview this time. Not independent.
  • Ref 4 Holilive Youtube page. Non-rs
  • Ref 5 Holilive Youtube page. Non-rs
  • Ref 6 [56] Another style interview. More PR. Exact same image used in a couple of the other references.
  • Ref 7 Facebook. Non-RS
  • Ref 8 [57] Another interview. Not indepdent.
  • Ref 9 [58] Company profile. Non-rs
  • Ref 10 [59] Straight up plain interview with no association PR muck.
Looking at the first 10 references, 5 are non-rs. 1 is clickbait, and the rest are a mix of interviews and PR. Not one of it is a WP:SECONDARY source. The article was sent to draft over the weekend after being review and moved back to mainspace probably indicating its a coi editor that created it. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Changed from comment to delete. scope_creep Talk 11:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Some coverage, more of an interview, at Crunchyroll [60]. This Forbes site, but it keeps timing out [61] so I'm unable to evaluate it. Oaktree b. Forbes actually points here [62], which seems ok but it's a short few paragraphs about the person. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
This but it appears to be a series of video clips he hosts [63]. I'm thinking it's almost TOOSOON. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Oaktree b The Forbes link works at present. It's a paragraph per nation, so fails WP:SIGCOV and has a paragraph on the subject as one of Forbes's 200 "Superstar Entrepreneurs" which is along the same lines as the rest of their multiple meaningless lists. It's very easy to be fooled into thinking that all of Forbes has gravitas. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Hololive Production. The Forbes article is "Stuff", but it's a very short mention. Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Air Nippon destinations

List of Air Nippon destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And also the following list of 119 other airline-destination articles, all with limited sourcing:

119 Airline destination lists
List of Aeroput destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Afriqiyah Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Algérie destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Macau destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Méditerranée destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Niugini destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Nostrum destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Transat destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Uganda destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Wisconsin destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airBaltic destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Airphil Express destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of AirTran Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of America West Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of AnadoluJet destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Aurora destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Avianca destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Avianca Ecuador destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Avianca Perú destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Azul Brazilian Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of BA CityFlyer destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Bahamasair destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Belle Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of BH Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Blue Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Blue Panorama destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Boliviana de Aviación destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Braniff International Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British Airways franchise destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Bulgaria Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Buta Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Canadian Pacific Air Lines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cargolux destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Centre-South destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cimber Sterling destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Clickair destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cobalt Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Comair destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Corsair International destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Croatia Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cyprus Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cyprus Turkish Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Danube Wings destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Delta Connection destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of EasyJet Switzerland destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Edelweiss Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of First Choice Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of FlyArystan destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Georgian Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of GX Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Hunnu Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Iran Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Juneyao Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of JALways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jat Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Kam Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of KLM Cityhopper destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Avianca Costa Rica destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of LATAM Chile destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of LATAM Colombia destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of LATAM Ecuador destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of CAAC Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cargojet destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of EGO Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ernest Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Simplifly Deccan destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of TruJet destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Lufthansa Cargo destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Lufthansa CityLine destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mahan Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mandarin Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Martinair destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of MIAT Mongolian Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Middle East Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Monarch Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Montenegro Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Neos destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Niki destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Norse Atlantic Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Olympic Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Olympic Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Pan Am destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of PLUNA destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Precision Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Primera Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Qeshm Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ravn Alaska destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Red Wings Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Rex Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Rossiya destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SAS Group destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SATENA destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Shanghai Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Shenzhen Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Silk Way Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SkyEurope destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SkyWest Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SkyWork Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Smartwings destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Solomon Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Spring Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Sriwijaya Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Sunwing Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Swiss Global Air Lines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Syphax Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of TAME destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Tatarstan Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Tigerair Australia destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Tiger Group destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of TMA Cargo destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of US Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Varig destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of VIM Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Viva Macau destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Volaris destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Volotea destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Vueling destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Wataniya Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Wizz Air Ukraine destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per the 2018 RFC on lists of airline destinations, these are not suitable content for Wikipedia. A subsequent AN discussion recommended these be listed for deletion at AFD in orderly fashion, with a link to the RFC, and the closer of any AFD was to take the RFC into account in any close. That the 2018 RFC remains the consensus of the Wikipedia community was re-emphasised in a well-advertised and attended AFD in May in which 14 articles were deleted, a consensus to delete that was subsequently strongly endorsed on review. In a further AFD in July, 82 lists of airline services were deleted, with the !voting being entirely in favour of deletion. Since May a total of 139 airline destination lists have been deleted in 19 different AFD discussions, including lists of the destinations of national flag-carriers and of a member of Star Alliance, with none being closed as kept that I am aware of.

The articles should be deleted as they are failures of WP:NOT. Specifically, they are exhaustive lists of the services offered by commercial enterprises as well as being essentially travel-guides. They are also effectively advertising for the companies concerned, another thing that Wikipedia is explicitly not. Since they can only be true on a particular, randomly-selected day, they are ephemeral and impossible to maintain given the way airline schedules change constantly, but if you did try to do keep them up to date, what you would have would essentially be an airline news-service, and Wikipedia is not news.

In addition to this, every one of these articles is dedicated entirely to exhaustive lists of trivial, run-of-the-mill details of commercial operations of a kind that WP:CORP expressly bars from being used to sustain notability, making the content of them essentially trivia and non-notable ab initio. This includes "simple listings or compilations, such as ... product or service offerings" and "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as...the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops [and/or] the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business". They are the equivalent of a list of pizzas sold by Pizza Hut on 3 October 2007, or a list of Blockbuster Video outlets operating on 23 January 1988: pure indiscriminate trivia ( another thing that Wikipedia is not).

The sourcing of these articles also universally fails to sustain notability under WP:GNG let alone WP:CORP. The articles that include are either cited to the airline itself or to aviation industry press that fails to meet the WP:ORGIND standard. Where reliable sources are cited, these are not cited for significant coverage of the destinations of the airline concerned but instead for something incidental - for example, a BBC article about countries closing their airspace to Russian airlines in general is cited for destinations being terminated for a specific airline.

In every case, no source is cited, having significant coverage of the destinations of each airline, that would meet the audience and independence standards under WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND. Realistically, the only people who can ever tell you what services an airline is operating on a specific date is the airline itself and this information is therefore inherently incapable of being reliably and independently sourced. Particularly where the lists declare a service to be "terminated", this has been achieved through original research by comparing lists of previous services with those presently operated by the airline, since even if a source could found saying the service was terminated, that only verifies as of the date the reference was published, not as of the date given for the list which may be years later.

(I'll try to template the articles in the next few days, but if anyone with AWB would like to do it in the meantime that would be great). FOARP ( talk) 09:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

speedy delete per the well-considered consensus. Pecopteris ( talk) 09:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I am not sure how compatible "speedy" is with "orderly", but the best fit of the two would be good. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I've tagged the articles. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and previous discussions. Charcoal feather ( talk) 11:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think it is likely delete for the reasons given above and previously. However I am uncomfortable about deleting hundreds of AfD nominations in one go. There's very little chance that any of us would be able to give each nomination a fair examination so we are !voting based on the kind of page it is. To be clear, I can't see that redundant airline destination pages are ever verifiable. JMWt ( talk) 11:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    TBH @ JMWt, the only airline destination page I've ever seen that ever raised the need for separate consideration for me is List of Braathens destinations, but this is not because of the list (which is a WP:V-failure), but because it has a history of the Braathens airline from 1954 to 2004 in it. However we also have History of Braathens SAFE (1946–1993) and History of Braathens (1994–2004) which this is basically just a fork of. Nothing would be lost by simply redirecting this page to a disambiguation page called History of Braathens. All the others, even List of British Airways destinations, are just the same thing that we have here but with more references - no evidence that anyone other than the airline (or a source ultimately depending on the airline) could ever really tell you what flights they were actually operating as of October 2020 (or whatever the date used for the list is). FOARP ( talk) 12:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm not sure AfD is the right venue for this kind of mass deletion proposal. I also have never seen a list of this kind which meets the notability criteria. JMWt ( talk) 14:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The issue is that the 2018 AN discussion doesn't leave any other way of doing it. The close of that AN discussion explicitly ruled out Beeblebrox's mass-deletion-in-one-go approach and PROD-ing the articles one by one, and explicitly endorsed bundled AFDs (which this is). The varying quality of the articles was cited as a reason not to delete all of them in one go by at least three contributors to the 2018 AN discussion, so bundling article of similar quality appears a justified approach. We've already had 19 AFDs in a row closed as "delete" for these articles, and this AFD will make 20 over nearly four months. I don't think anyone can really say we're being hasty here. FOARP ( talk) 14:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non-encyclopedic content. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom. Also WP:NOTGUIDE and majority of articles fail WP:CORP. Coastie43 ( talk) 13:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Coastie43 - I'd say ALL of these articles fail WP:CORP. Taking possibly the most prominent airline, US Airways, the list of their destinations is cited to:
    1) A 404 link to Airlineroute.net, a blog/industry press.
    2) Ditto.
    3) A 404 link to a YahooNews Finance piece, apparently industry press.
    4) Another 404 link to Airlineroute.net
    5) Ditto
    6) The US Airways website.
    7) A press-release.
    8) Another 404 link to YahooNews Finance.
    The only sources here that aren't 404 are the ones that clearly come direct from the airline and even if the other sources weren't 404 they are not sufficiently independent of the airline itself. Even if they were, NONE of these sources even COULD support the verification of the information in the list, since they are all from before the date that the list is supposed to be accurate for (17 October 2015). Every article on this list is at least this bad in terms of verifiability and notability. FOARP ( talk) 14:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and per recent successful deletions of this same type. -- Jayron 32 15:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I remain convinced that we should not maintain airline destination articles at all, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We really don't have a Speedy Delete feature in AFD (unlike the Speedy Keep option) unless there is content that violates BLP or copyright guidelines or another CSD criteria can be applied. Since this discussion was brought to AFD (instead of the articles being tagged for CSD), let's let this discussion continue on for 7 days. These articles have been around for a while, a few more days won't bring down the project. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Liz: The closer could always point to WP:AVALANCHE, though I would caution against using that reasoning too soon. —  Jkudlick ⚓  (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, all above, and the relevant policies NOTGUIDE and NOTDIRECTORY. SilverTiger12 ( talk) 20:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per NOTDIRECTORY and the 2018 RfC. I note there are presently over 300 such lists in Category:Lists of airline destinations, so this will surely come up again. —  Jkudlick ⚓  (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and previous discussions. Mgp28 ( talk) 22:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect per nom. As a spot check, I did a quick WP:BEFORE for Pan Am and didn't see anything that would support a full list of their destinations. Though I note some prose on each article describe the general idea of where they serve would likely be possible, and perhaps redirection to the parent airline articles if the closer is willing to do that work. Jumpytoo Talk 02:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per precedent and NOT. Draken Bowser ( talk) 07:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. I actually like reading these airline destinations lists. They have a lot of useful information that you can't find anywhere else. Particularly of when an airline flew to a destination in the past that they don't serve now. Many airlines don't have route maps anymore so it's hard to find what cities they service unless you start a booking to see if a fare is available. Which is a very slow process for every possible route.
    CHCBOY ( talk) 18:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I agree with CHCBOY on keeping these pages. These are useful pages. 176.55.123.41 ( talk) 18:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment - please see WP:ITSUSEFUL. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah, it does have to be emphasised that “it’s useful” has been the only argument ever put forward for these articles. No-one ever explains how they don’t offend against WP:NOT. No-one ever puts forward a cogent argument for their notability under WP:CORP (which applies as these are lists of company services). The reason for that is it can’t be done.
Even on usefulness grounds I really doubt their usefulness, because these aren’t route maps, they aren’t up to date (or even up to date for the dates given in the articles), and often the majority of destinations listed are places the airline explicitly does not fly to (i.e., those that are “terminated”). If, however, aviation fandom finds them useful, then there is still the answer of taking them off-wiki (eg setting up a fandom wiki) and this can still be done even after the articles are deleted by asking an admin to email copies of the articles to you. FOARP ( talk) 05:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Who uses Wikipedia as a travel guide? Most of their sources used comes from either the airline or airport website itself or they are obviously made up. Kaseng55 ( talk) 00:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Not obviously made up as without a reference for a destination on the lists they get quickly removed by other users even for a terminated destination. CHCBOY ( talk) 20:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ CHCBOY - See the analysis of the US Airways article above - the only links that weren't 404 was the one to the airline website and press-releases. FOARP ( talk) 08:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete based on our policies and guidelines NOTDIRECTORY and the consensus at various similar AfD discussions. HighKing ++ 17:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not one comes close to be policy compliant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 20:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete endorsing immediate SNOW closure by any admin. The rationales by nom are clear and overwhelming, with an extensive history of community consensus backing this. Apparently even Wikivoyage has declined to accept this content. Given the large number of pages and impracticality of exhaustive examination I believe the community would expect or be satisfied with a relatively lenient approach towards any request for access to an individual page, if anyone makes a credible claim that a deleted page contains some other useful content beyond mere destination-list. Alsee ( talk) 22:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
This bundled nomination is not formatted correctly so I've asked the nominator to review it. This is a huge nomination and no closer should have to handle each article page individualy. Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Liz, thanks for highlighting the lack of " Article name (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)" tags in the list. I've added these. Let me know if that fixes the issue. FOARP ( talk) 12:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
XFDcloser now breaks for me: toomanyvalues error retrieving page information (reload the page to try again). I'll try some things to attempt to get the gadget to not break in the nomination statement. SWinxy ( talk) 16:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ SWinxy - if it’s the the collapsing of the list I can remove that. Alternatively I have a separate page on which all the pages nominated are listed: User:FOARP/Poorly-referenced airline destination lists. FOARP ( talk) 17:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Nah it's not because it's in a collapse. I tried removing it, and it still failed. SWinxy ( talk) 17:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ SWinxy - Maybe break it in to smaller lists? FOARP ( talk) 05:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete not a good fit for the project
Elttaruuu ( talk) 14:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with main articles. Chicken4War ( talk) 13:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with the main airline article. 🛧 Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 14:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The main objection is WP:NOT, which leaves no scope for a direct merge. Additionally, for content to be merged, it needs to be appropriately sourced, and there is little sign of this (see, e.g, the analysis of the US Airways article above). FOARP ( talk) 15:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per above. SWinxy ( talk) 16:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all and I oppose merging. It's non-encyclopedic. Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Deletion of so much hard work from dedicated editors.... For instance, I created the list of Aeroput destinations, an historical era work about destinations between 1927 until 1948 which is certainly interesting for aviation nostalgics. We have the opportunity to have the lists of all destinations of close to all airliners in the world, but we are unwilling to do so despite having dedicated editors agreing to do it all by Wiki rules and standards (proper sourcing, etc.) I ask myself, what we win by this. Erasing that info is literally giving other airliners websites an edge, and we fall to simply borring, basic info, texts which no aviation enthusiast will care from now on. My activity was limited in latest time, but I am astonished to have found this decition and found specially unpreciated since I made a list about one of the first companies in the world and thought this contribution was valiable. FkpCascais ( talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Clear consensus for deletion. Author moved this to draftspace during the AfD; this is not explicitly prohibited, but if they attempt recreation without substantial improvement, it will be evidence of attempting to circumvent this discussion, which is a bad look. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Ekinhan Erişkin

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

I declined an A7 nomination here, as there was a claim of significance (he's a professor at the Süleyman Demirel University). I was going to draftify it, but that's already been tried.

He doesn't meet any criterion of WP:NPROF that | can see. His h-index is 8 according to Scholar or 5 on Scopus. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 08:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Smasongarrison, speedy criterion A7 is for topics with no "credible claim of significance". Specifically, it "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". There is an abyssal difference between that very low threshold, which this person does I believe pass as a university professor, and the stringent requirements of WP:NPROF – which in my opinion he does not come close to meeting. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks! I'll make sure to recalibrate my thresholds. (I'm also an assistant prof, hence my cheeky emoji. ) Mason ( talk) 13:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. I saw this article on a list of requested biographical articles, i don’t see how out of the sudden it lost its notability. V.B.Speranza ( talk) 16:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Being on a list of requested articles does not provide any evidence that its subject is notable. It means only that someone (in many cases the subject) has added the name to the list. — David Eppstein ( talk) 12:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Indeed, this name was added by an editor with the username "Ekinhaneriskin". XOR'easter ( talk) 22:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Appears to be on a good career track but his citation counts do not yet rise to the level of WP:PROF#C1 notability, and there seems to be nothing else to go on instead of that. Assistant professors are rarely notable and I don't see any evidence that he might be an exception to that general pattern. — David Eppstein ( talk) 12:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete clearly WP:TOOEARLY as an assistant prof with a decent but not overwhelming citation count per GS. Does not pass WP:NPROF as of yet. -- hroest 18:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No case for academic wiki-notability as yet. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment After This page was draftified by the creator in the course of the AfD discussion; I came across it while WP:R2'ing it. Per WP:AFDTODRAFT, this is not prohibited, but is generally advised against. Having said that, with teh draftification by the author of the article, this seems to be tantamount to a WP:G7 with it seeming like the author wants to improve in draftspace. I am unsure if said action necessitates the close of this AfD as the proper venue would now be MfD, or if the discussion can continue as to whether or not the draft can be deleted. Tartar Torte 01:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Herbert Obele

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Can only find some tangential coverage like [64], [65], nothing of much substance. Dr. Duh  🩺 ( talk) 08:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Nekoglai

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

Del per WP:SINGLEEVENT. Thoroughly nonnotable blogger who got 15 minutes of fame after being arrested in Russia - Altenmann >talk 03:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep - the article itself isn't great and needs improvement but I think the subject is just about notable enough. I found some coverage from various news sources: [66] [67] [68] [69] (last one in Italian). Sgubaldo ( talk) 18:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment: It does not matter how many sources you find; they are all about WP:SINGLEEVENT, and a stupid one, too. Which will be forgotten next year. - Altenmann >talk 21:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Fair enough, I change my vote to Delete. Sgubaldo ( talk) 22:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. So, we have clear issues with WP:CRIME here, and we have a WP:PROMO article. Now, it may be possible that the event in question is notable, I haven't checked for WP:PERSISTENCE, but given the PROMO issues this article can't contribute to such a hypothetical article, so we have no choice but to delete. — siro χ o 08:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Habibullah Mahmud Quasemi

Habibullah Mahmud Quasemi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 07:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No claim to notability in lead. Falls afoul of WP:CRIME. — siro χ o 08:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sankar (writer & director)

Sankar (writer & director) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 11:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Previous AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nomination. Not the best article title to assist in source searches as results are for other people, but adding the full name yielded nothing new except some unreliable user-editable sites. - 2pou ( talk) 16:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment Is this the same person [70]? Could perhaps be at AUTHOR with a few more reviews. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Not the same person. Author of that book has a career spanning seven decades according to the review, and this subject is only 42. Additionally, that book would need at least another review to be notable itself (entirely possible), but then another separate work of his would then need to have multiple reviews of their own in order to have a “body” of work to meet AUTHOR. - 2pou ( talk) 16:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We could use a few more concrete opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete based on the explanation to my prior comment; I find nothing about this person. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Anoop Madhavan

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Article is WP:REFBOMBed with mostly promoted content, about the safety training sessions and disaster preparation, with Madhavan mentioned only in passing. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage of him in a WP:BEFORE search, or of the company Survival Instincts. Maybe some can be found in reliable sources in Tamil. Proposed deletion by User:Ferien was contested with no rationale, by an account whose owner admitted coordinated editing, and Survival Instincts was speedy deleted A7. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. — siro χ o 08:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, promotional and lacking significant coverage. -- Mvqr ( talk) 12:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Blocked socks of Sathishcm. Wikishovel ( talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep- I stumbled upon the page and discoverd it didn't have categories. I added categories, reviewed and re-arranged some of the references. Taking a deeper look at the sources cited, I believe they meet WP:RS. The subject Anoop, is cleared featured organically in most of the sources cites. These are not paid sources. He earned them organically. Hence the page meets WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG
Take a look at the major sources:
2. The Times of India This is a clear WP:RS with a wiki page. The subject is featured
3. The Hindu. This is another clear WP:RS. The subject is featured
The above is a clear analysis of the majority of the sources cited. Having gone through them, I strongly believe that the subject passes the notability guidelines as seen in WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG. Zanaottaja Eei ( talk) 13:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Zanaottaja Eei: may I ask what you mean by "featured organically"? The references are indeed from national newspapers, but apart from the final reference 3 you listed above, all of the above sources are about training sessions and disaster preparation, and mention him only in passing. Wikishovel ( talk) 14:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
"Featured organically" means that Anoop did not pay the newspapers to feature his name in the articles. If he were to pay for them, you'll notice obvious spamming of his name in the sources. He earned the mentions as a result of his work. WP:BASIC clearly states:
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". There are multiple sources cited. You even agreed that the last 3 sources featured him well. You also agreed that the sources are reliable national dailies hence WP:RS.
The fact that you agree the newspapers are WP:RS/national dailies and that he is featured greatly in the final 3 references are enough to withdraw this AFD. I recommend you withdraw it. Thank you Zanaottaja Eei ( talk) 16:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify, lots of WP:Passing mentions in reliable sources doesn't amount to WP:SIGCOV. There is so far only one apparently substantial source cited that is about Madhavan himself: this one that you listed as #3 above. I say "apparently" because the source is paywalled, but the first few paragraphs suggest that the article is about him. Wikishovel ( talk) 17:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Your reference 1 is already cited in the article, and again, only mentions him in passing. And there's that Hindu reference already mentioned above. So we still have just one reference actually about Madhavan, and the rest are only passing mentions. Wikishovel ( talk) 20:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
These newspaper articles even have photographs of him at the head of articles, and quotes from him.
This article even has a video of him speaking.
They are NOT WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS nor WP:Passing mentions.
Shiltonjojo ( talk) 12:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC) — Shiltonjojo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - added by Wikishovel in violation of WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS see comments here. reply
@Wikishovel I posted five leading newspaper articles with photographs and quotes to establish NOT WP:Passing mentions. How does my account’s age matter, when I am making an assertion of WP:GNG based on neutral, nontransitive, reliable, verifiable, secondary, published, independent and significant coverage sources from four major Indian newspapers? Instead of sneak comments, I implore you to focus on the message by verifying the five articles. Lastly please note, even if WP:GNG facts are asserted from anonymous (IP) sources – those facts will still remain facts. I also disclosed why I choose not to be anonymous here in response to your remarks.
Shiltonjojo ( talk) 16:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Below is a source assessment table. Beyond the promotional aspects of the article, this demonstrates that based on sources we have the subject does not meet WP:BASIC. We don't have information necessary to write an encyclopedia article about the subject. — siro χ o 21:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
New Indian Express "Getting to Know the Power of Women" [71] ? ? No Trivial mention (attributed quotes + employer) ✘ No
New Indian Express "Learn to defend, Survive, Women told" [72] ? ? No as above ✘ No
New Indian Express "Safety workshop for women" ? ? No as above ✘ No
New Indian Express "‘Trust your gut instinct – it is always right’" [73] ? ? No coverage of a self-defense workshop without any secondary SIGCOV of subject ✘ No
Ekatha Ann John ToI [74] Yes Yes No attributed statements, trivial ✘ No
Deccan Chronicle [75] ? ? No attributed statements, trivial ✘ No
ToI "Self-defence is about using both body, mind" [76] ? ? No attributed statements, trivial coverage ✘ No
New Indian Express "Covert Ops to Get Safety Training" ? ? No as above ✘ No
New Indian Express, Sonali Shenoy "Chennai, Soon to Have 1,000 Certified Crisis Response Volunteers" [77] Yes Yes No as above ✘ No
New Indian Express, Sonali Shenoy "Survival Skills 101: Chennai, You Ready?" Yes Yes No barely a sentence, still mostly about jobs held without depth -- extent is Most of the training will be conducted by founder of Survival Instincts, Anoop Madhavan, who is an experienced logistics scientist in the field of disaster relief for the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ✘ No
TH "‘Survival skills must to prevent deaths during disasters’" [78] ? ? No attributed statements, trivial coverage ✘ No
TH, K. Manikandan [79] Yes Yes No A single clause of SIGCOV Anoop Madhavan, who was involved in relief operations in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake in 2010 ✘ No
New Indian Express, "Training in Tactical Survival" [80] ? ? No attributed statements, trivial ✘ No
TH " Sea rescue drill captivates crowds on Marina beach " [81] ? ? No no coverage ✘ No
New Indian Express, "Movers and Shakers of the Deep get Set for Any Tsunami" [82] ? ? No attributed statements, trivial coverage ✘ No
TH Prince Frederick [83] ~ Yes ~ this piece is heavily dependent on the subject, and thus crosses heavily into primary sourcing and non-independent reporting. There are some basic biographical details and background confirmed. ~ Partial
ToI Kamini Mathai [84] ? ? No attributed statements, trivial coverage ✘ No
TH " Survival in the urban jungle " [85] No all directly from subject No ? ✘ No
2nd CII NATIONAL RISK SUMMIT DeRisking India Inc for Global Competitiveness [86] No ? No passing mention on a conference program ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Blocked sock of Sathishcm. Wikishovel ( talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment The above source assessment is not objective. It was prepared by one of the editors "User:Siroxo" who was the first to vote "delete" on this AFD. The assessment is clearly biased and subjective. That's his personal opinion. The fact remains that The New Indian Express, The Times of India, The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle are WP:RS and notable national tabloids. People don't pay to get featured or mentioned in them most often. The subject "Madhavan" is featured organically in almost all the sources as a result of his work. He didn't pay to be featured. The articles were written by 3rd parties. WP:BASIC clearly states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Getting mentioned or featured in such national tabloids is a huge honor. Hence [WP:GNG]] is clearly met here. Zanaottaja Eei ( talk) 05:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • CU note I have blocked all of the editors who have !voted keep so far as socks of the same editor. Further information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sathishcm. I expect it's an LTA: I'm not sure which one, but they apparently know how to file retaliatory SPI cases, and how to use various types of VPN services and proxies. Girth Summit (blether) 09:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Blocked sock of Sathishcm. Wikishovel ( talk) 09:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Strong Keep*.. Yes, this is a single purpose account. I don't have any intention of editing Wikipedia. I am worried about how things run on the platform. I am not happy at what is happening on this discussion. It's clear that this man meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia as seen in the reliable news-related REFERENCES cited on the page. His enemies vowed to mess him up even on En wiki. This is sad.
I recommend the admin or the CU editors should run a check on user:Wikishovel. From day one, he's hell bent on removing this page. He attacks every other editor that voted "Keep". His edits clearly shows something is fishy. I am not trying to engage in "Argumentum Ad Hominem". But those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Run a CU on all these editors to ensure justice. Cheers everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weahdi Ohii ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC) — Weahdi Ohii ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete, per source assessment above and lack of substantial content in the article. -- hroest 18:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Blocked sock of Sathishcm. Wikishovel ( talk) 09:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Respected Sir, I think the page is irrelevant and I have a DELETE vote. It’s my first edit, so please forgive me if there are any mistakes.
    I am also hoping to get an answer on a question from an administrator. I am a phd candidate defending my thesis on data democracy, and Wikipedia is one of my primary research sources.
    Instead of deleting the keep votes from sock puppets, why don’t you just summarily delete this offending page? Isn’t that a best to conserve Wikipedia resources and prevent spam data from accumulating? DataDemocracy ( talk) 22:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)— DataDemocracy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    As editors, we leave software resource optimization to the developers of the MediaWiki software Wikipedia runs on. You can read about our deletion policies at WP:Deletion policy, and about this specific process at WP:Articles for deletion — siro χ o 23:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Siroxo's source assessment (I'm leaning towards accepting the Hindu source as in-depth but it's only one and we need multiple sources) and the promotionalism on display both here and in the article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the source analysis (and being promotional, too). Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

2014 Albanian demonstrations in the Republic of Macedonia

2014 Albanian demonstrations in the Republic of Macedonia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sustained coverage. Fails WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 06:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Capcom games: N–R. This article can be restored when this subject is no longer "upcoming" but exists and has received coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Pragmata

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

WP:TOOSOON for an upcoming title on indefinite hiatus with no substantive content independent of Capcom. The current iteration of the article has several problems, most of them being that it is unsourced and lacks WP:NPOV with its reception section comparing it spuriously to Death Stranding. A WP:BEFORE yields several secondary sources, but these only convey primary information such as descriptions of the promotional trailer and information in press releases about the game's delays. Even if the problems with the article are ignored, it strikes me that there is just not enough about this game to justify an article. Appreciate your views on this. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 04:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 04:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is a difficult one because the production is very likely notable (i.e. meets the videogame equivalent of WP:NFF). Even if it never gets released, it's likely it will meet WP:PERSISTENCE, and we have no good redirect targets like we do with, eg, Half Life 3. Due to this notability, if we don't improve the state of things and just delete, we'll likely get more similar articles and WP:NEWBIES will get bitten by speedy deletion, the next AfD, or other less-than-pleasant introductions. However as the nominator suggests, this article is very clearly promotional (both pseudo-corporate promo and fan promo). Maybe I'll take a quick pass and see what I can do. — siro χ o 05:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for your thoughts. The pragmatic considerations (pun intended) you've raised are new to me, so I appreciate it! I definitely agree that improving the article is probably a preferable outcome for the reasons you've listed, although it probably needs a complete rewrite. Hopefully there's more sources out there that aren't just parroting the Capcom press release. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 05:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I took a pass at it, tried to reference everything to RS and removed the voice of the game's developer for the most part. Let me know what you think. In the meantime I am going to !vote keep. There's three separate incarnations of media coverage over 4 years, the most recent was 2 months ago. Secondary sources have reported on the development, some more dispassionately than others. I've tried to cite mostly dispassionate ones, especially those with a bit of secondary synthesis, not those that weren't just parroting the developer or concocting theories as primary sources. I think deletion at this juncture is more WP:CRYSTAL than keeping it, given what coverage we have. — siro χ o 06:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect To List of Capcom games: N–R. Currently fails WP:GNG as there is simply not enough information to provide a broad view of the topic. WP:TOOSOON for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Zxcvbnm. WP:TOOSOON for now. OceanHok ( talk) 15:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

LeDock

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPRODUCT - tagged as such, and digging into the sources included, one is an unencyclopedic source, two are from one author, and five are from another author. The original article appears to be from a WP:SPA, and the article reads a bit like an advert. Courtesy ping Bbb23 as they declined the speedy for G11. In fact, I am not finding mentions in half of the listed sources. Tried searching more on Google scholar and found only one other top ranked source that contained this topic and that top result is just a trivial mention. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Neutral on whether this gets deleted or not. There's definitely value in the software and more could be written about it, but the article here is lacking. This is a niche corner of biochemistry, and I don't think people should be surprised if there is no Wikipedia article about a particular piece of software used in it. For reference LeDock isn't as popular as other docking software. LeDock is cited ~100 times DOCK6 is cited ~800 times and AutoDock VINA is cited ~25000 times. ― Syn path 06:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is an article that’s of little interest to anyone who doesn’t already know about this software. We don’t need to clutter up Wikipedia with stuff like this. Genome42 ( talk) 09:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per rationale by Cullen. Jamiebuba ( talk) 19:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

---

Extra sources:

  • Moreno, Angel J. Ruiz (2021-09-18). "Molecular Docking". Cheminformatics Workflows. Retrieved 2023-08-08.

— Arthurfragoso ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep - I usually don't find enough biochemical software that works on Linux. I did not have a previous knowledge about this LeDock software, it seems it is mostly used in China. And I hope we don't get a western bias in the way of this decision. I have to think more before I give a "neutral" or "keep" vote. — Arthurfragoso ( talk) 20:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I just have put some work on improving the article. -- Arthurfragoso ( talk) 18:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
keep - I've made additional modifications and included a Nature article that conducted benchmarks on it. Perhaps those who previously voted for deletion could reconsider and re-evaluate. — Arthurfragoso ( talk) 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Have you assessed the WP:RELIABILITY? That Nature article appears to be a lab report which is a WP:PRIMARY source. If there is a WP:SECONDARY source that takes an aggregate of these studies and reports and gives nontrivial coverage that would be amazing :) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
If this were an article or statement about a disease or treatment, a journal article like this Nature piece would be a primary source. However, for software, maybe the primary source is the material coming directly from the company, like the website. So in this case, I think, the Nature article is considered a secondary source, while a meta-analysis would be a tertiary source. About the reliability, I did not really like the Baidu source I added, as their captcha prevents archiving it in the waybackmachine. -- Arthurfragoso ( talk) 03:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of the new sources brought up. Do they change any minds of those advocating Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep It's a peer-reviewed Primary source if that makes sense; the author of the paper/creator of the software submitted the paper to the journal for validation, it was accepted and published in the journal. It's been validated by the journal staff as being correct, so it's a RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I think we're getting too far down into the weeds on this; it's sourced to peer-reviewed journals, not blog posts. I surmise the article is fine with what's given for sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Per arguments and sources presented by Arthurfragoso and Oaktree b. CarribeanKing ( talk) 20:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

An Se-bok

An Se-bok (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 01:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - The problem is there aernt any, hence fails WP:GNG which is the overriding factor. Simione001 ( talk) 22:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Best chance is to find (off-line) Korean sources looking for the name in Korean: 안세복 . 109.37.152.36 ( talk) 10:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Did you find any?
  • Delete - no evidence of notability and no available sources passing GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 16:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. nomination withdrawn, no other delete arguments. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Tribe (Philippine TV series)

Tribe (Philippine TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV, tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 01:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Added some sources, and I think that this show is notable because it was one of Net 25's (the network's) most popular shows for children and teens. Also, I think it's impressive that it was consistently being recognized as a source for family-friendly, informative entertainment. D-Flo27 ( talk) 06:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep and tag for improvement – sources show notability and so do the awards. It could use synopsis/development and reception sections but deletion will not achieve that. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 22:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. For starters, this is a nominee of the PMPC Star Awards for Television which is the near-equivalent of the Emmys in the Philippines (actually, AFAIK, the only industry-related award). --- Tito Pao ( talk) 04:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per nominations from notable award giving bodies. -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per everyone who voted/commented. - Ian Lopez @ 16:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Jack.org. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sandra Hanington

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

I think the best plausible argument for notability here would be that receipt of the Canadian Meritorious Service Cross covers WP:ANYBIO. I've done some searching and I can't easily find the full list of recipients, there's no category for it on Wikipedia, and so I'm gonna venture that perhaps it's not a notable enough award to meet this criterion.

She doesn't meet WP:NPOL as this was an appointed role at the mint. BrigadierG ( talk) 01:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Jack.org (the charity she co-founded). All references to this person in Canadian media are about the charity, where she's mentioned. The Mint position is basically a civil service position. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Shellwood ( talk) 16:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jack.org. As per the reasoning of Oaktree b. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sekthaus Carl Graeger

AfDs for this article:
Sekthaus Carl Graeger (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Discussed last summer and restored as a contested PROD. However, as was the case then, I do not see CORP level sourcing here, the German article or via a before. While they no longer make their own wine, it's still produced and sourcing should be accessible if it existed Star Mississippi 01:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Wine, Organizations, Companies, and Germany. Star Mississippi 01:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article, for me lacks significant coverage in current reliable sources. The majority of the references cited are from archival sources or are dated, which raises concerns about the contemporary relevance and notability of the subject. Additionally, there's a limited amount of recent information or ongoing significance to the brand beyond its historical achievements. Also, the quality of old sources is questioned, and seems not to follow the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and verifiability. -- Mozzcircuit ( talk) 08:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now. I found a lot of old ads, a brief discussion that is in the references, a patent, but no WP:SIGCOV. This is an old and small company. A combination that can go either way. I'm definitely open to the idea that there is WP:SIGCOV out there. Just couldn't find it. gidonb ( talk) 01:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is a clear consensus that this subject is not, at this time, an appropriate subject for an article. There was some interest in a merge; if anyone is actually interested in doing one, let me know and I'm happy to facilitate that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

AI Constitution

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

Anthropic promotes its own ideas through Wikipedia. The concept of an "AI Constitution" is a construct originated by this startup company. It lacks widespread recognition within the academic community and has only been reported by certain media outlets such as Engadget. 日期20220626 ( talk) 00:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The same deletion reasons were raised by the user:桃花影落飞神剑 on Chinese Wikipedia. I believe the reason he put forth are worthy of discussion. 日期20220626 ( talk) 00:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ 日期20220626 Could you kindly provide some reliable source that suggest the concept of "AI Constitution" is "lacks widespread recognition within the academic community", thanks a lot ! Cloud29371 ( talk) 10:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Isn't it that the person advocating for keeping the article should provide academic sources from the academic community to substantiate it? 日期20220626 ( talk) 12:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I am sorry, but it im afraid its the one who states something should provide evidence for their claims, not ask the opposing party to provide counter-claims for him. And as it happens i have already did provide the necessary evidence to disprove the claims made. Luroe ( talk) 04:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
No. Editors of an article have to prove that it is generally notable, not anyone else. Cortador ( talk) 06:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, I think that the burden of proof should lie on those advocating for deletion, as in not to.shift it from the accuser to the accused, they should provide a clear reason with sufficient evidence for why the article lacks notability (no related google results, no necessary links/sources provided, etc) and not the editors being forced to "prove that they are not a camel" as the saying goes.
On a related note, I did already provide a list of necessary and related sources that prove the article's notability to a sufficient degree. Luroe ( talk) 07:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I am wondering what would constitute "some reliable source that suggest the concept [...] 'lacks widespread recognition within the academic community'": a list of publications that don't refer to it? a web search that doesn't return many results? Perhaps the burden of proof should be on those arguing for a change -- in this case, deletion -- but it is not obvious to me what would verify lack of recognition. (By the way, I have no argument for or against deleting this article.) Cnilep ( talk) 03:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I understand that proving a negative can be incredibly hard or sometimes even impossible, but in such a specific case I think it should come to two things: lack of any results (as you already mentioned) and the fact that the writers of the article cant provide any of the reliable sources on the matter, all that in order to not shift the burden of proof onto the accused party from the accuser, otherwise we fear getting into the "prove that you are not a camel" territory. Luroe ( talk) 06:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
That is a very serious allegation that Anthropic purposefully promotes its own ideas through Wikipedia. Do you have any sources to back that up? It would be a very controversial thing, worthy of a news article if that allegation was proven to be true. Personally, I think that everything stated without evidence can be freely discarded without evidence, and I cannot find a single good reason as to why would they exactly want to do it. There are far better and honest ways to raise awareness if they were truly conspired to do so.
Secondly, im sorry but can you provide evidence for lack of recognition in the academic community? Constitutional AI and OpenAI's rule-based reward model (later development, very similar conceptually to CAI, RBRM for short) are an important advancements in the subfield of AI Alignment, currently they, along with RLHF, are the only two techniques that are used to align major AI systems. I think it would be extremely unusual to have an article on only one of them, while the other one is being ignored for whatever reason. Having found such a glaring oversight i decided to correct it. According to SemanticScholar the Anthropic's scientific paper that describes the invention of the CAI method has 165 citations, which puts in the top 1% of scientific papers ever written. So the idea that it has no recognition in academic community is simply ungrounded and provably false.
And thirdly, it has not been "only been reported by certain media outlets such as Engadget" . It has been reported by many non-tech reputable and authoritative sources such as Forbes, New York Times, Reuters, Time, The Times of India, Business Insider's Morning Brew, Vox, The Australian and Observer. And even if it was primarily covered by tech-centered media, why would it be unacceptable that an innovation in a tech field is primarily covered by a tech-centered journals? I think it would only be fair not to expect CNN to report on video games and IGN not to report on the current presidential run of a certain candidate.
I think all the evidence provided above are more than enough to factually dispel the presented concerns and prove them to be unfounded. Luroe ( talk) 04:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge. There are some reliable sources mentioning the AI, but they all seems to be primarily about Anthropic, not the AI specifically. The article is also written entirely by a user named Luroe, who may be affiliated with Athropic.
Opinion : The Concept and technique of "AI Constitution" or "Artificial Intelligence Constitution" are very exciting and very important in the field of artificial intelligence and ethics, and has high potential to become a general research area. But the problem of this article focusing too much on Anthropic perspective make it look like advertising. However the AI Constitution is very new technique and concept, it has only less than 1 year, so we need to be patient and wait more other party research and develop on this area. Cloud29371 ( talk) 07:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Then the article should discuss a general problem and cover a range of proposals, rather than promoting a single concept from a start-up. Some exemplary articles can be Ethics of artificial intelligence and Existential risk from artificial general intelligence. 桃花影落飞神剑 ( talk) 13:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Deletion. Firstly, the statement "165 citations, which puts in the top 1% of scientific papers ever written" is an over-promoted way to describe academic papers. There are tons of machine learning papers that have such numbers of citations. Secondly, the concept proposed by this start-up has not yet been recognized by any main-stream scientific society in their outlines, such as AAAI, IEEE, or ACM. Thirdly, it was not accepted by any countries as their regulations even laws. It received media reports mainly because it is a new start-up got lots of funds.-- 桃花影落飞神剑 ( talk) 13:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. This is an absurd, arbitrary and frivolous reason for deletion. It was stated that it supposedly lacks academic recognition, I have provided a counter-argument and proved it wrong by using the numbers of citations which is incredibly high (1% of scientific papers, which already disproves the notion that there are "tons" of papers like this, there aren't: it's 1%). Secondly, we cannot expect for AAAI, IEEE, or ACM to unanimously endorse or adopt this method this quickly, it does not happen this fast. To say that this method is not worthy of its own article considering its already an industry standard with two out of three frontier large language models using it: OpenAI with its use of RBRM and Claude with its use of eponymous CAI (we currently do not know what kind of alignment techniques Google's Bard, the third frontier model, uses and I give myself no liberty to assume use of any specific AI alignment technique without proper evidence of which we currently have none) would be incredibly cavil. Thirdly, we can say the same, or perhaps even substantially more, about laws and regulations of different countries, laws are infamously slow in their development, passing and adoption. As to my knowledge there are NO existing laws that concern the AI Alignment sphere and VERY few laws on AI in general in the whole world due to how new and innovative the whole field is, especially the field of AI alignment. All of the current proposals for AI laws are incredibly high-level and do not discuss or mandate/order the usage of any particular technique. I do not think that it is reasonable to demand for an article's subject to be mandated by law lest it be deleted from Wikipedia, that is an extremely high bar for a Wikipedia article of any kind.
-
Thirdly, the assumption that all of the articles written on Constitutional AI method are written so "because it is a new start-up got lots of funds" is simply baselessly untrue, more than that: provably not true. If you'd actually read the all of the sources that I have provided both here and in the article itself you would see that they do mention that it is a startup (which should not be a reason for immediate dismissal of the notability of their accomplishments) that got funded by Google, but the main part of the article after that backdrop is presented is either about the Constitutional AI method or about both Anthrophic and the Constitutional AI method that they pioneered. Let us substantiate our claims and prove this factually. Lets start with a Forbes article on the Constitutional AI method of alignment. The fact of funding is mentioned once in the 10th paragraph as a quick sidenote. The rest of the article is strictly about the Constitutional AI method. You can go and check that yourself. Lets take another article: one from ArsTechnica, it doesn't mention the funding at all, and is also about the method of Constitutional AI alignment. Once again, feel free to fact-check my claims. And lets take a third article: the one from New York Times. The funding is mentioned, mentioned twice, first as background information, secondly as part of more of a detailed look at its past. The rest of the entire article is about Anthropic and its method of Constitutional AI, there are 38 paragraphs in this article, only two of them are about funding, 9 are about the method of Constitutional AI. It is clear which one is more important between the two. You can go and check all that yourself. To conclude. Constitutional AI has received substantive coverage in reputable publications for its technical merits - not just because of funding news, which was presented exclusively as a backdrop.
-
To conclude, the standards that you've set are incredibly high and would put around 80% of Wikipedia articles at risk of deletion. Your reasons for deletion are arbitrary, absurd and frivolous, for instance the fact that it hasn't been accepted as part of regulatory norm is true, but not a good reason to warrant deletion, as it does not prove the lack of notability. Please, read the pinned primers. None of your reasons align with Wikipedia's reasons for deletion. And secondly, the article in question DOES meet all the necessary criteria for existence. It IS notable enough, as proven by a number of reliable secondary sources reporting on it in detail. Moreover, in the Wikipedia primer " Help:My article got nominated for deletion!" it is stated that "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." I believe i provided more than that. That should be more than enough to prove its notability. I believe if we were to follow your procedures the Wikipedia would be reduced substantially few article, which is not exactly a good thing considering its not a place for only extremely important things, but for things notable enough, and not notable to the highest degree there is.
I think it is clear that the article should stay as there are no objective grounds for deletion. The grounds that have been presented here do not conform to Wikipedia standards, and there are more than enough notability and recognition for article's subject. Luroe ( talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We're not a PR host; other companies have to take up and agree to the same thing, and it's not even an original work by any means, just taking things from other mission statements which are themselves PR creations. Nate • ( chatter) 16:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep. I'm sorry but I do not see how this is a PR article by any means at all, it describes the AI Constitution as a concept, including its background and technical details. The language itself isn't even alluding to any PR. Luroe ( talk) 17:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment It's one company putting out something to try to gain publicity for something they wrote with no input from anyone else. It's the very definition of public relations. Nate • ( chatter) 18:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Please stop implying and insinuating that I am working for or in any way related to Anthropic or that I wrote this article with Anthropic's direction. I am in NO way related or affiliated with Anthropic. I wrote this article because, as I already said previously here, there are currently two AI Alignment techniques that are used to align frontier LLMs: RLHF and CAI. I noticed a fact that there exist an article on only one of them, while the other technique is left unshown, I decided to change that fact, as I believe it is obviously notable enough and important enough in the AI Alignment subfield to be allowed to have its own article. That is it. No malice or foul play here.
-
And if you do want to accuse me of such foul-play please, provide at least some evidence that I have at least tangible or even circumstantial connection to that company or anyone who has ever worked there. I assure you you will provide none, I am more than certain of that, as certain as a man can be that you wont be able to do it because there is none. There is no malice here. It is just an important development in AI alignment methods that warranted its own article for that. That is it. I am not an Anthropic employee or contractor or PR manager or marketer. Just a person that is interested in AI safety and noticed a flaw and decided to change it. I have no other idea how can I prove that I am not affiliated with them or that I have no ill-intent behind my article. I just wanted to fill the gap that I saw in Wikipedia in the area that I am into, that's it. Luroe ( talk) 14:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Luroe: please do not have multiple bold !votes in a single discussion. You already voted keep above, so I'd suggest debolding and striking out this second one. Comment as you like, within reason, but just a single !vote; see WP:AFDFORMAT for the general guidelines. Thanks. Skynxnex ( talk) 21:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is just promotion by Anthropic, the idea hasn't caught on outside the company. Tercer ( talk) 12:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    First of all, can you provide any evidence that it is just a promotion by Anthropic and not something else? That is a very strong and serious assumption, and I believe that such strong assumptions and accusations must be followed by at least some evidence backing them.
    Like i said previously in this thread before, I DO NOT work for Antropic's PR team! NOT affiliated with them in any kind, have not met a single Anthropic employee in my entire life and have absolutely no, even circumstantial relation to them in any single way except maybe by being interested in the AI safety subfield of science as well. I made this article because as I said previously in this thread I have noticed that there exists a gap in the Wikipedia's list of AI alignment methods and decided to fill it. That is it, no foul play or any hidden agenda. That's it. I genuinely don't know how else I can prove that I don't work for Anthropic and that I really wrote this article because I really do believe that such an important and notable advancement should have its own, even if short, article. That I truly did it because I honestly thought that such a notable, at least in the AI safety sphere, method deserved its own article, and not out of some hidden commercial malicious intent.
    -
    Secondly, as I already mentioned in my previous reply in this thread, the idea of an AI Constitution have caught outside the company, especially considering the fact that it existed in its rudimentary and experimental form in Google DeepMind's Sparrow and now also exist in OpenAI's GPT model in the form of RBRM.
    -
    And thirdly, it doesn't have to catch on outside the company to be deemed notable enough to allow the existence of its own article. As I already shown before with the amount of sources there is enough notability for such an article to exist. That is an arbitrary requirement. Luroe ( talk) 15:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete PR dressed up with a spurious footnote to Asimov is still PR. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    How is it PR? It's a working and notable AI Alignment method as proven by the number of secondary reliable sources and the fact that it has been used by DeepMind and OpenAI. It definitely deserves its own article.
    As I have previously stated here multiple times before, I am in no way related or working with the direction of Anthropic. I am an unrelated party that just noted the absence of this obviously quite a notable technique on Wikipedia and decided to change that fact, i had no intention of marketing something and you can see it in the article itself if you read it. The article itself is simply a description of what that method is, how it works, what problems and critiques it has, along with background. The core content of the article provides a neutral, factual overview of an emerging AI technique of Constitutional AI, all based on reliable sources. How is it necessarily PR? Is it PR because it describes a concept/method that is clearly notable and an important development in the sphere of AI safety? How exactly can I make it not PR? Not to write about it? But it's clearly notable enough to allow its existence on Wikipedia, and, in my personal opinion, notable enough not only to allow its existence on wikipedia, but to warrant it.
    The reference to Asimovs three laws of robotics that are present in the background section are there to demonstrate that the concept of encoding principles into AI systems does have historical precedents and did not just originate from Anthropic. This is done to put the Constitutional AI method in the broader context of the field of AI safety research. The goal of the page was never promote Anthropic itself, but to document the academic concept and current research around Constitutional AI. The technique has received substantive coverage for its technical merits, not just PR. Luroe ( talk) 07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's not a good idea to reply to every 'Delete' comment, especially if you are repeating arguments you made previously. See WP:BLUDGEON. HenryMP02 ( talk) 02:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning delete. This reminds me of the Tesla "Master Plan" article. While it has some substance (reinforcement learning using LLM feedback rather than human feedback) I'm not convinced it needs its own article, or that it should be presented as an Anthropic invention rather than a generic concept. DFlhb ( talk) 08:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Anthropic. This article is clearly promotional to be honest, the arXiv ref it overly relies on seems WP:PRIMARY and is not considered a WP:RS anyway. Many of the other articles do not even refer to the subject, they discuss "Constitutional AI" instead which is basically a marketing term for the company. However some of the material and refs can still be salvaged to improve the company's article, which is the more appropriate place for this to be covered at present. - Indefensible ( talk) 05:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, remove promotional tone: Certainly seems to meet WP:GNG:

Source assessment table: prepared by User:HenryMP02
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback No Paper written by Anthropic ✘ No
Anthropic thinks ‘constitutional AI’ is the best way to train models Yes Article by tech journalist; he doesn't appear to be affiliated with the company ~ TechCrunch; See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#TechCrunch. Yes Whole article is about the topic ~ Partial
How Anthropic Is Teaching AI the Difference Between Right and Wrong No Author uses "content marketing... to raise revenue for Marketing AI Institute" ✘ No
AI startup Anthropic wants to write a new constitution for safe AI Yes Independent reporter Yes The Verge; Green at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Verge Yes Partially about the company, but covers the topic in detail ✔ Yes
Claude's Constitution No Anthropic ✘ No
Inside the White-Hot Center of A.I. Doomerism Yes Independent reporter Yes New York Times Yes Several paragraphs about the topic ✔ Yes
Latest Generative AI Boldly Labeled As Constitutional AI Such As Claude By Anthropic Has Heart In The Right Place, Says AI Ethics And AI Law ~ Forbes "contributor", appears to be independent. Edit: "AI Consultant", hmm... No Forbes Third-party "contributor", questionable oversight Yes Most of the article is about the topic ✘ No
AI gains “values” with Anthropic’s new Constitutional AI chatbot approach Yes Reporter who appears to be independent Yes Ars Technica; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Ars Technica Yes Article is about the topic ✔ Yes
A Radical Plan to Make AI Good, Not Evil Yes Independent writer Yes Wired; see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wired Yes Article is about the topic ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Stopped after the 9th source, when it seemed clear to me that the subject is notable. However, the article does seem like it written like an advertisement. This promotional tone should be fixed. HenryMP02 ( talk) 02:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I think a problem with your assessment is that not a single reference you evaluated as meeting actually specifically calls out the subject by name, they are discussing "Constitutional AI" but not "AI constitution" which are seemingly related but different subjects. "Constitutional AI" is just a marketing term for Anthropic. None of these sources actually cover "AI constitution" which is what the article is supposed to be for. - Indefensible ( talk) 05:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, both names refer to the same topic. HenryMP02 ( talk) 06:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Hurricane Hilary (2023)#In popular culture. There is a clear consensus that this is not an acceptable topic on its own, and the most suggested redirect target is this one. Whether anything else needs to be merged, and if so what and where, can be discussed further as an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Ojai earthquake

2023 Ojai earthquake (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event. There's no encyclopedic value with these types of earthquakes. Feel free to create something on WikiNews. Dawnseeker2000 00:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: can we consider this an ongoing event and wait for a couple days more? -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 01:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Place on hold for a few days, maybe a couple of weeks. Can't hurt to put on hold. The larger quakes that happen, are often preceded by one or more smaller quakes that seem harmless. — Maile ( talk) 03:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Close: This just happened. Wait until the buzz dies down and revaluate. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 03:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No deep or lasting coverage, no significant impact. California gets shaken a lot most earthquakes there have minimal to negligible consequences. This is one of those events. Dora the Axe-plorer ( explore) 11:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Draft until we can evaluate if further events will happen. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Hurricane Hilary (2023) as a trivia statement. Hear me out. Coming from someone who lives very close to the epicenter. There were no damages as significant as the tropical storm. Earthquakes happen fairly often here. It is only notable that this is the largest one to hit Ventura County in 80 years. However, it is quite rare to see an earthquake the same time as a hurricane. Thus we can include a trivial blurb "On August 20, at 2:41 PDT, a 5.1 magnitude earthquake also hit Ojai, California. This was the largest earthquake to strike the Ventura County region since 1941." Conyo14 ( talk) 15:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Into Hurricane Hilary (2023) per above. 2610:130:109:252:114A:26AF:7232:745A ( talk) 16:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and place a small section in Hurricane Hilary (2023) as above. CrazyC83 ( talk) 22:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2023#August as appropriate, so someone later on isn't confused about why an earthquake is redirecting to a tropical storm article; appropriate mention in the list-of's earthquake notes (and in the TS's article itself) should clear that up. Nate • ( chatter) 16:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Our lists of earthquakes are no longer dumping grounds for unwanted content so the article is not listed there and won't be in the future. These lists now abide by strict inclusion criteria. Dawnseeker2000 16:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not asking for a full section or article on it, just a mention on the page and redirecting it to there. It should at the very least merit mention. Nate • ( chatter) 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    This event is not currently listed on that list because it does not align with that list's inclusion criteria. We should not redirect there because no content exists; there is nothing there for any potential readers. Dawnseeker2000 20:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please do not bludgeon your rationale; I'm suggesting a proper course of action, and we rarely say 'Wikinews and that's it' any longer as time has gone on. And contrary to what seems to be a small group of WP:QUAKE editors, anyone can add an appropriate mention of an event to the page and defend their addition; articles are not fiefdoms and should never be that. It's a unique circumstance that at least deserves note somewhere, and I see no finite 'criteria' about which we mention in list of articles. Nate • ( chatter) 00:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    This isn't the Wikipedia of 2005. It's grown, as has its editors. Our lists of earthquakes used to contain all sorts of meaningless events because people thought that that was what Wikipedia was for. It is not. We discriminate, and that's what's happened to our lists. They've become more refined and are not dumping grounds for deleted articles. That's exactly what used to be done until some of us put a stop to it. We're not going to go backwards here.
    This article may very well be directed to the Hilary article, and that's fine, but for the people who wanted this to be something more that it is, I challenge you to write something that's worth writing about. Writing about hurriquakes is literally kids stuff. It has no encyclopedic value. People just say "oh" and move on. No one is going to learn anything useful from it. That's why I put it up for deletion. Dawnseeker2000 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge — Well…My idea looks to have been ignored. Noting that I was the user who challenged the original PROD. I noted in the PROD challenge that the topic is notable (high media attention for an earthquake). That said, I also stated that a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion, should probably take place, since it probably isn’t notable enough for a stand-alone article. But nonetheless, looks like a 2nd deletion attempt was started. So I am absolutely strongly opposed to deletion, as I could probably pull 50+ WP:RS articles for this earthquake, but I am strongly supporting a merge into Hurricane Hilary (2023), which already has a stand-alone article & is the reason for the high-notability (The term “Hurriquake” ( [90]) came about because of this earthquake and hurricane). The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please don't use TV stations and newspaper articles as the basis for writing an earthquake article on the encyclopedia. That's fine on wikinews. Dawnseeker2000 20:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's not "the basis" necessarily but the level of media coverage certainly matters and it has been pretty significant here Paradox society 22:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    ??? Most articles, especially natural disaster articles, have a lot of media sources (i.e. TV stations and newspaper style). For example, Hurricane Ian has a ton of media sources. If you want to talk about earthquake articles in general, then I point you to 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake, which has 610 sources, with easily 90% of those being reliable secondary sources, which are required on Wikipedia. Like, literally a policy. So, yeah, you might want to double check WP:RS, because it is necessary to have reliable secondary sources to help prove notability. If you want academic sources/government sources for everything, then you won’t be able to have most natural disaster style articles on Wikipedia, especially ones in recent/modern history. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    If all you've got are newspaper and TV stations as sources, then yes, you should really think again if it's truly an encyclopedia article that you should be focused on. This topic is screaming wikinews. Dawnseeker2000 22:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Um. I’ll be honest. What you just said would mean 2023 Hawaii wildfires shouldn’t be a Wikipedia article and should be purely Wikinews. I mention that because every source on it is trivial government (i.e. basic X acres burned and X injured/missing/deaths) and media-based reliable sources. A quick skim of the 175 sources doesn’t show a single academic publication source. Note, this article is a High Importance for 4 different WikiProject, and has easily thousands of media publications about the topic. If I understand your ideology, if newspapers and TV stations are the only sources used in an article, it means it is not qualified for Wikipedia, even if it would 100% survive an AfD discussion (conclusion could include keep/merge)? The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Any proper and neutral source works to source this event, and we don't screen out certain sources just because they aren't an inaccessible periodical. It's like saying I Love Lucy should be deleted because it was a television series sourced by sources in its own medium. Nate • ( chatter) 00:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There are many types of articles on this encyclopedia alright? Let's call them spaces. The earthquake space is one where you don't really see successful articles that are based on TV stations and newspapers. That obviously does not hold true in other spaces, OK? I work primarily in the earthquake space and this whole argument to keep this flimsy article based on this hurriquake idea reeks of desperation. And now, we see that The Weather Event Writer is very much vindictive as he has nominated a very much notable earthquake article for deletion. So sir, you tell me who's confused. Dawnseeker2000 01:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Just gonna mention that I didn't even see your contest to the AFD, but a merge to Hurricane Hilary (2023) feels so much better than a stand-alone article here. I already !voted, just restating my opinion. Also a note to the nom that articles are created based on two primary reasons: WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Notable newsworthy events deserve their place on Wikipedia. This earthquake just happened to coincide with a much more notable hurricane. While I do feel this earthquake is notable for being the largest in Ventura County in 82 years, I feel it's more trivial, and probably doesn't make it overall notable. No damages were immediately reported since a tropical storm tends to cover all of a/multiple states and the damage costs would simply be included in the hurricane costs anyways. Conyo14 ( talk) 04:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - passes WP:SIGCOV, the combined event was unique enough to merit its own article. Since nomination, I've added some new sources and a bit more text. Paradox society 20:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Maybe on wikinews. Dawnseeker2000 20:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I appreciate your perspective, but it seems that there isn't any clear "official" policy or guideline around earthquake notability. I also appreciate the points made in the essay you directed me to on our other thread, but I strongly believe that this quake, and the way it will be remembered culturally (a new word was coined specifically for this quake and that word was noticed and even publicly acknowledged immediately by Merriam-Webster) merits an exception to the proposed criteria set forth in the essay. Additionally, screening this quake through the essay's criteria does not seem to explicitly rule out its notability, at least in the essay's current form. Paradox society 22:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sounds a bit desperate to claim that this topic needs an encyclopedia article. Dawnseeker2000 22:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Desperate? I'm not particularly emotionally invested in whether the article ends up getting deleted. Just stating my case. Paradox society 02:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Hurricane Hilary (2023)#In popular culture. The article at its current state can fit into that section, and plus, most of the sources in the article are around the term "hurriquake", which is why we have that section in Hurricane Hilary for it. Tails Wx ( they/them) ⚧ 04:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Meets WP:N at this time. For the time being, a merge is an editorial decision, and not a true WP:ATD here. I'm fine with a merge in concept, but it shouldn't be the prescribed outcome of the AFD. — siro χ o 06:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Minor earthquake without lasting impact or coverage. WP:NOTNEWS. Tercer ( talk) 12:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete / Redirect to Hurricane Hilary (2023)#In popular culture. The earthquake caused no injuries and little damage, and in isolation was not a noteworthy event. The notability of the quake comes through the meme briefly popularized due to the coincidental timing of Hurricane Hilary and the quake, which, as noted above, there is an In popular culture section in that article. Pertinent information not already there can easily be transferred. Drdpw ( talk) 00:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_22&oldid=1172929845"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 21 August 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Guttman Community College. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Stella and Charles Guttman Foundation

Stella and Charles Guttman Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find evidence this foundation meets N:ORG. This piece from the Times about the new community college is GNG/ORG level coverage, but it's mostly about the school, not the Foundation. The rest in the article and found online is press releases announcing their gifts. They're an active Foundation, but do not appear to be notable. I don't think a redirect to Guttman Community College is particularly helpful to the reader, but not against it as an ATD. The article has existed for about ten years so think it merits more than BLAR. Star Mississippi 21:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to Guttman Community College?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. This could be a No consensus but most of those advocating Keep are Weak Keeps and those arguing for Deletion make legitimate arguments that this brief article isn't suitable for the project. No penalty on a future article if this individual ever does something truly notable. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Nagendra Rai

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

Maybe pass WP:SIGCOV, but he is mainly notable because he is the nephew of Bihar's former Chief Minister, Lalu Prasad Yadav. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The phrase "nephew of Lalu Prasadh Yadav" can be found in almost every source's title. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 18:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep, examination of the sources in the article demonstrates SIGCOV well beyond relationships. There are multiple events with SIGCOV. This not BLP1E and it doesn't fall afoul of WP:CRIME, because they are known for multiple criminal events, not just one. There may still be BLP issues to clean up. — siro χ o 21:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, though sources are not sufficient, yet it is a notable topic.- Admantine123 ( talk) 18:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG. This is about yet one more run-of-the-mill criminal, whose sole claim to infamy are lame reports of his arrests and bookings. These are never enough as notability criteria: Otherwise, Wikipedia would be choking up with biographies of every criminal under the sun. Thankfully, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a criminology journal. And we certainly do not post up random information! Finally, it is telling that contributors to this AfD admit we dot have sufficient sources, yet they still assert this is a notable topic. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep - Seems to qualify WP:SIGCOV; I am not in favour of deletion! Ekdalian ( talk) 13:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; fails WP:CRIME, specifically in that the victim is not notable, and the motivation or execution of the crime was not unusual. ~ T P W 17:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If there was more than one editor advocating Keep, I'd close this as No consensus but this discussion has been relisted three times with limited participation and I have to close it as Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Renjilal Damodaran

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 11:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 11:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 12:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. An "important figure"? "Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? "Created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? His "work has become a significant monument? "No" to all, so he fails WP:NCREATIVE as well. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I can't find sourcing for this person. The assertion above that Criteria 3 is met, needs an explanation; what did this guy do to merit the "keep"? Oaktree b ( talk) 19:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well, ’this guy’ has directed 2 notable films and written one. See his Filmography please. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep as the Delete opinion is a Weak Delete, the article is no longer unsourced and we have at least two enthusiastic editors who can work on improving this article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Audrey Fildes

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced bio. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 09:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A basic internet search helps define WP:Notability. This actress has pages of search results for her acting work. I added her television work in the UK as well, one broadcast was from a live performance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky ( talk • contribs) 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 12:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete. Of the sources provided only one is usable for notability [1]. The others are simple mentions without commentary or databases. The level of work seen in her IMDb profile (nor the theatre work mentioned there) is not enough to presume notability in the absence of multiple independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in more detail than the ones we have. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep
Hoo boy. So, I found a lot of mentions of her. I'm thinking she does qualify for Wikipedia:NACTOR based on the number of productions.
The stage performances (none listed in the article) that I've found so far: Rodney Ackland's dramatization of Crime and Punishment; The Rivals; Ring Round the Moon; Noel Coward's Point Valaine; He Who Gets Slapped; Hamlet (1945); The Return of the Prodigal; A Trip to the Sourdough; The Relapse.
Mentions in Theatre Arts magazine in reviews of productions she was in:
-January 1945 (v 29, # 1, p 61) "Chanticleer Theatre" by Raymond Leader. Noted as part of Greta Douglas' troupe with Margaret Gordon, Peter Noble, Robert Marsden and Alan Adair. Also noted she was invited (whole troupe, actually) to play on Shaftesbury Ave.
-January 1946 (v 30, # 1, p 23) "English Spotlight: The Rivals" by Leslie Stokes. Mentioned as new actress.
-October 1946 (v 30, # 10, p 594) "Crime and Punishment". Mentioned as one of the "other actors in the large cast" of production of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.
-November 1946 (v 30, # 11, p 640) "Gieglud as Raskolnikoff" by James Reynolds. Mentioned as performance being ineffectual.
In Drama magazine:
-Summer 1950 (v 1, # 17, p 11) photograph for "Ring Round the Moon" with Paul Scofield.
In Variety:
- September 3, 1947 (v 167, # 13, p 117) Production of Noel Coward's "Point 'Valaine" at the Embassy theatre.
- October 1, 1947 (v 168, # 4, p 182) review of While I Live (misspelled as "While I Love")
- June 1, 1949 (v 74, # 12, p 259) review of Kind Hearts and Coronets.
In Films in Review:
- September 1950 (v 1, # 6, p 32) review with cast list of Kind Hearts and Coronets.
In Punch:
- July 10, 1946 (v 211, # 5506, p 37) review with cast list of stageplay of Crime and Punishment.
In Saturday Review:
- July 15, 1950 (v 33, # 28, p 30) review with cast list for Kind Hearts and Coronets.
In Ciné Revue
- August 26, 1976 (v 56, # 35, p 20) review of Kind Hearts and Coronets. (in French)
Playbills / cast lists:
- the listing of players in the 1946 London production of Rodney Ackland's dramatization of Crime and Punishment.
- United Artists pressbook for Kind Hearts and Coronets. (already listed in article as film)
-- Also in Photoplay from Jul-Dec 1950, p 199; The Film Daily from 1951, p 190; a copy of the screenplay with cast list from the production
- Showman's Trade Review of While I Live (already listed in article as film)
- listed as playing Consuela in "He Who Gets Slapped" in 1947, with plot description on page 199; a review on pages 219, 315-6; and a picture on page 281.
- a review of "The Relapse" (and the cast list).
-- a second on this production, and cast list, with a photograph
- in Claire Bloom's autobiography: 1, 2 productions (I'm not logged in on IA, atm, so I don't have the play names, sorry).
- cast listing for "Ring Round the Moon"
-- Also in the Christopher Fry Album
-- A copy of the stageplay with the cast list from the production.
- cast list for The Rivals and for Ring Round the Moon.
-- Also a picture for The Rivals, and notes on the September 25, 1945 production.
- as Ophelia in Hamlet.
- photograph with John Gielgud in The Return of the Prodigal; review of A Trip to the Sourdough.
- cast list for Coward's Point Valaine.
- - - - -
This isn't even close to everything that came up in the search, just what I've looked at.
- - - - -
I also found a one line mention about a " Four Seasons Ltd", which was apparently a theatre troupe she was part of at the Duchess Theatre in London.
Getty Images OIM20 ( talk) 03:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm thinking she does qualify for Wikipedia:NACTOR based on the number of productions. WP:NACTOR#1 says The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions (emphasis mine). I agree she has had multiple roles. How many were significant roles in notable productions? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Characters she played on stage from the cast lists linked above:
Sure, but was it a notable production? Just because the play itself is notable doesn't mean every production of it is notable? Your high school could put on a production of the same play and that (very likely) is not notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Well Point Valaine obviously is a notable production (the London premiere), but are you actually suggesting that performing on London's West End is equivalent to a high school production?
I'm not being facetious; I'm new to AfD and I thought providing a response on a relisted discussion would be more helpful than one that others are more likely paying attention to. So I'm actually asking. How notable does it need to be for it to be relevant?
From what I've read, the burden is on the person wanting to keep the article to prove significance, so if I'm to do that, I need to know what the determining factors are.
Also, should I be providing a detailed analysis of each link? I thought a summary would be fine b/c that's how I noticed it was done elsewhere. Is the burden higher on relisted discussions? OIM20 ( talk) 13:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
You should check out WP:NFILM for notability for films, etc. Actors gonna act... that doesn't mean they are notable. This is why we have WP:NACTOR. Start with that and NFILM to start gaining an understanding. As for relisted discussions, that just means no conclusion has yet been reached, and the closer doesn't see a need for an immediate ending; no additional burden is levied. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks! Can I assume that "film" can be replaced with "stageplay" for most of that, or is there something separate for stage performances?
_________________
@ Dusti, @ Liz - Since I need to prove that the performances themselves were significant despite the fact she played on London's West End, can I have a couple of days to go through the rest of the 260 returns on Internet Archive to determine how many are movie reviews, how many are play reviews, and then where, when, and how significant each stage performance was? I don't know that I can finish that by the 30th when this is set to close.
If the above is any indication, there's a good mix, and a lot of the references will be for the same performances.
(And I do know that at least one is actually a film that's on IA's servers. So there may be others that are similar content and not useful for showing she should remain due to Wikipedia:NACTOR.) OIM20 ( talk) 17:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
OIM20, please stop. AFDs are a forum for presenting arguments for a particular outcome for an article, typically based in Wikipedia policy regarding notability and sources that suport claims of notability. It's not the location for presenting article content so do not list every role this actor ever had. It will not convince other editors to suport your position which is usually how deletion discussions are determined. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Oh. Okay. OIM20 ( talk) 03:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Sorry - inadvertently left out He Who Gets Slapped: Consuelo. Wikipedia page on the play - main role. It's in the fifth paragraph of this section that one of her performances of the play is discussed, but not the one in 1947 I linked to information on above. OIM20 ( talk) 13:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it is now. It was a long time ago, but notable. Johnbod ( talk) 03:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Watsonville, California#Culture. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds

Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These fairgrounds don't seem to have any reason for an article entry. Information could likely just be included in the city or county's page, which even then would seemingly amount to "The city also has a fairgrounds".

A separate article could potentially be made for the Santa Cruz County Fair - though this also seems like it would best be included in the greater Santa Cruz, California article. A MINOTAUR ( talk) 23:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Aras Baskauskas

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

Notable for winning just Survivor: Panama. Not notable for every other activities he did, like releasing just one album, operating one clothing brand, and reappearing in Survivor: Blood vs. Water with his bro. WP:PAGEDECIDE should apply if neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E does. Must be redirected to Survivor: Panama (alternatively, list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants if more suitable) George Ho ( talk) 23:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Don't oppose the other redirect option, too. Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Nathaniel Lamptey

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

Despite playing at U17 level for Ghana, as far as I can tell, Lamptey never made a single professional appearance in his whole career and I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC nor any reason to ignore the guidelines in Lamptey's case. The best that I can find are Modern Ghana and Ghana Web 1, that mention him once in passing. Other than that, I found a basic transfer announcement at Ghana Web 2, about him initially signing for Karlsruher but transfer announcements like this one are rarely considered to be sufficient. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Tines

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine coverage, PR, monies raised. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. scope_creep Talk 22:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Ireland. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a promotional piece. WP:NOTPROMO — siro χ o 23:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Would appreciate any feedback on how to make it less promotional while highlighting the aspects that make this company notable. Salsakesh ( talk) 18:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No demonstration of notability as this fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've gone back and added further references, could you take a look? Salsakesh ( talk) 18:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Quantity of references was not the issue. Quality of the references is. There needs to be at least three references that have all three of these qualities: reliable, independent of the topic, and significant coverage of the topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Which of these do you feel is not being met? I strive to include only reliable sources in all articles I write, including this one. Most of the sources included provide significant coverage of the topic. Independence can be somewhat subjective, but I would consider sources such as The Times of London, Irish Times, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, WIRED magazine, Security Week, etct to be independent sources. Salsakesh ( talk) 19:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is a notable Irish tech company in the no-code space with many WP:RS references and coverage. Salsakesh ( talk) 00:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • 'Comment I will go through the references later. scope_creep Talk 07:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Spleodrach ( talk) 13:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and edit In addition to the many tech industry sources like this one from VentureBeat (plus the TechCrunch links about their funding rounds), there is this piece by The Irish Times that definitely counts as significant coverage, there is this piece by The Times. Those are both real newspapers not tech industry publications. The article needs significant editing to be less promotional, but there are sufficient sources for meeting the core guidelines of WP:CORP. Steven Walling •  talk 01:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
None of those are independent. The Times fail WP:SIRS. They are not idependent of the company. The Irish Times is also not independent. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH i.e. the "monies raised" clause. Its using company stats. The Venture beat article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH monies raises. Techcrunch is junk ref. Non-rs. There is a reason why these kinds of generic reference no longer are considered value, because they areso generic. WP:NCORP was rewritten in 2017-2018 by Tony Ballioni and that group specifically to remove these type of generic references. scope_creep Talk 07:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Your reply is extremely bizarre, verging on outright lying, unless you really don't know anything about these sources. The Times and The Irish Times are fully independent news organizations with an editorial staff that produce daily newspapers. They are not trade industry publications or press release factories. The Irish Times is the newspaper of record for Ireland, where the subject of the article is based. The Times is specifically listed as reliable in our list of perennial sources, as is VentureBeat, when covering businesses and technology. Steven Walling •  talk 16:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I do 6 or 8 of these Afd's every week particularly on non-notable companies and startups. I've done thousands of them over the last decade and a half. It is yourself that doesn't know what he is talking about. While the papers are indeed listed in the WP:RSP, they take the advertising dollar as much as any other newspaper. Looking at the Time ref. It states "Hinchy describes the experience as “stressful” but it’s one that set the ball rolling for Tines software. “It really helped shape a lot of what we are building in Tines today,” he says. We are allowing... " It goes on. That is an interview with the company founder. He paid the Times to do a piece on him, and the company to build his brand. It is called PR. WP:SIRS specifically precludes these types of references, because it is not independent from the company. It can't used to prove notability. What is worse is that your a WMF product manager and administrator on this wikipedia and yet you do not understand current Wikipedia policy around organisations particularly WP:NCORP. If you keep this up, you will get taken to WP:ANI because your espousing false consensus. This is the 2nd time I've seen you making statements at Afd that are patently false, that don't seem to show an clear understanding of WP:SECONDARY sourcing and what that actually means. The last time was about month ago. I'm going to look at your contribution at Afd over the next few days. scope_creep Talk 17:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
He paid the Times to do a piece on him, and the company to build his brand. It is called PR. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that major newspapers like The Times or The Irish Times publish articles in return for payments like a press release. That's quite simply a baseless conspiracy theory. The consensus view is that newspapers of record are typically some of the most reliable independent sources available, and the coverage here is significant in both cases. Steven Walling •  talk 01:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
[2], [3], [4]. scope_creep Talk 08:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
None of those links prove what you just said. One is an ad network, which everyone knows is how newspapers make money and is not the same thing as paid content. The other one is a press release agency. Many journalists get sent press releases every day, but the articles being used as sources here do not include material from any press release. None of those links show that two major newspapers wrote articles in return for payments, direct or indirect. Steven Walling •  talk 17:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is a four year old startup. Lets examine the references for the first block.
    Ref 1 [5] This is a non-rs and social media link.
    Ref 2 [6] Has several interview style paragraphs with photographs of the company.
    Ref 3 [7]] Archived at [8] This is an interview with the founder. It is not independent from the business failing WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS SIRS states to establish notability sources must be both Independent and WP:SECONDARY and that each source must be evaluated independently.
    Ref 4 [9] Another interview that predominantely discusses funding failing both WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
    Ref 5 [10] Profiele style segment in a overall much large article. It discusses comment in the context of no-code development from Hinchy again. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent of the company.
    Ref 6 [11] Another interview. Monies raised. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent as its an interview with the founder and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
    Ref 7 [12] Its an interview. Fails WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND
    Ref 8 [13] Monies raised. From a press-release. Names as a unicorn. Fails WP:SIRS
    Ref 9 [14] Written by Hinchy himself. Fails WP:SIRS
    Ref 10 [15] Conference paper. Describes a model no-code security architeture with the information take from [16] Fails WP:SIRS
    Ref 11 [17] Monies raised. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial coverage.
    Ref 12 [18] "Your security game plan is only as good as the information you have to work with" says Hinchy. Trade journal. This is not independent.
    Ref 13 [19] Behind a paywall. There is an image of both the founders present which suggests its an interview.
    Ref 14 [20] An X of Y article. Profile. Fails WP:SIRS as its not in-depth.

This is a four year old company who have been described as a unicorn. As its a company growing fast it has a large advertising budget. Branding and advertising are a standard way to build your company. But neither advertising nor growth are factors in notability. Only coverage that passes WP:SIRS and there is not a single reference here that passes that criteria. All the information about this company, comes from the company. None of it WP:SECONDARY. It fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND scope_creep Talk 08:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

— A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - sources identified by Steven Walling in this discussion appear to be the type of promotional sources that the WP:NCORP guideline seeks to address, as discussed at WP:ORGCRIT:
Beccaynr ( talk) 05:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Simpich Character Dolls

Simpich Character Dolls (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've done my own WP:BEFORE and the most substantial coverage I can find is this. I'm not seeing enough sources that would qualify under WP:NCORP. There's some further context at User talk:Clovermoss#Question from Simpich2 (03:02, 29 July 2023). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep Some of the text looked a little promotional, but that's easily fixed. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a WP:BEFORE suggests that the company, people involved with it and the dolls themselves are notable. The last source listed above (The Advocate) is excellent. This source is not bad [24] There's a lot of information in print, we can find some of it via TWL: [25] [26]. There's other verifiable information we can use that is not as in-depth, such as [27]. There's some travel guides with info on the company itself, would have to investigate the independence [28] [29]. The article as it stands is WP:IMPERFECT but not promotional, overall it complies with our WP:PAG and does not warrant deletion. — siro χ o 00:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks everyone for finding the significant coverage I was looking for. I really wasn't able to find anything but the one source myself so I appreciate the extra eyes that were able to. Liz, does it matter if even I agree with the !keep voters at this point? Ideally I'd like their before process so I can get tips on finding what I missed, but I can query that later. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Memphis Villarreal

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

A driver and crew chief with one appearance for each, in the third tier of NASCAR, so certainly no pass in WP:NMOTORSPORT. Failure of WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RELIABLE sources. Anything I could find in my WP:BEFORE is just WP:ROUTINE. Best case scenario this is several years WP:TOOSOON. IceBergYYC ( talk) 21:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sadanandan Rangorath

AfDs for this article:
Sadanandan Rangorath (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 11:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 11:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 11:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. Invocations of WP:NCREATIVE are erroneous: An "important figure"? "Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? "Created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? His "work has become a significant monument? "No" to all. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could have been closed as no consensus but I figure another week is okay to see if we at least get a little more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is against a standalone page, and title is an implausible search term. I can provide a userspace/draftspace copy to anyone who wishes to develop content toward a merger. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Fox Kids (Australia)

Fox Kids (Australia) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2015, and no indication that it meets WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no usable results either. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 08:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Actualcpscm, I tried to add more references to the article, and I also listed it on WP:RFU last week. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 20:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Anamaria Gorea

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

My searches did not turn up any evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best sources found were Prosport and Népújság, both of which are just squad list mentions. I also tried "Ana Maria Gorea", which didn't help much. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G3 Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Matthew James Stephenson

Matthew James Stephenson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biographical article has -zero- independent, reliable sources. All the sources are either written by the subject, trivial mentions (speakers lists, inclusion in indiscriminate databases), or a couple of IMDB listings for nonnotable films. I've done some looking and haven't found any better sourcing for this individual. There are some others with similar names that show up in searches, so keep an eye out for that. This doesn't meet either WP:GNG or any of the criteria in WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF and so should be deleted. I'll also note that this was created as a mainspace duplicate by a new editor (likely with WP:COI) who was having trouble navigating the AFC process. They have resisted all efforts to get this back into draft space, so here we are at AFD. MrOllie ( talk) 20:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Academic Citations: The article includes references to Matthew Stephenson's academic work, including articles on arXiv, his author identifier on INSPIRE, and his contribution to the field of quantum information. These references indicate that he has made significant contributions to his academic field and has been recognized by the academic community.
Medical Publications: The article mentions Matthew Stephenson's contribution to a medical case report published in the journal "Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery." This demonstrates his involvement in medical research and his contribution to the field of neurosurgery.
Educational Institutions: The article mentions his education at the University of Washington and Stanford University. These institutions are well-known and reputable, adding to his credibility and potential notability.
Differential Datalog Interpreter: The article highlights Matthew Stephenson's development of a "Differential Datalog Interpreter," which has been cited in multiple sources including the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System and Papers with Code. This indicates that his work has gained recognition beyond his own writing.
Former Childhood Actor: While the IMDB listings for his roles might be considered trivial by some, they still offer evidence of his involvement in the entertainment industry at actual roles integral to films with important actors like Cam Gigandet and Richard Jenkins. T
Speakers and Participants List: While some references are speakers lists from conferences, being included in such lists can demonstrate involvement and recognition within a specific field or community.
Lack of Alternatives: The claim suggests that the sources are the best available. If there are no better sources currently available, it might be reasonable to give some weight to the existing sources, especially when they span different areas of his life.
Avoiding Confusion: The claim acknowledges the possibility of confusion due to similar names. However, the article includes information specific to Matthew James Stephenson's medical and academic background, which can help differentiate him from individuals with similar names.
In conclusion, while there might be room for improvement in terms of additional independent sources, the existing references do provide a foundation for Matthew James Stephenson's notability as both a surgeon and an academic. The references span multiple aspects of his life, including his medical contributions, academic achievements, and involvement in the entertainment industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphenopetroclival ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) — Sphenopetroclival ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Again, not a single one of the cited sources meets the requirements of WP:GNG, and we'd need more than one such source to sustain an article. I'll also note here that the article creator, Sphenopetroclival, has been blocked for a bit after edit warring to remove the AFD tag from the article. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
First, merely having written papers doesn't make a person notable. Second, merely graduating from good schools doesn't make a person notable. Third, the ADS is just a database of papers, not a source that indicates that a paper has been influential. The same goes for "paperswithcode". I am reminded of a prior case where someone tried to use the ADS copy of an arXiv abstract as an "independent source from Harvard". XOR'easter ( talk) 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG no reliable independent sources and the "evidence of his involvement in the entertainment industry" is laughable. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no reliable sources, marginal notability, most likely a case of advertising oneself on the Wiki. W.G.J. ( talk) 21:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'd suggest Draftify if the page creator would agree to not preemptively moving it back to the main space. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
It already exists as a draft here Draft:Matthew James Stephenson. Theroadislong ( talk) 06:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Very low citation counts for a new doctorate adds up to no pass of WP:PROF, we have no other form of notability evident, most of this is either unreliably sourced (IMDB) or sourced only to the subject's own publications, and it is not even verifiable that the person who wrote the datalog paper, the person who wrote the adenoma paper, and the IMDB actor are the same person rather than different people with the same name. As for draftication, the kind of article for which that would be a good idea is one where the subject has a plausible case for notability or is notable but the article as written is far from acceptable in its writing or sourcing. This one is too far from notable for there to be any hope of getting an article from a draft, so draftification is a waste of time and a false hope. — David Eppstein ( talk) 12:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Update: After seeing evidence below that both the datalog and adenoma papers have been plagiarized my delete opinion only grows stronger. Delete the draft too. We should not host material that we have reason to believe is fabricated, even in draft space. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The authorship of the paper "A Differential Datalog Interpreter" for which he is supposedly known for is disputed (see, e.g, [30]). It appears that the article is an attempt at self-promotion, perhaps to bolster the position in this dispute. Mbs z ( talk) 13:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Wow! Good find. It's not just the titles, either. [31] and [32] have identical text. MrOllie ( talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Weird. See also [33]. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable under any academic criteria. Also --if the criteria @ Sphenopetroclival had were sufficient for notability, pretty much everyone with an MD or Phd would have their own wikipedia page. Mason ( talk) 13:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mathematical challenges

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

For most of this article's existence since its creation in 2006, it's been unsourced. Now (following an apparent copyvio of some encyclopedia.com article), it's sourced, but just barely. However, this isn't my main concern. Rather, I'm concerned that the article is quite unfocused and off-topic. It veers between math problems given in school, math competitions, and open conjectures, with no particular attention given to each. Since these topics are quite disparate and have little in common, I don't think there's any way to make this into a proper article, so I suggest deletion. However, I'd be open to replacing this article with a disambiguation page or setindex, or redirecting it somewhere. Duckmather ( talk) 19:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Duckmather ( talk) 19:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Unsourced, rambling essay that conflates various unrelated topics. Nothing could really be written about this subject without either violating WP:NOTDICT or duplicating the content of other articles. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Disambig, there are a number of notable mathematical challenges as linked in the article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Disambig (preferred, if possible) or Delete... the article is really quite disjointed. Not sure there's much saveable other than the list of challenges. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would anyone volunteer to turn this article into a disambiguation page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: it's too ambiguous a term for a disambiguation page. A mathematical "challenge" could be a competition, an unsolved problem or a solved problem. In other words, a mathematical challenge is maths. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non of the two references makes the case for the article. Cinadon 36 00:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗ plicit 23:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Tosh Masson

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NFOOT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. czar 03:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Rodney Stepp

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

Non-notable session musician. Once played in The Spinners backing band, but none of his primary projects seem to pass WP:NMUSIC. No independent sigcov to establish notability apart from that, just his own website and some blogposts. Jdcooper ( talk) 15:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm ( talk) 16:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - only one article detailing his recovery from COVID-19 is not enough to establish notability. Sgubaldo ( talk) 17:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. as I think a 3rd relisting would not bring forward any futher comments. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Kavana Sarma

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 14:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Khingz

AfDs for this article:
Khingz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Promotional piece showing some local fame. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. All we have are reviews of albums, some of them not even exclusively about our subject's creations. Nothing on Khingz that would support independent notability. Subject fails WP:GNG and, by a mile, WP:NCREATIVE. - The Gnome ( talk) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - does not meet the criteria of notability, per the comments made above. W.G.J. ( talk) 21:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Information fuzzy networks

Information fuzzy networks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced, but has two external links that may have been intended as references. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Notifications left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The title is wrong. It should be "info-fuzzy networks"; the longer name is something people say because they read about it on Wikipedia [37]. Either way, there doesn't seem to be much secondary literature, i.e., things not at least co-authored by the originators, Oded Maimon and Mark Last. Most of the existing text is opaque not-prose. The second external link, "A Comparative Study Of Artificial Neural Networks And Info Fuzzy Networks On Their Use In Software Testing", is a dead link that turns out to be a master's thesis [38] (generally not a great kind of source) supervised at least in part by Last (so, not independent). XOR'easter ( talk) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The page title can be changed if it's decided to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. czar 03:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

CM Elangovan

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

Per Wikipedia:NCREATIVE and WP:Too early, draftify till more films with articles release. DareshMohan ( talk) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Rule Result
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or No
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or No
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or No
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No
DareshMohan ( talk) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sign comments in deletion discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

JD Doyle

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. An overabundance of non- WP:IS leads me to lean on the NN side. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Ironically, whether or not this phenomenon is real or made-up is irrelevant when we are considering whether or not these beasts are notable. But the consensus here is that notability for these creatures can't be established according to Wikipedia standards. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Barbegazi

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

I (and previous editors as seen in Talk:Barbegazi) have reason to believe this is a piece of fakelore and not a genuine legendary creature. The Fantasy Encyclopedia cited in the original article does have 1 mention of this myth (I accessed it through the Internet Archive), but it seems to be the only mention I can find, with no sources cited.

Although it is possible to Google the term and see many articles on Wikia and blogs about them, as well as a children's book published in 2018, a model of mountain bike tyre, and another (semi-related, but not the same) creature from The Witcher series, I believe the creation of this Wikipedia article in 2005 has led to these other pages making content about this myth.

I can't find any mentions of the Alpine legendary creature "barbegazi" online in a historical context in reliable secondary sources that document folklore, or academic papers on mythology/folklore, in both English and French (from searching barbes glacées). I would appreciate help searching for this term in French sources as my French is limited.

This is what the Fantasy Encylopedia cited in the article writes about barbegazi, if you are not able to access it through archive.org: The barbegazi are dwarves who live in the Alps in France and Switzerland. Their name comes from the French barbes glacées which means "frozen beards". Their white fur clothes, as well as the icicles in their hair and beards, make them very difficult to see in the winter. In the summer they hibernate in caves and tunnels in the rocks and do not come out until the first snowfall. Their greatest excitement is surfing on avalanches, although they will give low whistling cries to warn humans of the danger and will do their best to dig humans out if they become trapped.

pinktoebeans (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I think source-wise, barbegazi are probably notable, as there are also entries in Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids in Myth, Legend and Folklore, published by McFarland & Company, which should be reliable, right? And Nuevo inventario de criaturas fantásticas, A natural history of the unnatural world : selected files from the archives of the Cryptozoological Society of London, The Dictionary of Mythology, the mentioned Fantasy Encylopedia, and more. It is curious, though, that so far there seems to be no source earlier that the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were, though. Daranios ( talk) 19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The book by McFarland and Co seems legit, has source citations under each entry. I'll revise my !vote. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
For ease of future reference, the sources given in McFarland and Co ( Conway's The Ancient Art of Faery Magick and Maberry's Vampire Universe) date from 2005 and 2006 respectively, so still don't predate the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep based on the sources given above. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. A number of secondary sources on the topic have been collected, establishing notability. Some of them predate our Wikipedia article from 2005 here, excluding WP:Citogenesis from that side. The doubts based on Talk:Barbegazi and the - so far - absence of any sources earlier than 1985 remain a problem. But we do have sources on the topic, and only educated guesses and no sources on the doubts. So what's to be done in such a case? The least bad solution I can think of is keeping the article, putting up a Template:Disputed, and documenting the doubts on the talk page, until sources substantiating (or alleviating) the doubts show up. Daranios ( talk) 15:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Great research, this seems like a fitting solution and I'm more than satisfied these are a notable concept. I'm interested to know if any editors with expertise in folklore/historical research are able to find sources older than 1985. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Daranios. Excellent research and impeccable logic, especially on doubts=OR note. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 18:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and add a disputed tag, per the sound reasoning of Daranios above. – Michael Aurel ( talk) 20:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete none of these fantasy bestiaries are reliable sources for folklore. The authors of Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were are by no means qualified and they admit to some invention in their introduction. This also could be the creation of comic book writers and illustrators Pierre Dubois or René Hausman as there is an appearance in La Grande Encyclopédie des lutins but can't find a copy online and don't see anything likely in Spirou "Grand fabulaire du petit peuple". fiveby( zero) 14:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • That could explain the appearance of the barbegazi with the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were. But then what about the Encyclopedia of Giants and Humanoids in Myth, Legend and Folklore by McFarland & Company, The Dictionary of Mythology and the Larousse Dictionary of World Folklore? Daranios ( talk) 15:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • None of those authors appear to have any relevant academic credentials, or provide any source or evidence which would validate this as folklore. I sure haven't seen anything trustworthy yet. fiveby( zero) 16:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've tried a Quebec newspaper search from 1920 to 1987, nothing turns up. [43], to be fair, I can only find mentions of term from 2013 forwards in this database. A Swiss newspaper search has nothing [44], nor a Swiss German language magazine [45]. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm almost thinking these things are made-up [46] is not a reliable source, but a Czech store that sells curios, saying they're an Inuit word... Inuits are in North America, nowhere near France or Switzerland. Made up for he book in 1985? Oaktree b ( talk) 20:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Reaffirming delete Having done some more searches, regardless of whether the myth is traditional folklore or not, I don't believe the current sources available are enough to warrant inclusion of barbegazi in Wikipedia. Michael Fitzgerald Page, the author of the Encyclopedia of Things That Never Were, is not a reliable source for folklore as he has no relevant credentials or history, much like the authors of the other encyclopedias. With regard to legitimacy of the myth (I know, WP:OR...), it may be worth noting other amateur folklorists have been unable to find sources pre-1985 as well (see [47] and [48]). Currently looking into finding Swiss/French sources, but haven't managed to find any mention of barbegazi in anything so far. pinktoebeans (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a recent invention, not a legendary creature. Reliable sources are lacking. There is a small entry for Barbegazi in Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology, but not enough to establish notability. I checked the cited sources in that book they are all modern. This has no real basis in folklore and it is not cited in academic or scholarly works on folklore or legends. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it seems likely that this was something that was invented that other authors included in compendia. In principle, this could make a fantasy beast notable if, for example, it gained traction beyond such lists. But if it is just a pro forma retelling of the same claim over and over again without any addition, we are not really in the realm of standalone inclusion here. Just too far out on the limb of WP:INUNIVERSE to be a reasonable argument for keeping an article. There are probably ways of including some information related to this on other pages. But that's a different question than the one posed here and I see no cogent argument for any merging, for example. jps ( talk) 13:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per ජපස. Seems to be something that someone made up and others repeated. – dlthewave ☎ 15:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Breakthrough Collaborative

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Oldman, Mark; Hamadeh, Samer (2003). "Breakthrough Collaborative (formerly Summerbridge National)". The Best 109 Internships (9 ed.). New York: The Princeton Review. pp.  54– 57. ISBN  0-375-76319-8. ISSN  1073-5801. Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "The Breakthrough Collaborative is a two- to three-year "Workshop in Education" for "talented students with limited educational opportunities" in the fourth through eighth grades. Nationwide, approximately 2,000 students participate in the Breakthrough Collaborative's two- to three-year program of six-week summer sessions, school-year tutorials, and year-round counseling. Having older students teach courses that prepare middle-school students for high school is not the Breakthrough Collaborative's only innovation—the school is also tuition-free. From 1978 to 1990, the Breakthrough Collaborative program was run in conjunction with San Francisco University High School only. Its success in preparing often economically and academically disadvantaged middle school students for the rigors of college-prep high school programs was so widely acclaimed that thirty new programs were established in the early 1990s, at schools in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Jose, CA; Denver, CO; New Haven, CT; Miami, FL; Atlanta, GA; Louisville, KY; New Orleans, LA; Cambridge and Concord, MA; Raleigh, NC; Manchester, NH; the Bronx and Locust Valley, NY; Cincinnati, OH; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, PA; Providence, RI; Fort Worth, Austin, and Houston, TX; Norfolk, VA; and Hong Kong. The thirty-six schools hire nearly 850 teachers every summer, employing an equal number of high school and college students."

    2. Delgado Gaitan, Concha (2013). Creating a College Culture for Latino Students: Successful Programs, Practices, and Strategies. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. pp.  72– 75. ISBN  978-1-4522-5770-9. Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: " Since 1978, the Breakthrough Collaborative (BC) is a national non-profit group that has changed the lives of more than 20,000 students in 33 locations across the country. Sixty-eight percent of the students qualify for free or reduced school lunch. The Collaborative accepts high-potential, low-income students who are the first in their family to attend college. Ninety-two percent of the BC students are students of color. Thirty-four percent speak English as a second language. And thirty-nine percent live in single-parent households. BC communicates with middle and high schools where BC students attend since they track students' academic performance and needs. The Collaborative has two main program groups-middle school students and the high school or college-aged teachers who instruct and mentor them. ... They attend two 6-week, academically intense summer sessions, year-round tutoring, and continuous college preparation and assistance."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Breakthrough Collaborative to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 08:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Michael Boxwell

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Ben Bodé

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Anton Berisha

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Literature, and Albania. UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep His life and career have been elaborated on by sources such as Robert Elsie, one of the most prominent Albanologists who is already cited in the article, and The Encyclopedia of Albanian Writers [49]. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 16:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per WP:NOTABILITY. He is a renowned Albanologist. – Βατο ( talk) 07:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Considering the above mentioned points, and after going through the sources, I am not in favour of deletion! Ekdalian ( talk) 13:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep given his importance for the local culture, importance as a scholar (even in a niche field), inclusion in an encyclopedia etc as mentioned above. -- hroest 18:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Searching Google Books finds an in-depth entry on him in Historical Dictionary of Kosova [50] which appears to be from a reputable publisher (and is referred to indirectly above by its author, Elsie). Together with the link already given by Ktrimi991 (which I verified to contain an in-depth entry on Berisha, although Google Books would not show me a preview of it) we have a clear pass of WP:GNG, better here than arguments based on his expertise or unsourced opinions of his importance. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I just want to mention that we see a lot of schools nominated for deletion (mostly through PRODs) and I don't think I've come across such a hotly contested discussion regarding one. But opinions are strong on both sides so I'm closing this as No consensus with thanks for the work done on this article during the period of discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Our Lady of Fatima Senior Secondary School, Aligarh

Our Lady of Fatima Senior Secondary School, Aligarh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a primary source provided. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 10:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, India, and Uttar Pradesh. — Karnataka talk 10:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. -- AlexandraAVX ( talk) 14:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • What's the reason to delete it when it's an existing and historical school in Aligarh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Atif Nazir ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 Aug 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Mainly a primary source, perhaps, but it seems to be an important school for Aligarh region, dating from 1961, which in Indian school terms is old. I suggest giving more time for people to include references and citations, particularly given most secondary sources in this part of the world are unlikely to be online. Also if the same criteria were used, how many schools would have to be deleted, see for example: /info/en/?search=Category:Welsh_school_stubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagmanst ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar ( talk) 23:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    While a few articles with similar issues existing is not reason to keep a page, when there are whole categories of western schools with similar issues, one does wonder what should be the appropriate level of notability (a subjective metric), and whether the same criteria should be applied uniformly to non-western schools. Nonetheless I found a media article from Aligarh that does show it is one of the top schools in the district, in terms of the number its students who are placed among the top 10 ranks in a district of 3.6 million+ people. That should help meet notability criteria in wikipedia space. (Though I personally was convinced on the balance of probabilities it was an important school in the real world from the primary sources, and wanted some leeway given to the article creators to find secondary sources). Jagmanst ( talk) 00:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    You are misrepresenting the source; it lists a handful of names and that's it. It does not show that this is one of the top schools in the district; just that the school itself reported that a half dozen of its students placed highly on a standardized test. One-liners do not constitute WP:SIGCOV, and neither do self-reported results, and whatever notability accrues to the students is not inherited by their school. Beyond that, the requirements and criteria of the WP:GNG pertain to all schools, whether they are in Massachusetts or Morbihan or Maharashtra. Ravenswing 12:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think you misunderstood the source. The source is reporting students who came in the top 10 rank in the board examinations for the entire district. The newspaper said they did not receive the scores directly from CBSE the examination board, but reached out to the schools in the district to provide them the data. Based on the data they received from all the schools in the district they published the list of top performing students in the district. The methodology to me seems perfectly legit, and I have no reason to doubt it.
    My point is that a large number of the students in the top 10 rank come from this school. This is evidence that it is leading school in the district.
    It is clear from my other searches that for people within this region, Aligarh, it is a famous school.
    Jagmanst ( talk) 12:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's exactly what I said: that the data came from the schools themselves. While I agree that doesn't mean that it's inaccurate, that makes it a primary source, and thus couldn't contribute to notability even if the article did provide significant coverage to the school, which of course it does not. Drawing conclusions from that list likewise has no place in an article. As to the clarity of your "other searches," if you have other sources, present them. Lacking any evidence of those sources, exactly what proof of your assertion did you find? Ravenswing 20:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The source is well known newspaper Amar Ujala. It is by definition a secondary source. It uses primary sources, i.e. data from the various schools, to make a report. That is what secondary sources do (hence the name). The article provided significant coverage to school by ascribing affiliations to the students on the list. Anyway I am convinced that on balance of probabilities this is important school for the people of Aligarh. I leave it to editorial community to decide what to do about the request for deletion. I have nothing further to add. Jagmanst ( talk) 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    In short, that was the only source you found; you found no others, and your conviction is based on zero actual evidence. Fair enough, so stipulated. Ravenswing 22:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    "That's exactly what I said: that the data came from the schools themselves. While I agree that doesn't mean that it's inaccurate, that makes it a primary source..."
    No it doesn't. The newspaper collected data from schools and made an analytical and editorial judgment about the date. That's the definition of a secondary source. Jahaza ( talk) 17:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Additional secondary sources have been added to article, including peer-reviewed articles and sociological studies of which the school was a subject. Jagmanst ( talk) 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (specifically, keep without prejudice against a second AfD in 3–6 months). Yes, other stuff exists is not a reason to keep an article, but Jagmanst raises a valid point that many Western secondary schools don't have any better sourcing than this—and further that the sources may exist but are not online—or are online but not in the Roman alphabet—which limits a monolingual en.wiki user's ability to search for them. At the least, I'd like to keep this article for a few more months to allow for further development. But if the community really feels that this article is not worthy of mainspace, then I'd request it be draftified to allow incubation. — C.Fred ( talk) 12:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    You do realise English is an official language of India? We don't give a free pass to articles in case sources may exist. LibStar ( talk) 12:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • WP:N guide does say "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.".
    Jagmanst ( talk) 04:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Provide evidence of sources then. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. I presume in the time spent commenting here you actually searched and found nothing. LibStar ( talk) 04:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged "- from your linked source. I.e. Linking WP is not an argument. Please try again.
    • As I have discussed on this page, there is sufficient evidence to believe this is an important school in this district. Not least given it is disproportionately represented in among the district rank holders.
    Jagmanst ( talk) 05:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Is that the best coverage you can find? It seems WP:ROUTINE at best and doesn't meet the requirements of WP:ORG. Translated from Hindi: CBSE has declared the results of class 10 and 12 exams. There is no toppers list released by CBSE. After the declaration of the result, the schools sent the list of their toppers. After which the top 10 names of the list of estimated toppers in Aligarh district have been revealed so far. LibStar ( talk) 05:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • You have failed to engage with the discussion. a) The school is located in area where sources are unlikely to be online. b) We have evidence the school is top performing. c) Putting links to a policy is not a discussion nor proves anything. These are guidelines, not mathematical algorithms, and need to be interpreted contextually and with common sense. I have nothing to add. Jagmanst ( talk) 05:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      "The school is located in area where sources are unlikely to be online". Why? Is there no internet available in Aligarh? You may provide evidence of offline sources like newspapers that are offline by stating the name of the paper, date of publication and page number. LibStar ( talk) 05:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Local news in India is predominantly non-online and in regional languages, as already explained.
      • I was not in involved in this article creation nor edited it before RfD, and I don't have access to local archives.
      • Editors should take this into account of time for the article to be updated, by those who have the resources, particularly since we have good reason to believe this is an important school. Jagmanst ( talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
        Being what you call "important" is not the same as notable in Wikipedia. LibStar ( talk) 05:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
        The guideline is pretty vague on what is'notable' actually- it says "worthy of notice". GNG is the recommended method, very broadly defined, to determin it. Jagmanst ( talk) 06:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ LibStar Can I get you on the record, then, both that you have done the WP:BEFORE searches and that you turned up nothing in the course of your searches for sources? — C.Fred ( talk) 13:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Correct. LibStar ( talk) 17:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per nom. There is no evidence that the subject meets the GNG, and we do not keep articles based on airy suppositions that somewhere, somehow, sources might exist; they must either be demonstrated to exist or an article cannot be sustained. That many Western secondary schools lack adequate sourcing is not an argument to keep this article, but a good reason to tag/PROD/AfD those other articles as well. (And with that, to suggest that online sources are tough to find for India, one of the most wired nations on earth with a vast English-language media, is curious.) Ravenswing 12:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Less than 7% of the population in UP speak English. To expect a large online English news coverage for this area is curious. Jagmanst ( talk) 18:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Uttar Pradesh is the most populous non-sovereign political entity in the world; just 7% of its population is equal to half the population of Canada, over twice the population of Ireland, a third of the population of the UK, two-thirds the population of Australia, and more people than all but three US states. To expect that it doesn't have significant English-language news coverage is curious.

    With that, we don't require that sources be in English. You're more than welcome to draw our attention to the non-English sources you've found. (You did find such sources providing significant coverage to this institution before advocating Keep, yes?) Ravenswing 11:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

    Local news, i.e. pertaining to state and districts is overwhelmingly in my understanding in regional languages and traditional non-online media. English media sources are typically national media, for which it isn't reasonable, imo, to expect coverage of school news, however, important the school may be to local communities. Jagmanst ( talk) 13:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The keep !voters are unable to provide evidence of multiple sources and significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. At best, is one article in Hindi which is a very routine report on student performance. I stand by my nomination. LibStar ( talk) 05:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The keep position is that there are strong reasons to believe this is a major school in the community it serves, the 3+ million people in the district of Aligarh. The school is is heavily represented among rank holders in the district. That 6 of the 22 highest performing students in this district in the year 10 examination came from this one school heavily suggests this is no ordinary school. While there are some online sources attesting its reputation and significance(for e.g this), the best sources are likely to be non-online archives of local media, hence some discretion should be used to allow more time for editors to improve the article before considering deletion. Jagmanst ( talk) 05:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    "School is likely important to the community it serves, the 3+ million people in the district of Aligarh" These are not criterion for notability. Many schools are important to their community but they don't necessarily warrant a Wikipedia article. LibStar ( talk) 06:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Ok re-written Jagmanst ( talk) 06:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    This article was created sixteen years ago. Especially since it should never have been created in the first place if the editor was not prepared to adequately source it, that is ample time and more than ample time for someone to step up and do so. For that matter, you have had time to do so. It is explicitly the responsibility of those editors who want to preserve information to come up with the sources to verify it, when challenged. You're the best judge of your own time, of course, but the only alternative to deletion is for those sources to be produced. Ravenswing 13:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." That the original editor did not do a satisfactory job is irrelevant. Th Jagmanst ( talk) 14:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Ravenswing, the article was perfectly within SNG for school at the time it was created. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools Graywalls ( talk) 18:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Last April, when a beloved bursar from this school passed away, a local news channel livestreamed the entire funeral.
    - This further undescores the importance and significance of this school to the community.
    - This is significant media coverage.
    - This is also indicative that there are likely more sources (which are difficult to extract for reasons already given).
    - Finally, notability criteria applies to the topic, not the content of the article, hence this reference does not need to be added to the article.

Jagmanst ( talk) 07:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Significant media coverage now referenced in the article:
Other significant media coverage not added to article:
Note:
"Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Jagmanst ( talk) 06:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: This article does not meet sourcing or coverage required under WP:NSCHOOL. Mostly passing mentions, related or trivia. The Banner  talk 11:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There are at least 6 media articles by major newspapers cited that are fully about this school. This is a school that frequently gets attention in national and local media. The funerals of its staff members get livestreamed by local media and receive coverage in major newspaper. Jagmanst ( talk) 15:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in view of the newspaper reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion and added to the referencing of the article that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per Libstar and Ravenswing's research (and argumentative ability). Though, weighing in for myself, half of the references seem to come from the school themselves, and the other half being passing mentions (WP:SIGCOV). I also see little reason that this school should be able to pass WP:NSCHOOL, just as those above me have determined. IncompA 04:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you list which sources you deem to be passing mentions. Since many of them to be fully about the school. Jagmanst ( talk) 05:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This article was created in 2007. Until February 2017, a high school was basically assumed notable under NSCHOOL SNG if it existed if the mere existence as a valid high school can be verified. This article predates the criteria change and it met the criteria. Whether to let it stay with notability criteria that was in place at the time of creation of to retroactively evaluate it under NCORP is something I don't have an answer to, but I would say keep for now until the community figures out how to handle high school articles created well before February 2017 but do not meet current GNG-NCORP based guidelines. Graywalls ( talk) 08:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources presented by Jagmanst appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist - we are almost entirely numerically tied (and within relist-bounds whether or not 1/2 poorly policy backed !votes are counted or not). Discussion has generally moved past community importance/existence of sources elswhere to sources now in the discussion and article, but there is a major disagreement as to whether the non-primary sources meet SIGCOV, or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 14:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete I'm not seeing coverage about the school itself, only about things it's been involved with or mentioned in articles about a different topic. I mean, the sources are reliable, but trivial coverage. I don't see this as being an important school, no more than any other high school in India. 64.16.24.247 ( talk) 15:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Argh, I posted that, but the vpn here at the office isn't playing nice today. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Even though WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is no longer enough for inherent notability, the fact still stands that most high schools are notable. So "being no more important than the average high school" is not a reason for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Some of the sources provided by Jagmanst (the coverage of the principal's funeral and COVID fees) seem to be independent, reliable sources of significant local coverage. The article's coverage of the school's historical importance needs better sourcing outside of primary sources. The article needs improvement, but as it has some good sources (particularly its use in academic studies), I believe the subject is notable. pinktoebeans (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

BTB Electric

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

Notability not established within article. Sources all appear to be press releases. — Trey Maturin™ 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - Can't find any reliable sources. Salsakesh ( talk) 22:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Question: Could someone with a reading knowledge of Vietnamese please have a look at the references? To me they mostly look reasonable but some might be press releases as nom said, and some might be promotional. Well-sourced for a short article, but the source independence is going to be the deciding factor. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Before I nominated this, I ran the sources through Google Translate, which is, obviously, not very good, but was enough to give the gist of the stories.
1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 appear to be press releases, paid-for articles or puff pieces. Very promotional language of the "strives to provide the best…" type of thing. Most of the text is repeated in the other 5 articles, and simply describes what the company does (or aims to do in future), which suggests a press release.
3 is a report on a trade show, with a single quote from a director of the company just listing the products they have brought to show. — Trey Maturin™ 15:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete based on the explanation above. I can't find sources for this business either. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Thanks for the clarification, agreed. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 17:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Vietnam and Turkey. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — The lack of any Turkish-language sourcing for a supposedly 40+ year Turkish company is quite telling IMO. In my search for BTB Electric or BTB Elektrik, I only found articles on the Bursa Commercial Exchange Market (Bursa Ticaret Borsası), and absolutely nothing on this company. The trwiki article was speedied 4 days ago based on notability. Given that the Vietnamese sources are promotional, there is no way that this company meets WP:NCORP, which is a guideline that sets the bar really high for for-profit entities. Styyx ( talk) 19:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Also another interesting note, I tried to read some news stories on their official website (eg. this) and the Turkish used here is anything but natural. I wouldn't believe the person writing this actually knows Turkish. Styyx ( talk) 19:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Not directly relevant to the delete discussion, but… yeah. The references to Turkey in the promotional articles used as sources came over as weird, gtranslate's weirdness notwithstanding. I wondered if this was a mistranslation of a place or term in the original language, although that would prove me wrong for how convinced I was/am that the article's creator has a CoI. — Trey Maturin™ 19:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Pikachu. To be honest, I'm not sure if this is the best target article but it was the only one identified by participants and I'm admittedly ignorant about the Pokemon universe. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Pichu

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

Article's receotion were filled with listicles and such. Zero WP:SIGCOV. A single usable source [51] doesn't help. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 13:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep no evidence of BEFORE asserted and nom admits one unquestionably usable source already in article. Odds of zero more? Pretty low. If not kept, should be merged into Pikachu, but I'm pretty sure there's enough coverage, given its proximity/relationship to the most popular/iconic Pokemon. Jclemens ( talk) 18:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Based on what? Do you assume every nomination that doesn't explicitly state a BEFORE search hasn't done one? Not sure there's any reason to jump to that conclusion without providing counter-evidence (sourcing) of your own first. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Of course I do. On what basis would you not? AGF expects us to presume that best practices have been followed, and if followed, documented. Do you want me to ABF and presume that a nom did a BEFORE and didn't follow best practices by posting the results? When a nominator fails to follow best practices, that itself is evidence for an outcome other than what they suggest. No editor is obligated to lift a finger to refute an assertion provided without evidence: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens. Jclemens ( talk) 03:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    You need to provide evidence that a BEFORE search wasn't done, not baselessly muse about it. Did you find other GNG-supporting sources or not? "Pretty sure there's enough coverage" doesn't cut it and you should know that by now. Sergecross73 msg me 11:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, but this is wrong as a matter of both policy and logic. "no evidence of BEFORE asserted" is a statement of fact: It's simply either true or disprovable. Calling neutral statements of fact casting aspersion is itself inappropriate behavior: address my arguments, don't accuse me of misconduct absent any misconduct. On a logical front, asking one editor to prove that another editor did not do something which leaves no on-wiki evidence is impossible and absurd. Contra your You need to provide evidence that a BEFORE search wasn't done I did not assert that no BEFORE had been done, rather that the nom had not asserted that one had. Sergecross73 feel free to retract and apologize for your posting, and once that's out of the way I will address your sourcing query. Jclemens ( talk) 06:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry, but the moment you opened your comment with the word "keep", it ceased to be a "neutral" comment. Feel free to keep trying to split hairs though, this line of reasoning hasn't persuaded a single person, nor has anyone provided a valid path to meeting the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep. While what's there isn't particularly strong, its sourcing isn't completely horrible. I would be unopposed to a merge if that's where the consensus leads, but I don't believe Pichu's sourcing state is so bad as to warrant a deletion.
I performed a search, though there isn't really too much beyond listicles such as these. While they can be used to buff the reception section a bit, there aren't too many sources beyond these that aren't already in the article.
I also found these two book sources, though they're relatively weak. I thought I'd bring them up just in case, regardless. I may have missed things though, so if anyone finds anything else semi useful, it can be added to the article or acknowledged via comment. Pokelego999 ( talk) 18:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Content farms make up the lion's share of coverage. The nomination contradicts itself by saying "zero SIGCOV" and then showing a piece of SIGCOV, and besides the Kotaku source mentioned above, there is also this profile of Pichu, but I still don't believe it fulfills the depth needed for GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep or Merge. The Kotaku article is good for GNG and the IGN profile article is at best partial. I feel there needs to be at least WP:THREE reliable, independent, secondary sources for this. The rest of the article is filler that could be merged with Pikachu. Conyo14 ( talk) 22:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per all. WP:BEFORE shows coverage that does not quite add up to WP:SIGCOV. But it's enough that this should be WP:PRESERVEd as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker ( talk) 01:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Into the related Pokemon list. While back tried to find sources with no luck of anything tangible. I thought at one point just how weak it was might've been a good angle to lean into, but it's not there. I definitely don't think Pikachu is a good merge target however.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. In spite of the claim of editors who will go unnamed, multiple users, including the nominator, conducted WP:BEFORE properly, and saying that it's okay to ABF because he didn't "follow the rules" is very silly. Regardless, after conducting multiple attempts to find any good sourcing, I was unable to come up with much at all. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 09:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Did I miss where the nom said somewhere a BEFORE was conducted? If so, please show me so I can apologize for my misstatement. Jclemens ( talk) 06:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - sourcing is weak and the source acknowledged in the nomination, while long, isn't particularly helpful in actually writing prose for a Wikipedia article. Complaints about not doing a BEFORE search are meritless without proof. Just one many many routine WP:POKEMON. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 ( talk) 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    That doesn't make any sense. The nomination advocates deletion or merger, and doesn't contain a valid keep argument, let alone advocate for that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - As per points already discussed, I believe merging with the related list would be the best option. Ekdalian ( talk) 13:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 13:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Profiteering

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

Not a valid disambiguation page - War profiteering is a subtopic of Profiteering (business), which should be moved to this title. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 13:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Isa Adamu

Muhammad Isa Adamu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear case of one event. Does not meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 13:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Abdullah Eksioglu

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

Does not seem to pass WP:BIO. No cited sources, looked up the subject under "news" and ultimately found nothing. shelovesneo ( talk) 11:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Erkan Geniş

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

A 2005 article about a Turkish painter which makes big claims of notability, but for whom there are no actual reliable sources supporting any of this. All the information online I can find about Geniş are mirrors of his Wikipedia article or WP:USERGENERATED content like this bio on turkishpaintings.com. There isn't a Turkish language Wikipedia entry. He doesn't have an entry in Biyografi.info (which other articles about Turkish people seem to cite a fair amount). His article here says he has "been accepted as one of the Greatest 100 Turkish Painters who Ever Lived, announced by the Ministry of Culture of Turkey" - which would be some evidence, but there's no reference for this either, and I can't find any evidence for this list - there seems to be no mention of it on the articles of any of the artists mentioned at List of painters from Turkey (which surely would include many of the "100 greatest"). Indeed, the Ministry of Culture does have some articles about noted Turkish artists, such as Bedri Rahmi Eyüboğlu ( [52]) but not Erkan Geniş.

Concerned that there might be more sources in Turkish that I can't find myself, I asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey. There, GGT - who has experience with the Turkish art scene - has similarly found little to suggest notability.

In summary, this is an effectively unsourced article about a living person which has lain since 2005 without improvement, for whom there is no evidence at all of notability. Finlay McWalter··–· Talk 09:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hololive Production. ✗ plicit 12:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Motoaki Tanigo

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

Disputed draftification. WP:ADMASQ with multiple references to primary sources. Suspected self publicity. Definitely a puff piece. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Lets examine the references, in the first block.
  • Ref 1 [53] Landing page. Non-rs.
  • Ref 2 [54] Reads as a partial interview with PR. Looks and reads like manufactured clickbait.
  • Ref 3 [55] Another business insider ref. A full interview this time. Not independent.
  • Ref 4 Holilive Youtube page. Non-rs
  • Ref 5 Holilive Youtube page. Non-rs
  • Ref 6 [56] Another style interview. More PR. Exact same image used in a couple of the other references.
  • Ref 7 Facebook. Non-RS
  • Ref 8 [57] Another interview. Not indepdent.
  • Ref 9 [58] Company profile. Non-rs
  • Ref 10 [59] Straight up plain interview with no association PR muck.
Looking at the first 10 references, 5 are non-rs. 1 is clickbait, and the rest are a mix of interviews and PR. Not one of it is a WP:SECONDARY source. The article was sent to draft over the weekend after being review and moved back to mainspace probably indicating its a coi editor that created it. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Changed from comment to delete. scope_creep Talk 11:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Some coverage, more of an interview, at Crunchyroll [60]. This Forbes site, but it keeps timing out [61] so I'm unable to evaluate it. Oaktree b. Forbes actually points here [62], which seems ok but it's a short few paragraphs about the person. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
This but it appears to be a series of video clips he hosts [63]. I'm thinking it's almost TOOSOON. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Oaktree b The Forbes link works at present. It's a paragraph per nation, so fails WP:SIGCOV and has a paragraph on the subject as one of Forbes's 200 "Superstar Entrepreneurs" which is along the same lines as the rest of their multiple meaningless lists. It's very easy to be fooled into thinking that all of Forbes has gravitas. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Hololive Production. The Forbes article is "Stuff", but it's a very short mention. Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Air Nippon destinations

List of Air Nippon destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And also the following list of 119 other airline-destination articles, all with limited sourcing:

119 Airline destination lists
List of Aeroput destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Afriqiyah Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Algérie destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Macau destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Méditerranée destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Niugini destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Nostrum destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Transat destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Uganda destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Wisconsin destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of airBaltic destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Airphil Express destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of AirTran Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of America West Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of AnadoluJet destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Aurora destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Avianca destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Avianca Ecuador destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Avianca Perú destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Azul Brazilian Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of BA CityFlyer destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Bahamasair destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Belle Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of BH Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Blue Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Blue Panorama destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Boliviana de Aviación destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Braniff International Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British Airways franchise destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Bulgaria Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Buta Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Canadian Pacific Air Lines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cargolux destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Centre-South destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cimber Sterling destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Clickair destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cobalt Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Comair destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Corsair International destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Croatia Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cyprus Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cyprus Turkish Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Danube Wings destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Delta Connection destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of EasyJet Switzerland destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Edelweiss Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of First Choice Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of FlyArystan destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Georgian Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of GX Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Hunnu Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Iran Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Juneyao Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of JALways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jat Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Kam Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of KLM Cityhopper destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Avianca Costa Rica destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of LATAM Chile destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of LATAM Colombia destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of LATAM Ecuador destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of CAAC Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Cargojet destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of EGO Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ernest Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Simplifly Deccan destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of TruJet destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Lufthansa Cargo destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Lufthansa CityLine destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mahan Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mandarin Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Martinair destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of MIAT Mongolian Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Middle East Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Monarch Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Montenegro Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Neos destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Niki destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Norse Atlantic Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Olympic Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Olympic Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Pan Am destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of PLUNA destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Precision Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Primera Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Qeshm Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ravn Alaska destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Red Wings Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Rex Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Rossiya destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SAS Group destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SATENA destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Shanghai Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Shenzhen Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Silk Way Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SkyEurope destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SkyWest Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SkyWork Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Smartwings destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Solomon Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Spring Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Sriwijaya Air destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Sunwing Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Swiss Global Air Lines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Syphax Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of TAME destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Tatarstan Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Tigerair Australia destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Tiger Group destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of TMA Cargo destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of US Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Varig destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of VIM Airlines destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Viva Macau destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Volaris destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Volotea destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Vueling destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Wataniya Airways destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Wizz Air Ukraine destinations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per the 2018 RFC on lists of airline destinations, these are not suitable content for Wikipedia. A subsequent AN discussion recommended these be listed for deletion at AFD in orderly fashion, with a link to the RFC, and the closer of any AFD was to take the RFC into account in any close. That the 2018 RFC remains the consensus of the Wikipedia community was re-emphasised in a well-advertised and attended AFD in May in which 14 articles were deleted, a consensus to delete that was subsequently strongly endorsed on review. In a further AFD in July, 82 lists of airline services were deleted, with the !voting being entirely in favour of deletion. Since May a total of 139 airline destination lists have been deleted in 19 different AFD discussions, including lists of the destinations of national flag-carriers and of a member of Star Alliance, with none being closed as kept that I am aware of.

The articles should be deleted as they are failures of WP:NOT. Specifically, they are exhaustive lists of the services offered by commercial enterprises as well as being essentially travel-guides. They are also effectively advertising for the companies concerned, another thing that Wikipedia is explicitly not. Since they can only be true on a particular, randomly-selected day, they are ephemeral and impossible to maintain given the way airline schedules change constantly, but if you did try to do keep them up to date, what you would have would essentially be an airline news-service, and Wikipedia is not news.

In addition to this, every one of these articles is dedicated entirely to exhaustive lists of trivial, run-of-the-mill details of commercial operations of a kind that WP:CORP expressly bars from being used to sustain notability, making the content of them essentially trivia and non-notable ab initio. This includes "simple listings or compilations, such as ... product or service offerings" and "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as...the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops [and/or] the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business". They are the equivalent of a list of pizzas sold by Pizza Hut on 3 October 2007, or a list of Blockbuster Video outlets operating on 23 January 1988: pure indiscriminate trivia ( another thing that Wikipedia is not).

The sourcing of these articles also universally fails to sustain notability under WP:GNG let alone WP:CORP. The articles that include are either cited to the airline itself or to aviation industry press that fails to meet the WP:ORGIND standard. Where reliable sources are cited, these are not cited for significant coverage of the destinations of the airline concerned but instead for something incidental - for example, a BBC article about countries closing their airspace to Russian airlines in general is cited for destinations being terminated for a specific airline.

In every case, no source is cited, having significant coverage of the destinations of each airline, that would meet the audience and independence standards under WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND. Realistically, the only people who can ever tell you what services an airline is operating on a specific date is the airline itself and this information is therefore inherently incapable of being reliably and independently sourced. Particularly where the lists declare a service to be "terminated", this has been achieved through original research by comparing lists of previous services with those presently operated by the airline, since even if a source could found saying the service was terminated, that only verifies as of the date the reference was published, not as of the date given for the list which may be years later.

(I'll try to template the articles in the next few days, but if anyone with AWB would like to do it in the meantime that would be great). FOARP ( talk) 09:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

speedy delete per the well-considered consensus. Pecopteris ( talk) 09:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I am not sure how compatible "speedy" is with "orderly", but the best fit of the two would be good. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I've tagged the articles. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and previous discussions. Charcoal feather ( talk) 11:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I think it is likely delete for the reasons given above and previously. However I am uncomfortable about deleting hundreds of AfD nominations in one go. There's very little chance that any of us would be able to give each nomination a fair examination so we are !voting based on the kind of page it is. To be clear, I can't see that redundant airline destination pages are ever verifiable. JMWt ( talk) 11:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    TBH @ JMWt, the only airline destination page I've ever seen that ever raised the need for separate consideration for me is List of Braathens destinations, but this is not because of the list (which is a WP:V-failure), but because it has a history of the Braathens airline from 1954 to 2004 in it. However we also have History of Braathens SAFE (1946–1993) and History of Braathens (1994–2004) which this is basically just a fork of. Nothing would be lost by simply redirecting this page to a disambiguation page called History of Braathens. All the others, even List of British Airways destinations, are just the same thing that we have here but with more references - no evidence that anyone other than the airline (or a source ultimately depending on the airline) could ever really tell you what flights they were actually operating as of October 2020 (or whatever the date used for the list is). FOARP ( talk) 12:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm not sure AfD is the right venue for this kind of mass deletion proposal. I also have never seen a list of this kind which meets the notability criteria. JMWt ( talk) 14:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The issue is that the 2018 AN discussion doesn't leave any other way of doing it. The close of that AN discussion explicitly ruled out Beeblebrox's mass-deletion-in-one-go approach and PROD-ing the articles one by one, and explicitly endorsed bundled AFDs (which this is). The varying quality of the articles was cited as a reason not to delete all of them in one go by at least three contributors to the 2018 AN discussion, so bundling article of similar quality appears a justified approach. We've already had 19 AFDs in a row closed as "delete" for these articles, and this AFD will make 20 over nearly four months. I don't think anyone can really say we're being hasty here. FOARP ( talk) 14:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non-encyclopedic content. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom. Also WP:NOTGUIDE and majority of articles fail WP:CORP. Coastie43 ( talk) 13:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Coastie43 - I'd say ALL of these articles fail WP:CORP. Taking possibly the most prominent airline, US Airways, the list of their destinations is cited to:
    1) A 404 link to Airlineroute.net, a blog/industry press.
    2) Ditto.
    3) A 404 link to a YahooNews Finance piece, apparently industry press.
    4) Another 404 link to Airlineroute.net
    5) Ditto
    6) The US Airways website.
    7) A press-release.
    8) Another 404 link to YahooNews Finance.
    The only sources here that aren't 404 are the ones that clearly come direct from the airline and even if the other sources weren't 404 they are not sufficiently independent of the airline itself. Even if they were, NONE of these sources even COULD support the verification of the information in the list, since they are all from before the date that the list is supposed to be accurate for (17 October 2015). Every article on this list is at least this bad in terms of verifiability and notability. FOARP ( talk) 14:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and per recent successful deletions of this same type. -- Jayron 32 15:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I remain convinced that we should not maintain airline destination articles at all, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We really don't have a Speedy Delete feature in AFD (unlike the Speedy Keep option) unless there is content that violates BLP or copyright guidelines or another CSD criteria can be applied. Since this discussion was brought to AFD (instead of the articles being tagged for CSD), let's let this discussion continue on for 7 days. These articles have been around for a while, a few more days won't bring down the project. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Liz: The closer could always point to WP:AVALANCHE, though I would caution against using that reasoning too soon. —  Jkudlick ⚓  (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, all above, and the relevant policies NOTGUIDE and NOTDIRECTORY. SilverTiger12 ( talk) 20:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per NOTDIRECTORY and the 2018 RfC. I note there are presently over 300 such lists in Category:Lists of airline destinations, so this will surely come up again. —  Jkudlick ⚓  (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and previous discussions. Mgp28 ( talk) 22:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect per nom. As a spot check, I did a quick WP:BEFORE for Pan Am and didn't see anything that would support a full list of their destinations. Though I note some prose on each article describe the general idea of where they serve would likely be possible, and perhaps redirection to the parent airline articles if the closer is willing to do that work. Jumpytoo Talk 02:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per precedent and NOT. Draken Bowser ( talk) 07:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. I actually like reading these airline destinations lists. They have a lot of useful information that you can't find anywhere else. Particularly of when an airline flew to a destination in the past that they don't serve now. Many airlines don't have route maps anymore so it's hard to find what cities they service unless you start a booking to see if a fare is available. Which is a very slow process for every possible route.
    CHCBOY ( talk) 18:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I agree with CHCBOY on keeping these pages. These are useful pages. 176.55.123.41 ( talk) 18:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment - please see WP:ITSUSEFUL. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah, it does have to be emphasised that “it’s useful” has been the only argument ever put forward for these articles. No-one ever explains how they don’t offend against WP:NOT. No-one ever puts forward a cogent argument for their notability under WP:CORP (which applies as these are lists of company services). The reason for that is it can’t be done.
Even on usefulness grounds I really doubt their usefulness, because these aren’t route maps, they aren’t up to date (or even up to date for the dates given in the articles), and often the majority of destinations listed are places the airline explicitly does not fly to (i.e., those that are “terminated”). If, however, aviation fandom finds them useful, then there is still the answer of taking them off-wiki (eg setting up a fandom wiki) and this can still be done even after the articles are deleted by asking an admin to email copies of the articles to you. FOARP ( talk) 05:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Who uses Wikipedia as a travel guide? Most of their sources used comes from either the airline or airport website itself or they are obviously made up. Kaseng55 ( talk) 00:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Not obviously made up as without a reference for a destination on the lists they get quickly removed by other users even for a terminated destination. CHCBOY ( talk) 20:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ CHCBOY - See the analysis of the US Airways article above - the only links that weren't 404 was the one to the airline website and press-releases. FOARP ( talk) 08:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete based on our policies and guidelines NOTDIRECTORY and the consensus at various similar AfD discussions. HighKing ++ 17:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not one comes close to be policy compliant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 20:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete endorsing immediate SNOW closure by any admin. The rationales by nom are clear and overwhelming, with an extensive history of community consensus backing this. Apparently even Wikivoyage has declined to accept this content. Given the large number of pages and impracticality of exhaustive examination I believe the community would expect or be satisfied with a relatively lenient approach towards any request for access to an individual page, if anyone makes a credible claim that a deleted page contains some other useful content beyond mere destination-list. Alsee ( talk) 22:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
This bundled nomination is not formatted correctly so I've asked the nominator to review it. This is a huge nomination and no closer should have to handle each article page individualy. Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Liz, thanks for highlighting the lack of " Article name (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)" tags in the list. I've added these. Let me know if that fixes the issue. FOARP ( talk) 12:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
XFDcloser now breaks for me: toomanyvalues error retrieving page information (reload the page to try again). I'll try some things to attempt to get the gadget to not break in the nomination statement. SWinxy ( talk) 16:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ SWinxy - if it’s the the collapsing of the list I can remove that. Alternatively I have a separate page on which all the pages nominated are listed: User:FOARP/Poorly-referenced airline destination lists. FOARP ( talk) 17:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Nah it's not because it's in a collapse. I tried removing it, and it still failed. SWinxy ( talk) 17:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ SWinxy - Maybe break it in to smaller lists? FOARP ( talk) 05:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete not a good fit for the project
Elttaruuu ( talk) 14:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with main articles. Chicken4War ( talk) 13:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with the main airline article. 🛧 Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 14:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The main objection is WP:NOT, which leaves no scope for a direct merge. Additionally, for content to be merged, it needs to be appropriately sourced, and there is little sign of this (see, e.g, the analysis of the US Airways article above). FOARP ( talk) 15:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per above. SWinxy ( talk) 16:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all and I oppose merging. It's non-encyclopedic. Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Deletion of so much hard work from dedicated editors.... For instance, I created the list of Aeroput destinations, an historical era work about destinations between 1927 until 1948 which is certainly interesting for aviation nostalgics. We have the opportunity to have the lists of all destinations of close to all airliners in the world, but we are unwilling to do so despite having dedicated editors agreing to do it all by Wiki rules and standards (proper sourcing, etc.) I ask myself, what we win by this. Erasing that info is literally giving other airliners websites an edge, and we fall to simply borring, basic info, texts which no aviation enthusiast will care from now on. My activity was limited in latest time, but I am astonished to have found this decition and found specially unpreciated since I made a list about one of the first companies in the world and thought this contribution was valiable. FkpCascais ( talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Clear consensus for deletion. Author moved this to draftspace during the AfD; this is not explicitly prohibited, but if they attempt recreation without substantial improvement, it will be evidence of attempting to circumvent this discussion, which is a bad look. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Ekinhan Erişkin

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

I declined an A7 nomination here, as there was a claim of significance (he's a professor at the Süleyman Demirel University). I was going to draftify it, but that's already been tried.

He doesn't meet any criterion of WP:NPROF that | can see. His h-index is 8 according to Scholar or 5 on Scopus. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 08:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Smasongarrison, speedy criterion A7 is for topics with no "credible claim of significance". Specifically, it "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". There is an abyssal difference between that very low threshold, which this person does I believe pass as a university professor, and the stringent requirements of WP:NPROF – which in my opinion he does not come close to meeting. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks! I'll make sure to recalibrate my thresholds. (I'm also an assistant prof, hence my cheeky emoji. ) Mason ( talk) 13:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. I saw this article on a list of requested biographical articles, i don’t see how out of the sudden it lost its notability. V.B.Speranza ( talk) 16:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Being on a list of requested articles does not provide any evidence that its subject is notable. It means only that someone (in many cases the subject) has added the name to the list. — David Eppstein ( talk) 12:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Indeed, this name was added by an editor with the username "Ekinhaneriskin". XOR'easter ( talk) 22:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Appears to be on a good career track but his citation counts do not yet rise to the level of WP:PROF#C1 notability, and there seems to be nothing else to go on instead of that. Assistant professors are rarely notable and I don't see any evidence that he might be an exception to that general pattern. — David Eppstein ( talk) 12:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete clearly WP:TOOEARLY as an assistant prof with a decent but not overwhelming citation count per GS. Does not pass WP:NPROF as of yet. -- hroest 18:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No case for academic wiki-notability as yet. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment After This page was draftified by the creator in the course of the AfD discussion; I came across it while WP:R2'ing it. Per WP:AFDTODRAFT, this is not prohibited, but is generally advised against. Having said that, with teh draftification by the author of the article, this seems to be tantamount to a WP:G7 with it seeming like the author wants to improve in draftspace. I am unsure if said action necessitates the close of this AfD as the proper venue would now be MfD, or if the discussion can continue as to whether or not the draft can be deleted. Tartar Torte 01:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Herbert Obele

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Can only find some tangential coverage like [64], [65], nothing of much substance. Dr. Duh  🩺 ( talk) 08:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Nekoglai

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

Del per WP:SINGLEEVENT. Thoroughly nonnotable blogger who got 15 minutes of fame after being arrested in Russia - Altenmann >talk 03:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep - the article itself isn't great and needs improvement but I think the subject is just about notable enough. I found some coverage from various news sources: [66] [67] [68] [69] (last one in Italian). Sgubaldo ( talk) 18:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment: It does not matter how many sources you find; they are all about WP:SINGLEEVENT, and a stupid one, too. Which will be forgotten next year. - Altenmann >talk 21:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Fair enough, I change my vote to Delete. Sgubaldo ( talk) 22:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. So, we have clear issues with WP:CRIME here, and we have a WP:PROMO article. Now, it may be possible that the event in question is notable, I haven't checked for WP:PERSISTENCE, but given the PROMO issues this article can't contribute to such a hypothetical article, so we have no choice but to delete. — siro χ o 08:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Habibullah Mahmud Quasemi

Habibullah Mahmud Quasemi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 07:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No claim to notability in lead. Falls afoul of WP:CRIME. — siro χ o 08:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sankar (writer & director)

Sankar (writer & director) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 11:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Previous AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nomination. Not the best article title to assist in source searches as results are for other people, but adding the full name yielded nothing new except some unreliable user-editable sites. - 2pou ( talk) 16:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment Is this the same person [70]? Could perhaps be at AUTHOR with a few more reviews. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Not the same person. Author of that book has a career spanning seven decades according to the review, and this subject is only 42. Additionally, that book would need at least another review to be notable itself (entirely possible), but then another separate work of his would then need to have multiple reviews of their own in order to have a “body” of work to meet AUTHOR. - 2pou ( talk) 16:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We could use a few more concrete opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete based on the explanation to my prior comment; I find nothing about this person. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Anoop Madhavan

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Article is WP:REFBOMBed with mostly promoted content, about the safety training sessions and disaster preparation, with Madhavan mentioned only in passing. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage of him in a WP:BEFORE search, or of the company Survival Instincts. Maybe some can be found in reliable sources in Tamil. Proposed deletion by User:Ferien was contested with no rationale, by an account whose owner admitted coordinated editing, and Survival Instincts was speedy deleted A7. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. — siro χ o 08:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, promotional and lacking significant coverage. -- Mvqr ( talk) 12:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Blocked socks of Sathishcm. Wikishovel ( talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep- I stumbled upon the page and discoverd it didn't have categories. I added categories, reviewed and re-arranged some of the references. Taking a deeper look at the sources cited, I believe they meet WP:RS. The subject Anoop, is cleared featured organically in most of the sources cites. These are not paid sources. He earned them organically. Hence the page meets WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG
Take a look at the major sources:
2. The Times of India This is a clear WP:RS with a wiki page. The subject is featured
3. The Hindu. This is another clear WP:RS. The subject is featured
The above is a clear analysis of the majority of the sources cited. Having gone through them, I strongly believe that the subject passes the notability guidelines as seen in WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG. Zanaottaja Eei ( talk) 13:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Zanaottaja Eei: may I ask what you mean by "featured organically"? The references are indeed from national newspapers, but apart from the final reference 3 you listed above, all of the above sources are about training sessions and disaster preparation, and mention him only in passing. Wikishovel ( talk) 14:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
"Featured organically" means that Anoop did not pay the newspapers to feature his name in the articles. If he were to pay for them, you'll notice obvious spamming of his name in the sources. He earned the mentions as a result of his work. WP:BASIC clearly states:
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". There are multiple sources cited. You even agreed that the last 3 sources featured him well. You also agreed that the sources are reliable national dailies hence WP:RS.
The fact that you agree the newspapers are WP:RS/national dailies and that he is featured greatly in the final 3 references are enough to withdraw this AFD. I recommend you withdraw it. Thank you Zanaottaja Eei ( talk) 16:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify, lots of WP:Passing mentions in reliable sources doesn't amount to WP:SIGCOV. There is so far only one apparently substantial source cited that is about Madhavan himself: this one that you listed as #3 above. I say "apparently" because the source is paywalled, but the first few paragraphs suggest that the article is about him. Wikishovel ( talk) 17:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Your reference 1 is already cited in the article, and again, only mentions him in passing. And there's that Hindu reference already mentioned above. So we still have just one reference actually about Madhavan, and the rest are only passing mentions. Wikishovel ( talk) 20:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
These newspaper articles even have photographs of him at the head of articles, and quotes from him.
This article even has a video of him speaking.
They are NOT WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS nor WP:Passing mentions.
Shiltonjojo ( talk) 12:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC) — Shiltonjojo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - added by Wikishovel in violation of WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS see comments here. reply
@Wikishovel I posted five leading newspaper articles with photographs and quotes to establish NOT WP:Passing mentions. How does my account’s age matter, when I am making an assertion of WP:GNG based on neutral, nontransitive, reliable, verifiable, secondary, published, independent and significant coverage sources from four major Indian newspapers? Instead of sneak comments, I implore you to focus on the message by verifying the five articles. Lastly please note, even if WP:GNG facts are asserted from anonymous (IP) sources – those facts will still remain facts. I also disclosed why I choose not to be anonymous here in response to your remarks.
Shiltonjojo ( talk) 16:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Below is a source assessment table. Beyond the promotional aspects of the article, this demonstrates that based on sources we have the subject does not meet WP:BASIC. We don't have information necessary to write an encyclopedia article about the subject. — siro χ o 21:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
New Indian Express "Getting to Know the Power of Women" [71] ? ? No Trivial mention (attributed quotes + employer) ✘ No
New Indian Express "Learn to defend, Survive, Women told" [72] ? ? No as above ✘ No
New Indian Express "Safety workshop for women" ? ? No as above ✘ No
New Indian Express "‘Trust your gut instinct – it is always right’" [73] ? ? No coverage of a self-defense workshop without any secondary SIGCOV of subject ✘ No
Ekatha Ann John ToI [74] Yes Yes No attributed statements, trivial ✘ No
Deccan Chronicle [75] ? ? No attributed statements, trivial ✘ No
ToI "Self-defence is about using both body, mind" [76] ? ? No attributed statements, trivial coverage ✘ No
New Indian Express "Covert Ops to Get Safety Training" ? ? No as above ✘ No
New Indian Express, Sonali Shenoy "Chennai, Soon to Have 1,000 Certified Crisis Response Volunteers" [77] Yes Yes No as above ✘ No
New Indian Express, Sonali Shenoy "Survival Skills 101: Chennai, You Ready?" Yes Yes No barely a sentence, still mostly about jobs held without depth -- extent is Most of the training will be conducted by founder of Survival Instincts, Anoop Madhavan, who is an experienced logistics scientist in the field of disaster relief for the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ✘ No
TH "‘Survival skills must to prevent deaths during disasters’" [78] ? ? No attributed statements, trivial coverage ✘ No
TH, K. Manikandan [79] Yes Yes No A single clause of SIGCOV Anoop Madhavan, who was involved in relief operations in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake in 2010 ✘ No
New Indian Express, "Training in Tactical Survival" [80] ? ? No attributed statements, trivial ✘ No
TH " Sea rescue drill captivates crowds on Marina beach " [81] ? ? No no coverage ✘ No
New Indian Express, "Movers and Shakers of the Deep get Set for Any Tsunami" [82] ? ? No attributed statements, trivial coverage ✘ No
TH Prince Frederick [83] ~ Yes ~ this piece is heavily dependent on the subject, and thus crosses heavily into primary sourcing and non-independent reporting. There are some basic biographical details and background confirmed. ~ Partial
ToI Kamini Mathai [84] ? ? No attributed statements, trivial coverage ✘ No
TH " Survival in the urban jungle " [85] No all directly from subject No ? ✘ No
2nd CII NATIONAL RISK SUMMIT DeRisking India Inc for Global Competitiveness [86] No ? No passing mention on a conference program ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Blocked sock of Sathishcm. Wikishovel ( talk) 10:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment The above source assessment is not objective. It was prepared by one of the editors "User:Siroxo" who was the first to vote "delete" on this AFD. The assessment is clearly biased and subjective. That's his personal opinion. The fact remains that The New Indian Express, The Times of India, The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle are WP:RS and notable national tabloids. People don't pay to get featured or mentioned in them most often. The subject "Madhavan" is featured organically in almost all the sources as a result of his work. He didn't pay to be featured. The articles were written by 3rd parties. WP:BASIC clearly states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Getting mentioned or featured in such national tabloids is a huge honor. Hence [WP:GNG]] is clearly met here. Zanaottaja Eei ( talk) 05:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • CU note I have blocked all of the editors who have !voted keep so far as socks of the same editor. Further information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sathishcm. I expect it's an LTA: I'm not sure which one, but they apparently know how to file retaliatory SPI cases, and how to use various types of VPN services and proxies. Girth Summit (blether) 09:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Blocked sock of Sathishcm. Wikishovel ( talk) 09:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Strong Keep*.. Yes, this is a single purpose account. I don't have any intention of editing Wikipedia. I am worried about how things run on the platform. I am not happy at what is happening on this discussion. It's clear that this man meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia as seen in the reliable news-related REFERENCES cited on the page. His enemies vowed to mess him up even on En wiki. This is sad.
I recommend the admin or the CU editors should run a check on user:Wikishovel. From day one, he's hell bent on removing this page. He attacks every other editor that voted "Keep". His edits clearly shows something is fishy. I am not trying to engage in "Argumentum Ad Hominem". But those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Run a CU on all these editors to ensure justice. Cheers everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weahdi Ohii ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC) — Weahdi Ohii ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete, per source assessment above and lack of substantial content in the article. -- hroest 18:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Blocked sock of Sathishcm. Wikishovel ( talk) 09:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Respected Sir, I think the page is irrelevant and I have a DELETE vote. It’s my first edit, so please forgive me if there are any mistakes.
    I am also hoping to get an answer on a question from an administrator. I am a phd candidate defending my thesis on data democracy, and Wikipedia is one of my primary research sources.
    Instead of deleting the keep votes from sock puppets, why don’t you just summarily delete this offending page? Isn’t that a best to conserve Wikipedia resources and prevent spam data from accumulating? DataDemocracy ( talk) 22:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)— DataDemocracy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    As editors, we leave software resource optimization to the developers of the MediaWiki software Wikipedia runs on. You can read about our deletion policies at WP:Deletion policy, and about this specific process at WP:Articles for deletion — siro χ o 23:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Siroxo's source assessment (I'm leaning towards accepting the Hindu source as in-depth but it's only one and we need multiple sources) and the promotionalism on display both here and in the article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the source analysis (and being promotional, too). Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

2014 Albanian demonstrations in the Republic of Macedonia

2014 Albanian demonstrations in the Republic of Macedonia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sustained coverage. Fails WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 06:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Capcom games: N–R. This article can be restored when this subject is no longer "upcoming" but exists and has received coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Pragmata

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

WP:TOOSOON for an upcoming title on indefinite hiatus with no substantive content independent of Capcom. The current iteration of the article has several problems, most of them being that it is unsourced and lacks WP:NPOV with its reception section comparing it spuriously to Death Stranding. A WP:BEFORE yields several secondary sources, but these only convey primary information such as descriptions of the promotional trailer and information in press releases about the game's delays. Even if the problems with the article are ignored, it strikes me that there is just not enough about this game to justify an article. Appreciate your views on this. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 04:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 04:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is a difficult one because the production is very likely notable (i.e. meets the videogame equivalent of WP:NFF). Even if it never gets released, it's likely it will meet WP:PERSISTENCE, and we have no good redirect targets like we do with, eg, Half Life 3. Due to this notability, if we don't improve the state of things and just delete, we'll likely get more similar articles and WP:NEWBIES will get bitten by speedy deletion, the next AfD, or other less-than-pleasant introductions. However as the nominator suggests, this article is very clearly promotional (both pseudo-corporate promo and fan promo). Maybe I'll take a quick pass and see what I can do. — siro χ o 05:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for your thoughts. The pragmatic considerations (pun intended) you've raised are new to me, so I appreciate it! I definitely agree that improving the article is probably a preferable outcome for the reasons you've listed, although it probably needs a complete rewrite. Hopefully there's more sources out there that aren't just parroting the Capcom press release. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 05:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I took a pass at it, tried to reference everything to RS and removed the voice of the game's developer for the most part. Let me know what you think. In the meantime I am going to !vote keep. There's three separate incarnations of media coverage over 4 years, the most recent was 2 months ago. Secondary sources have reported on the development, some more dispassionately than others. I've tried to cite mostly dispassionate ones, especially those with a bit of secondary synthesis, not those that weren't just parroting the developer or concocting theories as primary sources. I think deletion at this juncture is more WP:CRYSTAL than keeping it, given what coverage we have. — siro χ o 06:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect To List of Capcom games: N–R. Currently fails WP:GNG as there is simply not enough information to provide a broad view of the topic. WP:TOOSOON for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Zxcvbnm. WP:TOOSOON for now. OceanHok ( talk) 15:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

LeDock

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPRODUCT - tagged as such, and digging into the sources included, one is an unencyclopedic source, two are from one author, and five are from another author. The original article appears to be from a WP:SPA, and the article reads a bit like an advert. Courtesy ping Bbb23 as they declined the speedy for G11. In fact, I am not finding mentions in half of the listed sources. Tried searching more on Google scholar and found only one other top ranked source that contained this topic and that top result is just a trivial mention. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Neutral on whether this gets deleted or not. There's definitely value in the software and more could be written about it, but the article here is lacking. This is a niche corner of biochemistry, and I don't think people should be surprised if there is no Wikipedia article about a particular piece of software used in it. For reference LeDock isn't as popular as other docking software. LeDock is cited ~100 times DOCK6 is cited ~800 times and AutoDock VINA is cited ~25000 times. ― Syn path 06:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is an article that’s of little interest to anyone who doesn’t already know about this software. We don’t need to clutter up Wikipedia with stuff like this. Genome42 ( talk) 09:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per rationale by Cullen. Jamiebuba ( talk) 19:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

---

Extra sources:

  • Moreno, Angel J. Ruiz (2021-09-18). "Molecular Docking". Cheminformatics Workflows. Retrieved 2023-08-08.

— Arthurfragoso ( talk) 19:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep - I usually don't find enough biochemical software that works on Linux. I did not have a previous knowledge about this LeDock software, it seems it is mostly used in China. And I hope we don't get a western bias in the way of this decision. I have to think more before I give a "neutral" or "keep" vote. — Arthurfragoso ( talk) 20:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I just have put some work on improving the article. -- Arthurfragoso ( talk) 18:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
keep - I've made additional modifications and included a Nature article that conducted benchmarks on it. Perhaps those who previously voted for deletion could reconsider and re-evaluate. — Arthurfragoso ( talk) 20:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Have you assessed the WP:RELIABILITY? That Nature article appears to be a lab report which is a WP:PRIMARY source. If there is a WP:SECONDARY source that takes an aggregate of these studies and reports and gives nontrivial coverage that would be amazing :) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
If this were an article or statement about a disease or treatment, a journal article like this Nature piece would be a primary source. However, for software, maybe the primary source is the material coming directly from the company, like the website. So in this case, I think, the Nature article is considered a secondary source, while a meta-analysis would be a tertiary source. About the reliability, I did not really like the Baidu source I added, as their captcha prevents archiving it in the waybackmachine. -- Arthurfragoso ( talk) 03:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of the new sources brought up. Do they change any minds of those advocating Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep It's a peer-reviewed Primary source if that makes sense; the author of the paper/creator of the software submitted the paper to the journal for validation, it was accepted and published in the journal. It's been validated by the journal staff as being correct, so it's a RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I think we're getting too far down into the weeds on this; it's sourced to peer-reviewed journals, not blog posts. I surmise the article is fine with what's given for sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Per arguments and sources presented by Arthurfragoso and Oaktree b. CarribeanKing ( talk) 20:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

An Se-bok

An Se-bok (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 01:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - The problem is there aernt any, hence fails WP:GNG which is the overriding factor. Simione001 ( talk) 22:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Best chance is to find (off-line) Korean sources looking for the name in Korean: 안세복 . 109.37.152.36 ( talk) 10:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Did you find any?
  • Delete - no evidence of notability and no available sources passing GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 16:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. nomination withdrawn, no other delete arguments. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Tribe (Philippine TV series)

Tribe (Philippine TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV, tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 01:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Added some sources, and I think that this show is notable because it was one of Net 25's (the network's) most popular shows for children and teens. Also, I think it's impressive that it was consistently being recognized as a source for family-friendly, informative entertainment. D-Flo27 ( talk) 06:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep and tag for improvement – sources show notability and so do the awards. It could use synopsis/development and reception sections but deletion will not achieve that. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 22:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. For starters, this is a nominee of the PMPC Star Awards for Television which is the near-equivalent of the Emmys in the Philippines (actually, AFAIK, the only industry-related award). --- Tito Pao ( talk) 04:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per nominations from notable award giving bodies. -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per everyone who voted/commented. - Ian Lopez @ 16:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Jack.org. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sandra Hanington

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

I think the best plausible argument for notability here would be that receipt of the Canadian Meritorious Service Cross covers WP:ANYBIO. I've done some searching and I can't easily find the full list of recipients, there's no category for it on Wikipedia, and so I'm gonna venture that perhaps it's not a notable enough award to meet this criterion.

She doesn't meet WP:NPOL as this was an appointed role at the mint. BrigadierG ( talk) 01:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Jack.org (the charity she co-founded). All references to this person in Canadian media are about the charity, where she's mentioned. The Mint position is basically a civil service position. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Shellwood ( talk) 16:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jack.org. As per the reasoning of Oaktree b. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sekthaus Carl Graeger

AfDs for this article:
Sekthaus Carl Graeger (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Discussed last summer and restored as a contested PROD. However, as was the case then, I do not see CORP level sourcing here, the German article or via a before. While they no longer make their own wine, it's still produced and sourcing should be accessible if it existed Star Mississippi 01:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Wine, Organizations, Companies, and Germany. Star Mississippi 01:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article, for me lacks significant coverage in current reliable sources. The majority of the references cited are from archival sources or are dated, which raises concerns about the contemporary relevance and notability of the subject. Additionally, there's a limited amount of recent information or ongoing significance to the brand beyond its historical achievements. Also, the quality of old sources is questioned, and seems not to follow the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and verifiability. -- Mozzcircuit ( talk) 08:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now. I found a lot of old ads, a brief discussion that is in the references, a patent, but no WP:SIGCOV. This is an old and small company. A combination that can go either way. I'm definitely open to the idea that there is WP:SIGCOV out there. Just couldn't find it. gidonb ( talk) 01:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is a clear consensus that this subject is not, at this time, an appropriate subject for an article. There was some interest in a merge; if anyone is actually interested in doing one, let me know and I'm happy to facilitate that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

AI Constitution

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

Anthropic promotes its own ideas through Wikipedia. The concept of an "AI Constitution" is a construct originated by this startup company. It lacks widespread recognition within the academic community and has only been reported by certain media outlets such as Engadget. 日期20220626 ( talk) 00:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The same deletion reasons were raised by the user:桃花影落飞神剑 on Chinese Wikipedia. I believe the reason he put forth are worthy of discussion. 日期20220626 ( talk) 00:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ 日期20220626 Could you kindly provide some reliable source that suggest the concept of "AI Constitution" is "lacks widespread recognition within the academic community", thanks a lot ! Cloud29371 ( talk) 10:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Isn't it that the person advocating for keeping the article should provide academic sources from the academic community to substantiate it? 日期20220626 ( talk) 12:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I am sorry, but it im afraid its the one who states something should provide evidence for their claims, not ask the opposing party to provide counter-claims for him. And as it happens i have already did provide the necessary evidence to disprove the claims made. Luroe ( talk) 04:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
No. Editors of an article have to prove that it is generally notable, not anyone else. Cortador ( talk) 06:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, I think that the burden of proof should lie on those advocating for deletion, as in not to.shift it from the accuser to the accused, they should provide a clear reason with sufficient evidence for why the article lacks notability (no related google results, no necessary links/sources provided, etc) and not the editors being forced to "prove that they are not a camel" as the saying goes.
On a related note, I did already provide a list of necessary and related sources that prove the article's notability to a sufficient degree. Luroe ( talk) 07:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I am wondering what would constitute "some reliable source that suggest the concept [...] 'lacks widespread recognition within the academic community'": a list of publications that don't refer to it? a web search that doesn't return many results? Perhaps the burden of proof should be on those arguing for a change -- in this case, deletion -- but it is not obvious to me what would verify lack of recognition. (By the way, I have no argument for or against deleting this article.) Cnilep ( talk) 03:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I understand that proving a negative can be incredibly hard or sometimes even impossible, but in such a specific case I think it should come to two things: lack of any results (as you already mentioned) and the fact that the writers of the article cant provide any of the reliable sources on the matter, all that in order to not shift the burden of proof onto the accused party from the accuser, otherwise we fear getting into the "prove that you are not a camel" territory. Luroe ( talk) 06:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
That is a very serious allegation that Anthropic purposefully promotes its own ideas through Wikipedia. Do you have any sources to back that up? It would be a very controversial thing, worthy of a news article if that allegation was proven to be true. Personally, I think that everything stated without evidence can be freely discarded without evidence, and I cannot find a single good reason as to why would they exactly want to do it. There are far better and honest ways to raise awareness if they were truly conspired to do so.
Secondly, im sorry but can you provide evidence for lack of recognition in the academic community? Constitutional AI and OpenAI's rule-based reward model (later development, very similar conceptually to CAI, RBRM for short) are an important advancements in the subfield of AI Alignment, currently they, along with RLHF, are the only two techniques that are used to align major AI systems. I think it would be extremely unusual to have an article on only one of them, while the other one is being ignored for whatever reason. Having found such a glaring oversight i decided to correct it. According to SemanticScholar the Anthropic's scientific paper that describes the invention of the CAI method has 165 citations, which puts in the top 1% of scientific papers ever written. So the idea that it has no recognition in academic community is simply ungrounded and provably false.
And thirdly, it has not been "only been reported by certain media outlets such as Engadget" . It has been reported by many non-tech reputable and authoritative sources such as Forbes, New York Times, Reuters, Time, The Times of India, Business Insider's Morning Brew, Vox, The Australian and Observer. And even if it was primarily covered by tech-centered media, why would it be unacceptable that an innovation in a tech field is primarily covered by a tech-centered journals? I think it would only be fair not to expect CNN to report on video games and IGN not to report on the current presidential run of a certain candidate.
I think all the evidence provided above are more than enough to factually dispel the presented concerns and prove them to be unfounded. Luroe ( talk) 04:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge. There are some reliable sources mentioning the AI, but they all seems to be primarily about Anthropic, not the AI specifically. The article is also written entirely by a user named Luroe, who may be affiliated with Athropic.
Opinion : The Concept and technique of "AI Constitution" or "Artificial Intelligence Constitution" are very exciting and very important in the field of artificial intelligence and ethics, and has high potential to become a general research area. But the problem of this article focusing too much on Anthropic perspective make it look like advertising. However the AI Constitution is very new technique and concept, it has only less than 1 year, so we need to be patient and wait more other party research and develop on this area. Cloud29371 ( talk) 07:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Then the article should discuss a general problem and cover a range of proposals, rather than promoting a single concept from a start-up. Some exemplary articles can be Ethics of artificial intelligence and Existential risk from artificial general intelligence. 桃花影落飞神剑 ( talk) 13:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Deletion. Firstly, the statement "165 citations, which puts in the top 1% of scientific papers ever written" is an over-promoted way to describe academic papers. There are tons of machine learning papers that have such numbers of citations. Secondly, the concept proposed by this start-up has not yet been recognized by any main-stream scientific society in their outlines, such as AAAI, IEEE, or ACM. Thirdly, it was not accepted by any countries as their regulations even laws. It received media reports mainly because it is a new start-up got lots of funds.-- 桃花影落飞神剑 ( talk) 13:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. This is an absurd, arbitrary and frivolous reason for deletion. It was stated that it supposedly lacks academic recognition, I have provided a counter-argument and proved it wrong by using the numbers of citations which is incredibly high (1% of scientific papers, which already disproves the notion that there are "tons" of papers like this, there aren't: it's 1%). Secondly, we cannot expect for AAAI, IEEE, or ACM to unanimously endorse or adopt this method this quickly, it does not happen this fast. To say that this method is not worthy of its own article considering its already an industry standard with two out of three frontier large language models using it: OpenAI with its use of RBRM and Claude with its use of eponymous CAI (we currently do not know what kind of alignment techniques Google's Bard, the third frontier model, uses and I give myself no liberty to assume use of any specific AI alignment technique without proper evidence of which we currently have none) would be incredibly cavil. Thirdly, we can say the same, or perhaps even substantially more, about laws and regulations of different countries, laws are infamously slow in their development, passing and adoption. As to my knowledge there are NO existing laws that concern the AI Alignment sphere and VERY few laws on AI in general in the whole world due to how new and innovative the whole field is, especially the field of AI alignment. All of the current proposals for AI laws are incredibly high-level and do not discuss or mandate/order the usage of any particular technique. I do not think that it is reasonable to demand for an article's subject to be mandated by law lest it be deleted from Wikipedia, that is an extremely high bar for a Wikipedia article of any kind.
-
Thirdly, the assumption that all of the articles written on Constitutional AI method are written so "because it is a new start-up got lots of funds" is simply baselessly untrue, more than that: provably not true. If you'd actually read the all of the sources that I have provided both here and in the article itself you would see that they do mention that it is a startup (which should not be a reason for immediate dismissal of the notability of their accomplishments) that got funded by Google, but the main part of the article after that backdrop is presented is either about the Constitutional AI method or about both Anthrophic and the Constitutional AI method that they pioneered. Let us substantiate our claims and prove this factually. Lets start with a Forbes article on the Constitutional AI method of alignment. The fact of funding is mentioned once in the 10th paragraph as a quick sidenote. The rest of the article is strictly about the Constitutional AI method. You can go and check that yourself. Lets take another article: one from ArsTechnica, it doesn't mention the funding at all, and is also about the method of Constitutional AI alignment. Once again, feel free to fact-check my claims. And lets take a third article: the one from New York Times. The funding is mentioned, mentioned twice, first as background information, secondly as part of more of a detailed look at its past. The rest of the entire article is about Anthropic and its method of Constitutional AI, there are 38 paragraphs in this article, only two of them are about funding, 9 are about the method of Constitutional AI. It is clear which one is more important between the two. You can go and check all that yourself. To conclude. Constitutional AI has received substantive coverage in reputable publications for its technical merits - not just because of funding news, which was presented exclusively as a backdrop.
-
To conclude, the standards that you've set are incredibly high and would put around 80% of Wikipedia articles at risk of deletion. Your reasons for deletion are arbitrary, absurd and frivolous, for instance the fact that it hasn't been accepted as part of regulatory norm is true, but not a good reason to warrant deletion, as it does not prove the lack of notability. Please, read the pinned primers. None of your reasons align with Wikipedia's reasons for deletion. And secondly, the article in question DOES meet all the necessary criteria for existence. It IS notable enough, as proven by a number of reliable secondary sources reporting on it in detail. Moreover, in the Wikipedia primer " Help:My article got nominated for deletion!" it is stated that "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." I believe i provided more than that. That should be more than enough to prove its notability. I believe if we were to follow your procedures the Wikipedia would be reduced substantially few article, which is not exactly a good thing considering its not a place for only extremely important things, but for things notable enough, and not notable to the highest degree there is.
I think it is clear that the article should stay as there are no objective grounds for deletion. The grounds that have been presented here do not conform to Wikipedia standards, and there are more than enough notability and recognition for article's subject. Luroe ( talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We're not a PR host; other companies have to take up and agree to the same thing, and it's not even an original work by any means, just taking things from other mission statements which are themselves PR creations. Nate • ( chatter) 16:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep. I'm sorry but I do not see how this is a PR article by any means at all, it describes the AI Constitution as a concept, including its background and technical details. The language itself isn't even alluding to any PR. Luroe ( talk) 17:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment It's one company putting out something to try to gain publicity for something they wrote with no input from anyone else. It's the very definition of public relations. Nate • ( chatter) 18:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Please stop implying and insinuating that I am working for or in any way related to Anthropic or that I wrote this article with Anthropic's direction. I am in NO way related or affiliated with Anthropic. I wrote this article because, as I already said previously here, there are currently two AI Alignment techniques that are used to align frontier LLMs: RLHF and CAI. I noticed a fact that there exist an article on only one of them, while the other technique is left unshown, I decided to change that fact, as I believe it is obviously notable enough and important enough in the AI Alignment subfield to be allowed to have its own article. That is it. No malice or foul play here.
-
And if you do want to accuse me of such foul-play please, provide at least some evidence that I have at least tangible or even circumstantial connection to that company or anyone who has ever worked there. I assure you you will provide none, I am more than certain of that, as certain as a man can be that you wont be able to do it because there is none. There is no malice here. It is just an important development in AI alignment methods that warranted its own article for that. That is it. I am not an Anthropic employee or contractor or PR manager or marketer. Just a person that is interested in AI safety and noticed a flaw and decided to change it. I have no other idea how can I prove that I am not affiliated with them or that I have no ill-intent behind my article. I just wanted to fill the gap that I saw in Wikipedia in the area that I am into, that's it. Luroe ( talk) 14:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Luroe: please do not have multiple bold !votes in a single discussion. You already voted keep above, so I'd suggest debolding and striking out this second one. Comment as you like, within reason, but just a single !vote; see WP:AFDFORMAT for the general guidelines. Thanks. Skynxnex ( talk) 21:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is just promotion by Anthropic, the idea hasn't caught on outside the company. Tercer ( talk) 12:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    First of all, can you provide any evidence that it is just a promotion by Anthropic and not something else? That is a very strong and serious assumption, and I believe that such strong assumptions and accusations must be followed by at least some evidence backing them.
    Like i said previously in this thread before, I DO NOT work for Antropic's PR team! NOT affiliated with them in any kind, have not met a single Anthropic employee in my entire life and have absolutely no, even circumstantial relation to them in any single way except maybe by being interested in the AI safety subfield of science as well. I made this article because as I said previously in this thread I have noticed that there exists a gap in the Wikipedia's list of AI alignment methods and decided to fill it. That is it, no foul play or any hidden agenda. That's it. I genuinely don't know how else I can prove that I don't work for Anthropic and that I really wrote this article because I really do believe that such an important and notable advancement should have its own, even if short, article. That I truly did it because I honestly thought that such a notable, at least in the AI safety sphere, method deserved its own article, and not out of some hidden commercial malicious intent.
    -
    Secondly, as I already mentioned in my previous reply in this thread, the idea of an AI Constitution have caught outside the company, especially considering the fact that it existed in its rudimentary and experimental form in Google DeepMind's Sparrow and now also exist in OpenAI's GPT model in the form of RBRM.
    -
    And thirdly, it doesn't have to catch on outside the company to be deemed notable enough to allow the existence of its own article. As I already shown before with the amount of sources there is enough notability for such an article to exist. That is an arbitrary requirement. Luroe ( talk) 15:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete PR dressed up with a spurious footnote to Asimov is still PR. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    How is it PR? It's a working and notable AI Alignment method as proven by the number of secondary reliable sources and the fact that it has been used by DeepMind and OpenAI. It definitely deserves its own article.
    As I have previously stated here multiple times before, I am in no way related or working with the direction of Anthropic. I am an unrelated party that just noted the absence of this obviously quite a notable technique on Wikipedia and decided to change that fact, i had no intention of marketing something and you can see it in the article itself if you read it. The article itself is simply a description of what that method is, how it works, what problems and critiques it has, along with background. The core content of the article provides a neutral, factual overview of an emerging AI technique of Constitutional AI, all based on reliable sources. How is it necessarily PR? Is it PR because it describes a concept/method that is clearly notable and an important development in the sphere of AI safety? How exactly can I make it not PR? Not to write about it? But it's clearly notable enough to allow its existence on Wikipedia, and, in my personal opinion, notable enough not only to allow its existence on wikipedia, but to warrant it.
    The reference to Asimovs three laws of robotics that are present in the background section are there to demonstrate that the concept of encoding principles into AI systems does have historical precedents and did not just originate from Anthropic. This is done to put the Constitutional AI method in the broader context of the field of AI safety research. The goal of the page was never promote Anthropic itself, but to document the academic concept and current research around Constitutional AI. The technique has received substantive coverage for its technical merits, not just PR. Luroe ( talk) 07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's not a good idea to reply to every 'Delete' comment, especially if you are repeating arguments you made previously. See WP:BLUDGEON. HenryMP02 ( talk) 02:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning delete. This reminds me of the Tesla "Master Plan" article. While it has some substance (reinforcement learning using LLM feedback rather than human feedback) I'm not convinced it needs its own article, or that it should be presented as an Anthropic invention rather than a generic concept. DFlhb ( talk) 08:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Anthropic. This article is clearly promotional to be honest, the arXiv ref it overly relies on seems WP:PRIMARY and is not considered a WP:RS anyway. Many of the other articles do not even refer to the subject, they discuss "Constitutional AI" instead which is basically a marketing term for the company. However some of the material and refs can still be salvaged to improve the company's article, which is the more appropriate place for this to be covered at present. - Indefensible ( talk) 05:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, remove promotional tone: Certainly seems to meet WP:GNG:

Source assessment table: prepared by User:HenryMP02
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback No Paper written by Anthropic ✘ No
Anthropic thinks ‘constitutional AI’ is the best way to train models Yes Article by tech journalist; he doesn't appear to be affiliated with the company ~ TechCrunch; See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#TechCrunch. Yes Whole article is about the topic ~ Partial
How Anthropic Is Teaching AI the Difference Between Right and Wrong No Author uses "content marketing... to raise revenue for Marketing AI Institute" ✘ No
AI startup Anthropic wants to write a new constitution for safe AI Yes Independent reporter Yes The Verge; Green at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Verge Yes Partially about the company, but covers the topic in detail ✔ Yes
Claude's Constitution No Anthropic ✘ No
Inside the White-Hot Center of A.I. Doomerism Yes Independent reporter Yes New York Times Yes Several paragraphs about the topic ✔ Yes
Latest Generative AI Boldly Labeled As Constitutional AI Such As Claude By Anthropic Has Heart In The Right Place, Says AI Ethics And AI Law ~ Forbes "contributor", appears to be independent. Edit: "AI Consultant", hmm... No Forbes Third-party "contributor", questionable oversight Yes Most of the article is about the topic ✘ No
AI gains “values” with Anthropic’s new Constitutional AI chatbot approach Yes Reporter who appears to be independent Yes Ars Technica; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Ars Technica Yes Article is about the topic ✔ Yes
A Radical Plan to Make AI Good, Not Evil Yes Independent writer Yes Wired; see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wired Yes Article is about the topic ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Stopped after the 9th source, when it seemed clear to me that the subject is notable. However, the article does seem like it written like an advertisement. This promotional tone should be fixed. HenryMP02 ( talk) 02:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I think a problem with your assessment is that not a single reference you evaluated as meeting actually specifically calls out the subject by name, they are discussing "Constitutional AI" but not "AI constitution" which are seemingly related but different subjects. "Constitutional AI" is just a marketing term for Anthropic. None of these sources actually cover "AI constitution" which is what the article is supposed to be for. - Indefensible ( talk) 05:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, both names refer to the same topic. HenryMP02 ( talk) 06:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Hurricane Hilary (2023)#In popular culture. There is a clear consensus that this is not an acceptable topic on its own, and the most suggested redirect target is this one. Whether anything else needs to be merged, and if so what and where, can be discussed further as an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Ojai earthquake

2023 Ojai earthquake (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event. There's no encyclopedic value with these types of earthquakes. Feel free to create something on WikiNews. Dawnseeker2000 00:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: can we consider this an ongoing event and wait for a couple days more? -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 01:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Place on hold for a few days, maybe a couple of weeks. Can't hurt to put on hold. The larger quakes that happen, are often preceded by one or more smaller quakes that seem harmless. — Maile ( talk) 03:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Close: This just happened. Wait until the buzz dies down and revaluate. CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE 03:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No deep or lasting coverage, no significant impact. California gets shaken a lot most earthquakes there have minimal to negligible consequences. This is one of those events. Dora the Axe-plorer ( explore) 11:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Draft until we can evaluate if further events will happen. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Hurricane Hilary (2023) as a trivia statement. Hear me out. Coming from someone who lives very close to the epicenter. There were no damages as significant as the tropical storm. Earthquakes happen fairly often here. It is only notable that this is the largest one to hit Ventura County in 80 years. However, it is quite rare to see an earthquake the same time as a hurricane. Thus we can include a trivial blurb "On August 20, at 2:41 PDT, a 5.1 magnitude earthquake also hit Ojai, California. This was the largest earthquake to strike the Ventura County region since 1941." Conyo14 ( talk) 15:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Into Hurricane Hilary (2023) per above. 2610:130:109:252:114A:26AF:7232:745A ( talk) 16:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and place a small section in Hurricane Hilary (2023) as above. CrazyC83 ( talk) 22:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2023#August as appropriate, so someone later on isn't confused about why an earthquake is redirecting to a tropical storm article; appropriate mention in the list-of's earthquake notes (and in the TS's article itself) should clear that up. Nate • ( chatter) 16:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Our lists of earthquakes are no longer dumping grounds for unwanted content so the article is not listed there and won't be in the future. These lists now abide by strict inclusion criteria. Dawnseeker2000 16:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not asking for a full section or article on it, just a mention on the page and redirecting it to there. It should at the very least merit mention. Nate • ( chatter) 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    This event is not currently listed on that list because it does not align with that list's inclusion criteria. We should not redirect there because no content exists; there is nothing there for any potential readers. Dawnseeker2000 20:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please do not bludgeon your rationale; I'm suggesting a proper course of action, and we rarely say 'Wikinews and that's it' any longer as time has gone on. And contrary to what seems to be a small group of WP:QUAKE editors, anyone can add an appropriate mention of an event to the page and defend their addition; articles are not fiefdoms and should never be that. It's a unique circumstance that at least deserves note somewhere, and I see no finite 'criteria' about which we mention in list of articles. Nate • ( chatter) 00:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    This isn't the Wikipedia of 2005. It's grown, as has its editors. Our lists of earthquakes used to contain all sorts of meaningless events because people thought that that was what Wikipedia was for. It is not. We discriminate, and that's what's happened to our lists. They've become more refined and are not dumping grounds for deleted articles. That's exactly what used to be done until some of us put a stop to it. We're not going to go backwards here.
    This article may very well be directed to the Hilary article, and that's fine, but for the people who wanted this to be something more that it is, I challenge you to write something that's worth writing about. Writing about hurriquakes is literally kids stuff. It has no encyclopedic value. People just say "oh" and move on. No one is going to learn anything useful from it. That's why I put it up for deletion. Dawnseeker2000 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge — Well…My idea looks to have been ignored. Noting that I was the user who challenged the original PROD. I noted in the PROD challenge that the topic is notable (high media attention for an earthquake). That said, I also stated that a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion, should probably take place, since it probably isn’t notable enough for a stand-alone article. But nonetheless, looks like a 2nd deletion attempt was started. So I am absolutely strongly opposed to deletion, as I could probably pull 50+ WP:RS articles for this earthquake, but I am strongly supporting a merge into Hurricane Hilary (2023), which already has a stand-alone article & is the reason for the high-notability (The term “Hurriquake” ( [90]) came about because of this earthquake and hurricane). The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please don't use TV stations and newspaper articles as the basis for writing an earthquake article on the encyclopedia. That's fine on wikinews. Dawnseeker2000 20:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's not "the basis" necessarily but the level of media coverage certainly matters and it has been pretty significant here Paradox society 22:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    ??? Most articles, especially natural disaster articles, have a lot of media sources (i.e. TV stations and newspaper style). For example, Hurricane Ian has a ton of media sources. If you want to talk about earthquake articles in general, then I point you to 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake, which has 610 sources, with easily 90% of those being reliable secondary sources, which are required on Wikipedia. Like, literally a policy. So, yeah, you might want to double check WP:RS, because it is necessary to have reliable secondary sources to help prove notability. If you want academic sources/government sources for everything, then you won’t be able to have most natural disaster style articles on Wikipedia, especially ones in recent/modern history. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    If all you've got are newspaper and TV stations as sources, then yes, you should really think again if it's truly an encyclopedia article that you should be focused on. This topic is screaming wikinews. Dawnseeker2000 22:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Um. I’ll be honest. What you just said would mean 2023 Hawaii wildfires shouldn’t be a Wikipedia article and should be purely Wikinews. I mention that because every source on it is trivial government (i.e. basic X acres burned and X injured/missing/deaths) and media-based reliable sources. A quick skim of the 175 sources doesn’t show a single academic publication source. Note, this article is a High Importance for 4 different WikiProject, and has easily thousands of media publications about the topic. If I understand your ideology, if newspapers and TV stations are the only sources used in an article, it means it is not qualified for Wikipedia, even if it would 100% survive an AfD discussion (conclusion could include keep/merge)? The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Any proper and neutral source works to source this event, and we don't screen out certain sources just because they aren't an inaccessible periodical. It's like saying I Love Lucy should be deleted because it was a television series sourced by sources in its own medium. Nate • ( chatter) 00:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There are many types of articles on this encyclopedia alright? Let's call them spaces. The earthquake space is one where you don't really see successful articles that are based on TV stations and newspapers. That obviously does not hold true in other spaces, OK? I work primarily in the earthquake space and this whole argument to keep this flimsy article based on this hurriquake idea reeks of desperation. And now, we see that The Weather Event Writer is very much vindictive as he has nominated a very much notable earthquake article for deletion. So sir, you tell me who's confused. Dawnseeker2000 01:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Just gonna mention that I didn't even see your contest to the AFD, but a merge to Hurricane Hilary (2023) feels so much better than a stand-alone article here. I already !voted, just restating my opinion. Also a note to the nom that articles are created based on two primary reasons: WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Notable newsworthy events deserve their place on Wikipedia. This earthquake just happened to coincide with a much more notable hurricane. While I do feel this earthquake is notable for being the largest in Ventura County in 82 years, I feel it's more trivial, and probably doesn't make it overall notable. No damages were immediately reported since a tropical storm tends to cover all of a/multiple states and the damage costs would simply be included in the hurricane costs anyways. Conyo14 ( talk) 04:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - passes WP:SIGCOV, the combined event was unique enough to merit its own article. Since nomination, I've added some new sources and a bit more text. Paradox society 20:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Maybe on wikinews. Dawnseeker2000 20:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I appreciate your perspective, but it seems that there isn't any clear "official" policy or guideline around earthquake notability. I also appreciate the points made in the essay you directed me to on our other thread, but I strongly believe that this quake, and the way it will be remembered culturally (a new word was coined specifically for this quake and that word was noticed and even publicly acknowledged immediately by Merriam-Webster) merits an exception to the proposed criteria set forth in the essay. Additionally, screening this quake through the essay's criteria does not seem to explicitly rule out its notability, at least in the essay's current form. Paradox society 22:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sounds a bit desperate to claim that this topic needs an encyclopedia article. Dawnseeker2000 22:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Desperate? I'm not particularly emotionally invested in whether the article ends up getting deleted. Just stating my case. Paradox society 02:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Hurricane Hilary (2023)#In popular culture. The article at its current state can fit into that section, and plus, most of the sources in the article are around the term "hurriquake", which is why we have that section in Hurricane Hilary for it. Tails Wx ( they/them) ⚧ 04:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Meets WP:N at this time. For the time being, a merge is an editorial decision, and not a true WP:ATD here. I'm fine with a merge in concept, but it shouldn't be the prescribed outcome of the AFD. — siro χ o 06:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Minor earthquake without lasting impact or coverage. WP:NOTNEWS. Tercer ( talk) 12:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete / Redirect to Hurricane Hilary (2023)#In popular culture. The earthquake caused no injuries and little damage, and in isolation was not a noteworthy event. The notability of the quake comes through the meme briefly popularized due to the coincidental timing of Hurricane Hilary and the quake, which, as noted above, there is an In popular culture section in that article. Pertinent information not already there can easily be transferred. Drdpw ( talk) 00:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_22&oldid=1172929845"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE