Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 27 March 29 >

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 delete. ✗plicit 12:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenaline Rush (professional wrestling)

[edit]
Adrenaline Rush (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | 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 notable stable. Article has no sources to prove notability. The creator was blocked. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twila True

[edit]
Twila True (edit | talk | history | 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 seeing any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Typical promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The article covers reliable sources please check again. Twila True has received awards. I don't know what you meant by independent in-depth coverage but you can see many news and reliable sources there. If anything in there is look like promotional you can remove that information. But removing a whole article is not necessary I think it should be given a chance. If it can be improved please tell me I will do that. She has founded music academy with two Grammy winners it has sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanny shower (talk • contribs) 06:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Kenny National School

[edit]
Saint Kenny National School (edit | talk | history | 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 school. Schools are not automatically notable, and there is nothing to indicate that this (relatively small and relatively "new" primary) school meets the WP:NORG or WP:SIGCOV guideline. To the extent that it is any more notable than the 3,300 other primary schools in Ireland. A news search of the Irish Times [1][2] returns zero results). Not one. Searches of the Irish Examiner [3][4] return only one passing mention (in an article which is substantively about another topic). The de-PROD note suggested that notability might be inherited from the school's association with one notable former pupil. And that the article might "give Niall horans fans information about his primary school". I do not see how this argument sits with either WP:NOTINHERITED or WP:TOPIC. (In that, if someone wants to know where Niall Horan went to primary school, they can visit the Niall Horan article. Otherwise, everyone (ideally) goes to school somewhere. And notability doesn't transfer from a pupil to a school.) Guliolopez (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It happens. AfD is a de-defacto way to improve articles as much as it is a way to delete them. So within reason it's better to make the mistake then not since you never know if people will be able to find references that were missed initially. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Free (Miniseries)

[edit]
Sugar Free (Miniseries) (edit | talk | history | 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 miniseries. Other than passing mentions, same promotional news & interview published in multiple site (e.g. "Chorki to drop 'Sugar Free' for free"), i didn't find any review, any significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:TVSERIES, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CMT Hot Twenty

[edit]
CMT Hot Twenty (edit | talk | history | 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 show. While a show that's been on the air since 2013 would normally be considered notable, this is merely a countdown of seemingly arbitrary videos, with no sourcing in sight about the show itself nor any significance to its rankings. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Santos Silva

[edit]
Ricardo Santos Silva (edit | talk | history | 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 in-depth, independent source Behind the moors (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article. I have improved the article, kept the most relevant and added sources. Ricardo Santos Silva is the face of the bid for Chelsea (see BBC or Independent). I am Portuguese and I do not know him. ScottWillis45 (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Ricardo Santos Silva is very clearly notable. Sources independent and reliable. Cabritos (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Above Cabritos "keep" struck, ref Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cabritos. – Athaenara ✉ 12:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources? So far we have:
  • [5] doesn't mention him so far as I can see
  • [6] says his company is taking over, and has 3 sentences about the company. No coverage of him as a person
  • [7] cannot check as behind paywall
  • [8] has one sentence about him, is focused on company
  • [9] doesn't mention him, not RS either
  • [10] about company, he is mentioned in 1 sentence
  • [11] about company, he is mentioned in 1 sentence
  • [12] about company, he is mentioned in 1 sentence
  • [13] about company, he is mentioned in 1 sentence
  • None of this is significant coverage about him, which is why he should be redirected to the company article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks @Tony Fox. Ricardo Santos Silva is the chairman and CEO of Aethel Mining (please look at the references) and the face of the group. There are also more controversial news (some bank he acquired in Portugal) and I guess this is why they want the pages remove. Ricardo Santos Silva clearly has enough notability - that is why I have created the article. Thanks PeacefulJack (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the news in Portugal, they never say the name of the group or the mine. They say his name. PeacefulJack (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
please be aware of WP:BLUDGEON. It is not necessary to respond to voters. Star Mississippi 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry @Star Mississippi PeacefulJack (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck your second 'keep' !vote. Only one !vote allowed. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely keep. there is notariety and a very public figure in Portugal and the financial sector. Thanks 2A00:23C6:2B10:BC00:595B:2C9C:885A:ADAD (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: this user "2A00:23C6:2B10:BC00:595B:2C9C:885A:ADAD" has made few or no other edits outside this topic. – Athaenara ✉ 10:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to clearly pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - he clearly passes WP:GNG Ruiramos1976 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Ruiramos1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 18:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG . Reliable sources and significant coverage Vannostrand1949 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG Puglia1999 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article should be improved but notoriety is there. 85.255.233.208 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck: This anonIP was blocked for Long Term Abuse. – Athaenara ✉ 10:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vote Keep Ricardosantossilva (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Ricardosantossilva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 19:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I guess this wildness is the company and individual wanting their articles deleted. I am Portuguese and Ricardo is clearly notable. 2A00:23C6:2B10:BC00:8500:3548:6157:5B (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am the original PeacefulJack and I am the person that created the article for Aethel and its founders. You obviously should delete the articles if that is the consensus but what is the sense of blocking me? PeacefulJack2 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Sock is blocked. Star Mississippi 17:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop duplicate !voting. You have already made a 'keep' commment above this one. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cabritos.) – Athaenara ✉ 12:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Seems to be a mix of routine coverage of this type of article. Of the first six references, not one is secondary specific to him as a person. It is the usual framework article with no effective sources. scope_creepTalk 18:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Smith

[edit]
Maxwell Smith (edit | talk | history | 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 might be missing something here but unable to identify how said subject passes WP:NPROF. Surely having one publication with over 2000+ citations and the rest 80< is not indicative of an automatic pass of WP:NPROF. Cannot see any appointments that would qualify either. No WP:GNG pass either. nearlyevil665 21:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the person who reverted out the autobiography template (Francisfycollins, an spa) claims to be the author but not the subject, even though the history says otherwise (Asphodel76 also spa), and I've left a note explaining WP:scrutiny on their talk page. Not sure what is going on there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again also, Francisfycollins deleted talk page question about the notability here [14], even tho it wasn't their own comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Eastern Ukraine offensive#25 February. Up to editors what if anything to merge. Sandstein 08:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Starobilsk

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

Well here we are. This is obviously not a notable battle (Ukraine war cruft). The battle did happen, but the sources available do not show that this is either a significant or notable engagement. This was originally merged into Eastern Ukraine offensive with the blessing of the creator, but one editor (courtesy ping Panam2014) began inexplicably dragging their feet based on a misinterpretation of redirect/merge policy [15]. Curbon7 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Eastern Ukraine offensive as per original action. Panam2014 appears to be misunderstanding WP:GNG Arakui (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Morgan Waters Show

[edit]
The Morgan Waters Show (edit | talk | history | 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:V. Only source used is IMDb, which has (time and time again) been shot down as an unreliable, user edited source for Wikipedia. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 17:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiflis Avenue

[edit]
Tiflis Avenue (edit | talk | history | 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 private gallery in Tbilisi. Couldn't find any significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likewise cannot find coverage that would satisfy WP:SIRS. Article is stub. Chumpih t 07:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vine awards

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

Promotional non notable article on an award show which really is an ADMASQ about an organization called “Vine Entertainment Group” . The sources used in the article are self published, pr generated, and WP:COISOURCE all of which we do not consider reliable. A before search doesn’t show me any in-depth significant coverage by reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All these links arent self published but from prominent news sources in Uganda were the event happened
https://www.sqoop.co.ug/202106/news/levixone-eats-big-at-vine-awards.html
https://bigeye.ug/mathew-nabwiso-scoops-film-act-award-at-vine-awards/
https://chimpreports.com/deputy-dpp-khaukha-scoops-vine-academys-governance-impact-award/
https://recordradio.co.ug/levixone-coopy-bly-nakimera-win-big-at-vine-awards-2021/
https://www.boom.ug/entertainment/9501/gospel-stars-levixone-grace-nakimera-win-big-in-vine-awards-2021/
https://www.ugchristiannews.com/new-christian-awards-launched-in-kampala/ Thehopemonger (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those references provide in-depth information on the awards themselves or the organization providing the awards, they simply report on the entities that received the awards. HighKing++ 20:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russ George

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

Has been the source of some dispute, but when you dig deeper there's not really any significant coverage that suggests notability. Subject does not meet WP:NBASIC. ––FormalDude talk 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with notability guidelines, but do this and this satisfy WP:NBASIC? Generalissimo Store (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissimo Store: The first one does easily–I'll add it to the article. The second one, however, is an interview, so it is not independent and therefore does not count towards notability. ––FormalDude talk 05:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at most of the sources listed by WP:RSP as reliable, and a lot of them seem to have articles about George. 1 2 3 4 are about George's Haida experiment. 5 6 7 are also about it, but they seem a bit opinionated, and 8 explicitly references The Guardian in an earlier article about the subject. 9 is about an event instigated by George which is unrelated to the iron experiment, and 10 is an investigative article which seems to cover a great deal of George's career but does not come from a listed perennial source. Are any of these worth adding? Generalissimo Store (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On first glance it looks like some of those are worth adding. I'll take a deeper look as soon as I have some more time. ––FormalDude talk 20:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added those sources as they are reliable, but I'm still not sure that this article passes WP:BLP1E. ––FormalDude talk 20:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would an added section on the Vatican Climate Forest (another initiative created by George) allow the article to pass that test? Generalissimo Store (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly help. ––FormalDude talk 21:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Clearly notable, and consensus was following that path. Star Mississippi 17:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Holliday

[edit]
Ian Holliday (edit | talk | history | 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 notable, one source listed (which is a dead link) is a CV. Thirty4 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thirty4 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thirty4 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable. President of a university with an enrollment of 30,000, with origins in the 19th century. The nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD. Jacona (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. In the nomination, the nominator says "one source listed". There are four. The nom gives no indication that he looked for other sources.Jacona (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the nominator probably meant there was one independent source that is actual usable. Sure, there are "multiple" sources in the article, but two of them are from the university the dude is president of and the other two only count as a single source since they are from the same outlet. Sure, competency is required for nominations, but it's also required for people who are voting on the AFD and the whole "primary sources can't be used for notability" is pretty basic. So I suggest the people who brought it up put their condescension in check, actually follow the guidelines they are complaining about, and a real argument as to why this should be kept instead of just attacking the nominator. Outside of that, the reason I'm going delete is because there's ONE independent reference in the article that isn't even really that in-depth and has nothing to do with the dude, really if you count them as two reference that goes for both of them, and I couldn't find anything else. So there's zero reason to keep this. If someone can provide WP:THREE references that actually talk about the guy then I'm fine changing my vote to keep though. I just couldn't find any. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know any Chinese languages, so I cannot say what they say, but one might presume that there would be far more coverage in Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. than in English because of the location. Even so, a search for "Ian Holliday" plus "Hong Kong" gets a couple thousand results. Using Newspapers.com, he is cited as a "Burma Expert" in articles from places as widely dispersed as Iowa, Pennsylvania, and London, including The London Daily Telegraph from August 12, 2009 and Vancouver's Province of the same date. Additional cites range from 1998 to 2017, so this is not just a one-off event. The South China Post has numerous articles which appear to be significant coverage, but is behind a paywall, as does TimesHigherEducation. The fact that these sources aren't in the article most likely is the result not of the lack of sources, but editors such as myself not being able to access them, or being biased in favor of English-language sources. This gentleman has been widely cited and acknowledged as an expert on at least three continents over a span of 3 decades.Jacona (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese language article only has two references, one of which is primary and the other is extremely trivial. You'd think that wouldn't be the case if this was merely a language barrier issue. If he's such an expert on Hong Kong then there should be an actual article about him Chinese that goes beyond what we have access to, yet the article is worse then the English version. In the meantime you can't just claim without evidence, based on the number of Google search results, or through making claims of expertise in a topic area that someone is notable. Some rando in Iowa can call him a "Burma Expert", but it's literally meaningless if you can't provide in-depth coverage of him in multiple independent sources to back it up with. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I included the quote by "some rando in Iowa" to demonstrate that his recognition is far-flung across geography and time. "Some Rando" can easily be augmented, here's a few more sources referring to Holliday as a Burma or Myanmar expert: "Voice of America, 2009", "John Ruwitch of Reuters, 2007", "Antoaneta Bezlova, IPS, 2009","Cambridge University Press, in an academic work from 2014". Jacona (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but as far as I can tell none of those or the other references that refer to him as an expert are actually about him. They cite his opinions. Which isn't what we need here. This isn't an article about Burma or Myanmar. It's about Ian Holliday. I'm sure you get the difference and why references about the first two don't help. The point is, people can refer to him as an expert on Burma and Myanmar all day long, but they need to actually discuss him also in the meantime, not just cite what his opinions are on international law or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Holliday is co-editor of the book Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Myanmar and author of Burma Redux: Global Justice and the Quest for Political Reform in Myanmar. Also Painting Myanmar's Transition (Hardcover) and Liberalism and Democracy in Myanmar. Jacona (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above books, a search at abebooks came up with around a half-dozen other titles he is either the author or editor of, but I got bored; someone else might be interested. Jacona (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that his books have been the recipients of multiple reviews by independent reliable sources or are we just suppose to say he's notable because he wrote some books no one has reviewed or done any other commentary on? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His books are mentioned and quoted in newspaper articles on 4 continents, his Burmese protest art show is mentioned in several articles, his books are used in the bibliography of several other books. Most of this is in links already in this AfD or in the article. I think this shows he meets WP:NACADEMIC criteria 7, in that his books have made an impact in other areas.Jacona (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona: I wasn't aware that his books being used in bibliographies counted as book reviews or conferred that he's had a substantial impact on anything. Thanks for the information. I know a couple of extremely low level professors at my local community college that have research papers cited in bibliographies who will happy to know they can have Wikipedia articles now because of it <--- obviously sarcasm --Adamant1 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's loads of evidence of that, if you would just care to click on the word "scholar" above. What on Earth makes you think that his books have not been reviewed? The only reason I can think of for that is that you think yourself too important to simply look, which is what people who are here to build an encyclopedia do. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger: the self importance dig comes off a lot like the tea kettle calling the pot black considering there hasn't been one single discussion involving both of us that I can think of where you haven't took the opportunity to insult me. It's pretty obvious you think your the most important person between us in any discussion we are both involved in. Maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. More on topic, I could really give a crap less if his books have been reviewed. I just couldn't find any reviews myself. if there's evidence to the contrary, cool. Show me some evidence. I could really give a crap, but I'll pass on the holier-than-thou condescension about it in the meantime thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read over a couple of the "reviews" that are cited in the article. At least in respect to the ones I read calling them book reviews is stretching it. I don't necessarily think a college professor making extremely vague statements about how another professor's work is interesting or whatever in an academic journal really counts for notability either. Anymore then it would for singers or actors to comment each others work. Let alone does it confer that the person had an impact on their field. Like in Burma Redux: Global Justice and the Quest for Political Reform in Myanmar, Michael W. Charney says "This is a really interesting book." In no way does that convey that number 7 of WP:NACADEMIC is met like Jacona says it does. No insult to Ian Holliday or anything, but it should go without saying that there's a big difference between his work being interesting and having an impact on Asian studies. I don't think "interesting" means "influential" either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So calling articles published in academic journals under titles which include the word "review" reviews is "stretching it", is it? Can't you just acknowledge for once that your initial kneejerk reaction was wrong, and that we need to look at the evidence to decide on notability rather than just make a guess? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team#Italy. RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Celada

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

Violates WP:NOTDATABASE, due to be sourced only to databases, and fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage - all we know about him is that he competed in the team gymnastics event of the 1908 Olympics, his name, and where and when he was born. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Cannella

[edit]
Victor Cannella (edit | talk | history | 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 simply could not find any sourcing to verify that this Victor Cannella ever existed. The only source cited is IMDb, which is user-generated and thus unreliable; my search of Newspapers.com, Google Books, the Internet Archive, ProQuest, etc. found no coverage at all. I suspect this is a hoax (indeed, the editor who created it had a history of unconstructive edits), and in any event it is unverifiable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there are literally no reliable sources at all about this person, so even if it isn't a hoax, the article doesn't pass WP:BASIC. He isn't credited on any of the animations that he is supposed to have played on, so either he didn't exist or he was simply a session musician and doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We hold IMDb to not be a reliable source. We should have 0 articles with this as the only listed source, instead we have thousands if not tens of thousands of such articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm getting some hits on the name with location in LA in Ancestry, but only on voter registrations, not in census records or anything else that would help me confirm a profession. Exact searching for this name ONLY would be a mistake. If he indeed existed and was born in Italy or was of Italian descent, his name was probably something more like Vittorio and his last name was probably spelled different ways--maybe with double Ns and Ls, maybe single, maybe a mixture; and wildcard that e for other vowels. I've added him to my weekend research list this weekend. Probably a delete, but I'll look anyway. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DiamondRemley39, I did actually check the genealogical sites (which are usually pretty good about searching for spelling variations with Soundex and the like), and the basic problem is that nothing lines up with the dates we've been given, particularly the very specific death date of February 3, 1946 (in Florida, according to IMDb). I don't seem to have Ancestry access anymore, so would you mind telling me what the voter registrations say? The street address might be useful. Thanks in advance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Extraordinary Writ, good stuff.
    I can't say where he was when or why (or even *if* he was...), but here are some things...
    • Victor Cognina Cannella marries Marie Scozzaro Baio in Hillsborough, Florida on January 24, 1936.
    • Voter registration, Los Angeles County, California, 1944, 1946: **Cannella, Victor, 455 E 134th St, occupation: aircraft worker (only given 1944).
    • Voter registration, San Francisco, California, 1936: Victor A Canilla, 825 Howard, San Francisco, occupation: cook.
    I didn't find any good hits in member trees, though I didn't look very hard. I also didn't check Family Search. My work is piling up and I'm not sure I'll have time to do all of those things. I may just check for him in Proquest Entertainment Industry over the weekend.
    I don't like to say hoax or not without solid evidence or lack of evidence, but the very first draft of the article didn't even have an IMDb link. The cause of death changed from cardiac problems to polio between an early draft and now. Seems the person who thought this wasn't a hoax was a (regrettably) late admin, who added IMDb as a citation. I am scratching my head over the IMDb edits. It is difficult to get IMDb edited--much more difficult than to get anything on Wikipedia edited--but maybe several years ago it was easier; I don't know. I'll look a bit more. I'm leaning hoax. Wouldn't surprise me if the creator had a relative by this name, or something like that. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one is this fellow, a "retired dental technician" and "lifelong resident of the Tampa Bay area" (i.e. Hillsborough County) who lived c. 1911–1987—definitely not a match. The other two are surprisingly difficult to place, but I find it rather hard to believe that either a cook or an aircraft worker would be performing in Hollywood on the side. FamilySearch finds me a few more people with similar names, but they're mostly farmers from Louisiana with birth dates that don't match. It is a bit odd that IMDb would be so far off the mark here, but there have been plenty of horror stories about their questionable or non-existent fact-checking: see e.g. here. (Indeed, they may have accepted it just because it had a Wikipedia article.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Florida" Cannella: WWII draft card has him born 1910. Correct, not a match.
    • "San Francisco" Cannella: I would think that an elderly immigrant pianist might find himself working as a cook on the side during the Depression... or maybe a cook with piano skills lucked out and got work in films that early on? Seems unlikely that this is happening with him living in a different part of the state, though people did get around.
    • "Los Angeles" Cannella: Aircraft worker at 70+? Quite unlikely, even during the war.
    • Another: "New York" Victor Cannella, b. about 1887 in Italy, working in NYC in sanitation in 1940. Another no.
    • Louisiana: Concur these are not matches.
    I once found IMDb off by 25 years on a death... and it was a front-page of major newspapers suicide. ::shrug:: They don't fact-check, or they didn't at one time.
    I'm at 99.9% hoax. Looks like a hoax, sounds like a hoax. One more database to check. Possibly tomorrow. Let me know if you find anything else, @Extraordinary Writ. It's been nice to collaborating on the research. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think this is a hoax because a man of this name has some credits as a musician in a few classic Warner Bros. cartoons (at least according to a fan community that is usually pretty good at historical research). But that just indicates that he was a working studio musician like thousands of other people. Delete per WP:EXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doomsdayer520: I'd love for it to not be a hoax. Where do you see that a fan community contributed to research on Cannella or at least credits him as a musician? Can you please provide some links or something?
    So far, we've got:
    • 0 credits, actually, on IMDb--everything is uncredited.
    • 0 radio credits at Radio GoldIndex, so he's not working in that industry.
    • Nothing in newspapers.com, newspaperarchive, Proquest newspaper major dailies
    • No loosely matching name/date/location in Ancestry, Family Search, Find a Grave... and we're not even looking for occupation.
    • No authority records indicating anyone at Library of Congress or elsewhere has seen anything
    • Most importantly: WP page history is sketchy, with one key contributor, changing info, and no data to back anything up.
    Two amateur (or one amateur and one professional, as I don't know of @Extraordinary Writ's credentials) genealogists here haven't yet confirmed the man breathed, much less played a musical instrument. We're eager to look at anything remotely credible, at anyone's research. Please, show us. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DiamondRemley39 - To answer your basic question, Cannella is listed in a few places at the Warner Brothers fandom site, e.g. [17]. That's why I merely stated an opinion that the WP article may not be a hoax, because from personal experience, the Warner Brothers fan community practices serious research. But that was not even the basis of my vote, which I suspect you did not read in its entirety. This is a deletion discussion and what matters is notability, which Cannella does not have whether he really existed or not. I do not need to prove to you that it isn't a hoax, especially because I merely opined that it isn't. I don't know if you intended your message to be accusatory, but it looks that way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering my question; I asked about it because you gave some weight to the unnamed fan community saying he has credits. Thank you for providing the link; I checked it and all exact hits for that name on that site are database-style pages without citations and with brief edit histories. So short of contacting the page creators to ask how they verified their information, it's a dead end.
I understood your vote, which I read. I didn't disagree with your call to delete. I wouldn't disagree with it if I believed he had been a real man. Some of us try to help each other out on Wikipedia, so when you came forward with some information, I asked for details, like Extraordinary Wit asked me for further information on what I found on Ancestry. Some of us collaborate and communicate and all that. We build. If you don't want to be a part of that, be wary of stating that you've got information when you're in the presence of researchers. We do like to get to the bottom of things! Best. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found information about a currently living Brazilian, but nothing additional about an Italian who passed in 1946. I searched Google, newspapers.com, and newspaperarchive.comJacona (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, above analysis makes it extremely likely that this is a hoax. It's likely that the fan communities that picked up on the name just scraped it from this article and/or previous references to it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No hits on name variants in Proquest Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive. I can't prove he existed, much less that he worked on films. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Aviles

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; needs two or more significant roles in order to be eligible; he only has one significant role as Willie Lopez in Ghost. The Film Creator (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What of hosting Showtime at the Apollo? Standup work? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether also to redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 20:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Curzon, 4th Viscount Scarsdale

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Peter Curzon, 4th Viscount Scarsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's been a while since the 2014 no consensus discussion. This nobleman fails our notability guideline for biographies, and violates WP:GENEALOGY in its current state, since 95% of the article is about the subject's family. The subject inherited the title in 2000, and therefore never sat in the House of Lords. The sources are deprecated or do not provide significant coverage, except one 1997 article which in my opinion helps meet WP:GNG. However, the coverage is only about one event (WP:BLP1E) and it is not WP:SUSTAINED.

My personal source assessment follows.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Scarsdale, Viscount (UK, 1911)". Cracroft's Peerage. Retrieved 20 May 2011. No Deprecated self-published peerage website. ✘ No
Gerard, Lesley (7 June 1997). "familyfeuds". The Independent. London. Retrieved 20 May 2011. Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Gardner, Anthony (22 September 2008). "Open house: Derbyshire's stately homes". Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 20 May 2011. No no mention ✘ No
"Enjoy a walk on the wild side in Lady Scarsdale's lovely garden". This Is Derbyshire. Archived from the original on 5 May 2013. Retrieved 20 May 2011. No no mention ✘ 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}}.

Pilaz (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Christ Church Foundation School. Clearly a duplicate of the same subject. It's not clear to me that the target article demonstrates notability either, but that would be a matter for a separate nomination. RL0919 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation School (Barbados)

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

The article has had a More Citations Needed template on it since at least 2012, is only referenced to a travel blog that doesn't work for notability, and I couldn't find anything about in a WP:BEFORE when I looked. Outside of that there are some notable people who went there, but notability isn't inherited and there would still need to be multiple, in-depth, reliable sources that discuss the school anyway, which there just doesn't seem to be. Adamant1 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (And firefighting, perhaps.) No consensus to delete the page is likely to emerge; there is a strong consensus already that the topic passes our notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) SN54129 19:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) SN54129 19:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combermere School

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

The article has had a More Citations Needed template on it since at least 2012 and from what I can tell there's nothing in the article or otherwise that help improve things. Since the article is referenced purely to articles about alumni, which don't discuss the school or work for notability anyway, and I couldn't find anything when I did a WP:BEFORE that would help either. So this article clearly fails the notability guidelines and therefore should be deleted. Adamant1 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the book from University of the West Indies before nominating the article and your massively miss-representation things by saying it's a "whole book about Combermere School." In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school. In the meantime the fact that it's "history" goes back to 1685 doesn't automatically it notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Adamant1, and thanks for interacting. You appear to feel quite strongly, about this case, school articles or AFDs, but let's keep it polite - in >15 years, it's my experience that we don't normally ask people to retract their !votes, or refer to others' comments as "nonsense." Now, you say that I "massively miss-representation things" with regard to the book - but that's a straw man argument - I said I'm no expert but that there is a whole book, and that's based on library input. Are you sure you read that specific book? I have asked for copy data, and will dig in but "only 1%" about the school seems unlikely. Decent coverage does not even need a book - a good chapter, and other refs, would suffice. Let's study, and discuss further here. SeoR (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel quite strongly about people not miss-representing sources or the notability guidelines. We all should. In no way was I being impolite by saying it's nonsense that the whole book is about the school. It isn't and your statement that it is was wrong, period. I'm willing to assume good faith that you didn't know that because you haven't read the book, but that's on you for not vetting a source before you made claims about it. In the meantime to me it's rather impolite and a waste of everyone's time to make a claim about something you haven't even read. Outside of that I never said the book has to be 100% about the school, but as far as I can tell it's not even a chapter. Even if there was a chapter discussing the school that doesn't make your statement that the "whole book" is about it any less nonsensical or fact based. Outside of that, I can guarantee that I wouldn't have said anything if you were upfront about the fact that there might be a chapter discussing the school but that you don't really know because you haven't read the source. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should be clear, and I do not believe that I misrepresented anything - I noted the existence of a book, which reviews describe as being about the school (not partly, 1% or otherwise). You mentioned that you "read over the book from University of the West Indies" but now you say "as far as I can tell it's not even a chapter" - so have you actually had a chance to read it? It is pretty obscure, and if neither of us has yet explored it in detail, let's wait before we judge? I expect to have the material soon. I am happy to alter my position if it is warranted - I defer to sources (or lack of same). SeoR (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't just note the existence of the book though. You said the whole thing was about the school when you hadn't even read it and the whole book isn't about the school. So 100% you miss-represented things. You still are. Seriously dude, why not just admit you made a claim about the book that wasn't true or that least that you had zero knowledge of instead of back peddling and continuing to obfuscate about it? Also, I've said twice now that I looked through the book. The appropriate time to not judge it would have been before you voted keep based purely on conjecture about what it contained. It's a little ridiculous to say we shouldn't judge it now after the fact and me looking through the book though just because your unwilling to admit your wrong. That's not how this works. People can't just vote keep based on sources they haven't read and then expect everyone else to not judge the sources their vote was based on. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the title. It is reasonable to say it's "about" it. It's far more than 1%, as well.
Except SeoR said the whole book was about it. That aside, I don't think it's reasonable to say, let alone assume, that the book is about the school just because the word "Combermere" is in the title. Just as much as it would be to assume a book like Curious George Goes to School or whatever is in-depth, significant story about the school he goes to. In this case, there's a lot of things that are discussed in the book that relate to Combermere, but we need direct coverage and that doesn't include stories of school alumni, Barbados in general or other things on the periphery of it. You could easily have something like a book about the alumni of a certain school, with the schools name in the title, where the school isn't directly talked about though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now received the book, and I'm struggling to AGF... As the review I read suggested, it *is* a history of the school. It is not "99%" - or anything like that - a discussion of Barbadian society, and discussion of alumni is mostly incidental. The main body chapters are, in sometimes extreme detail, about the school and its principals, and operations, with only the epilogue being slightly different in style. It is, in fact, one of the most detailed histories of a school I have ever seen, far more comprehensive than books I've read about some famous UK and Irish schools. And it was written by two multi-decade-experienced academics, one based in Canada, one in the Caribbean. I am puzzled, and am also struggling to understand how some of the commentary above meets WP:NPA. But we are here to build the encyclopedia, so I will not argue about this, and will, from tomorrow evening, use the book to build up the article further. The editing effort on this page would have enabled whole articles to be built, but so be it. SeoR (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. That sounds nothing like the book I read on Google. Can you give a page number I can read or cite the in-depth coverage that your saying exists so I can look into why there's the difference? Anyway, we would still need another in-depth reference even with the book. I'm fine saying the book count as one reference if it turns out the one on Google that I read is drastically different then what you have access, but obviously there still needs to be more then that. Other then that, I agree that whole articles could have been built in the meantime, which is I asked you to not speculate on the reference before you had actually read it and told Jacona to drop the discussion. It's to bad both of you ignored me and continued it. You could have just as easily voted keep and argued about it once you had access to the book and we could have an informed discussion about it instead of just speculating. Hopefully that's a lesson learned on both your sides. I look forward to figuring out why what I read is different then the book you have though. I'm more then willing to cite a few paragraphs from the book on Google to prove that it isn't significant, in-depth coverage. That or I can give you some page numbers to look at on Google and compare to your book if you want. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Odd indeed, but look, let's not worry, let's use the source. I think the coverage is exemplified by the chapter structure and titles, so let's start with those (on page vii if you're trying to cross-check via Google). It is important to remember that Google snips can be very selective, and not necessarily in any way representative. So, the book's contents: 1) Combermere's first two hundred years (pp 1-22), 2) The role of George (BR) Burton (pp 23-47), 3) Combermere School, 1926-46 (pp 48-68), 4) The Age of Noott, 1946-1961 (pp 69-102), 5) Consolidation at Waterford, 1961-81 (pp 122-138), 6) Combermere School since 1981 (122-138), followed by epilogue, notes, bibliography, index. And then, to dive in a bit, some interesting sample pages, I'll document re. two chapters - (Chapter 1) pages 1-3 are a detailed account of the Drax Will and the consequent school foundation, pages 4-10 cover the Central School period, while 11-12 look at the Michinson Commission and the linkage between its work and the direction of the school (I would say that 12 is a bit general), 13 touches on the school achieving full second level status, and 14-22 on the beginning of the "Combermere" period, of which p.19 is more than 60% contextual. Chapter 2 elaborates the work of one key principal, and a major expansion of the school, and goes as deep into detail as to name teachers of some subjects, and discuss break-out points on finances; two pages discuss exam results, and four the subject structure and house-prefect system, followed by 1.5 pages (42-43) on school magazine work, and the "old scholars" association. It goes on, but basically it's a really thorough go at a history, albeit with periods when records seem to be "thin." But it goes far beyond one chapter or book passage. I hope this helps. One other thing that may help is to consider the publisher. University presses are usually pretty rigorous, and at the same time most don't have budget to waste, so some weight would go, even before securing a loan copy, to the fact that a third-level institution's house press published on a topic at all. See you on the article improvement stage. SeoR (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bduke: Interesting take. I wasn't aware that everything in the Caribbean is automatically notable "because the location." Also where do the notability guidelines say that "historical" (whatever that means) subjects are de-facto notable? I doubt that's the case since the last time I checked there isn't articles for every building built before the "modern times." every random archeological site, fossil, pre-modern event, Etc. Etc. don't have their own articles either. That said, you and SeoR both seem to be pretty sure the whole "historical things are automatically notable" thing though. So I'd love to know what information the two of you have access to that I don't. Please enlighten me. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if both of you retracted your votes. Same goes for your nonsense about this being inherently notable because it's located in Barbados/the Caribbean. Either prove there's de-facto notability for everything in Barbados/the Caribbean because of the location or strike your comment about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that everything in the Caribbean is automatically notable. I said that the combination of age and location made it notable. --Bduke (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. It's not like "age and location" is anymore grounded in policy then just one or other alone though. Otherwise, show me where the guidelines say "age and location" make something inherently notable. Especially as it relates to subjects that have to do with Barbados/the Caribbean. Just repeating yourself isn't evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, thanks! SeoR (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using google, the search "site:https://www.nationnews.com combermere" brings up 8,310 results. A very large percentage of these amount to WP:SIGCOV. Jacona (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona: You know that "article" is primary and self published right? How exactly is that usable for notability? SeoR, you saying a primary self published source "looks great" is exactly the kind of nonsense I was talking about earlier. Frankly, I'm surprised you can't tell what a primary, self-published source is considering you've been an editor for >15 years. It's pretty basic stuff. Same goes for Jacona. If you going to vote keep at least make sure your not doing it based on a primary reference please. It really shouldn't be that hard. In the meantime no one should take your opinion that a large percentage of the 8,310 results nationnews.com have WP:SIGCOV seriously. As it's obviously nonsense. Just looking at the first 10 results most or all of them are extremely trivial at best and have absolutely nothing to do with the school at worst. I doubt you reviewed anything passed that, let alone a large percentage of the results, and if the top ten are completely irrelevant the rest won't be any better. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it's OK with all to cut this comment in here, as it responds to points above, and the discussion goes elsewhere below. The 12-page item is *not* self-published. It was a supplement to a major national newspaper, written by professionals. Now, is it wholly independent? No, I don't think so, at first glance it looked like an "assisted" publication. But even so, so many pages of material will provide plenty of basis for citation and / or further sourcing. I will continue to work to improve the article, and let's see where we get to. SeoR (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a school that's over 300 years old with > 20 alumni that have articles. A quick search at google turns up > 33000 articles. Newspapers.com comes up with many more. A more specific search of Barbadian sources turns up 8000+ articles, many of which are in-depth. WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE clearly indicate that the availability of sources is more important than the sources in the article. If I were to perform WP:BEFORE properly on a subject with tens of thousands of results, I would not be able to reasonably conclude the subject is not notable without spending a significant of time. The premise that a 340 year old school with alumna who were major sports stars, prime ministers, top-level pop stars doesn't have sources sounded suspicious, so I looked for them, and found many in-depth sources. If I performed BEFORE, I would never have nominated this school, but you did nominate, it which makes me wonder: 1.) Have you looked through even the first few pages of sources in the google search "site:https://www.nationnews.com combermere"? Do you not find some of them to be significant in-depth coverage? 2.) Have you done site-specific searches of any other Barbadian/Carribean news outlets? 3.) Have you looked at Newspapers.com? I don't know, but it would seem the good editors at AfD would better spend their time on something else. I've agreed with many of your nominations, but on this one, I just completely don't get it. Jacona (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
again, I can see only what's apparently an abridged version outside the paywall, but you are saying that none of these amount to significant coverage? [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Jacona (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your the one claiming that in-depth sources exist. So it's on you to provide them. Why would I look through the 33000 hits on Google to prove your claim that this is notable? That's not how this works. If your unwilling to provide the references then cool, don't participate in the AfD or vote keep based on vacuous claims that your unwilling to provide evidence for then. I could care less. Other people that can make actual, guideline based arguments and know what a primary reference is are bound to come along evemtually. In the meantime you should read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, especially WP:GOOGLEHITS, because I really don't feel like repeatedly getting in discussions with you about why something that has 33000 Google hits isn't inherently notable. Your just wasting everyone's time, including mine by bringing it up. And no I wouldn't call a two paragraph article about a couple teachers of getting cancer "significant coverage" or even notable. Teachers get cancer. Same goes for the other references. Especially "Problems still at Combermere", which is about St Michael school. It should go without saying that this isn't St Michael school. It's ridiculous your trying to act like it is. Your clearly not doing your due diligence by reviewing references before you provide them. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the conversation. The above unfortunately misrepresents some facts. 1.) "Problems still at Combermere" is indeed about Combermere, which is located at Waterford, St Michael. 2.) Editors do have a duty to look for sources before bringing an article to AfD. If editors don't spend an adequate amount of time doing so, it will waste the time of many other editors. 3.) The news headlines are significant coverage, but more than what's in the url's provided, these appear to be only the trailers to more thorough coverage behind the paywall/in the print edition. Thanks. Jacona (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. My bad on that, but it's still an extremely trivial source that doesn't contain direct, significant coverage of the school though. So it's really a moot point. 2. I said multiple times I looked for sources before I brought the article to AfD. What part of "I couldn't find anything when I did a WP:BEFORE" doesn't make that clear? 3. "news headlines" aren't significant coverage and it's hysterical that you think they are. You clearly either don't understand how AfDs and the notability guidelines work or are intentionally obscuating. At this point my guess is the later.
Also, if the paywall thing was an issue it should have been before you asked my opinion about the references. Not after. I can guarantee that you wouldn't be making an issue out of them being behind a paywall if I agreed that the references were significant coverage. In the meantime there has to be evidence that the articles have significant coverage. We don't just assume there is "because paywall" or whatever. As a side to that, to quote "WP:SIGCOV Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So even if the news stories contained significant coverage there would still have to be a significant reference from another outlet/outlets for this to be notable, which there doesn't seem to be. I'd love to be proved wrong though. In the grand scheme of things WP:THREE in-depth references from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject is an extremely low bar that anything even slightly notable should be able to meet. A low bar that shouldn't be met through obscuation and miss-representing things either btw. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said "I can see only what's apparently an abridged version outside the paywall". I don't know how it could have been more clear. Please do not misrepresent what other editors say. You've done this repeatedly, all the while making this discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Jacona (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly am I miss-representing what you said when you literally said "The news headlines are significant coverage." That's a direct quote. I don't see how pointing out that news headlines aren't significant coverage is turning the discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND either. Maybe you can enlighten me? If anything you are turning into a battle ground by repeatedly making patently false assertions that I didn't do a BEFORE. Even after I said I did multiple times. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Guidelines and policies are thoroughly misrepresented in this AfD. WP:BEFORE, section B.2 directs us to take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. section D part 1 states what those steps are, which includes a google search. It doesn't really matter how many results there are, but this helps us determine whether sources exist. We certainly can and should question the quality of those results. Section C. 1 states us that if the article can be improved through normal editing, it is not a candidate for AfD. Section D.3. and D.4 continue that if adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Jacona (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty hilarious that in one comment you claimed I'm turning this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and then in the next you said I didn't take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources when I've said like 3 times now that I looked for references. I'd love to know how your refusal to accept that I took steps to look for adequate references before I nominated the article isn't treating this like a battleground. Sorry I didn't think the sources you found were up to par dude, that's no reason to try and drag me through the dirt though. Why not just admit you were wrong and move on? Other people who know how to make actual arguments should have a chance to give their opinions. I'd appreciate it if you stopped bludging this with your nonsense and let them. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How are you not mis-representing other editors with the comments you've made, including the quite rude comment where you called me "ridiculous" and said I didn't read the source I provided because it wasn't about Combermere....when in fact it was you who did not read the source carefully enough to understand what it said. That's one of several times in this AfD when you have been both rude and wrong. You've made it clear that you will not be bothered searching for sources, as BEFORE requires, stating the misunderstanding that "that's not how this works." Please stop with the borderline personal attacks and uncivil behavior. You shouldn't accuse other editors of the behavior you yourself are exhibiting. I wish we weren't having this discussion; this school's notability is obvious to me. There is more than sufficient of significant coverage (which you dismiss because you don't like it), the school is one of the oldest in the Western Hemisphere, is covered significantly in the book, hundreds of articles in the Barbadian newspaper ["site:https://www.nationnews.com combermere" search], and other significant coverage. It is the alma mater of Rihanna, and more than 20 other individuals who have articles. It is a strong keep. If you expended 10% of the effort that's been wasted here on improving the encyclopedia, we could have built something in that time.Jacona (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article said "St Michael school was reopened after being closed for several months" and there's a St. Michael School in Bridgetown, Barbados. So I thought that's what the article was talking about. I've been clear about that and in no way was I miss-representing things by reading the article wrong. Outside of that, I didn't say you were "ridiculous." Nice try though. I'm not sure where else I've been wrong either. Although even I have been wrong about other things, it's fine to be wrong. People miss-read things sometimes. Me reading a sentence wrong and then saying that's what happened is no way comparably to how you and SeoR have acted about this or the blatantly false and ridiculous things both of you have said though. Including you saying that headlines are significant coverage or that something with 33000 Google hits is inherently notable. There's really no way to take either of those things as honest mistakes. Especially since you've repeated both even after I provided links to the guidelines saying that the number of Google hits something has doesn't prove it's notable. Same goes for you repeatedly insulting me that I didn't look for references, which at this point just badgering and I'd appreciate it if you didn't badger me. You continuing to harp on me about is all the more ridiculous considering the hemming and hawing your doing about civility. There's absolutely nothing civil in attacking nominators about how they didn't look for references. Especially when they told you multiple times that they did. Seriously dude, practice what you preach and lay off it already. Your the only one wasting effort by going off about clearly false nonsense. Your not obligated to participate in this. Be my guest and go hassle someone else if you think the discussion is such a waste or edit some articles instead of mouthing off. I'm fine with either. Just as long as you leave me and my AfDs the hell alone. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you started this AfD, does not make it your AfD. You have said enough. This is not how AfD's should go. I suggest that you leave it for others to comment and an admin to close it. --Bduke (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. I was going to say "my AfD nomination", which it is, but I assumed (apparently wrongly) that I didn't need to be that pedantic about it and that it should go without that I don't own the AfD. That said, I think if someone repeatedly insults and lies about a nominator that it's within the nominator's right to ask the person to find other things to do. Outside of that, I agree other people should have a chance to comment, which is why I told Jacona to drop it multiple times. Thanks for just repeating what I said though. You repeating me is clearly going to allow other people a chance to give their opinions. Adamant1 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this ancient and nationally-significant school clearly passes WP:GNG, and this AFD nomination appears to be ill-based and possibly evidences US-/European bias given the lack of respect given to coverage by actual newspapers and other sources from Barbados. The nominator may have concerns about high school / secondary school articles in general but some are worthy of inclusion. This school is the subject of a general book (Combermere School and the Barbadian Society), a passage in a specialized book about elite schools in Barbados and the sport of cricket, and multiple newspaper and other articles. As one of a handful of higher schools for the whole colony and later country of Barbados until modern times, it has clearly had a major influence on the island's society, which I think I remember is a notability factor. The nominator seems very committed to deletion instead of improving or fixing any problems, and has accused editors who appear to have no ax to grind of stating "blatantly false and ridiculous things". Not just "ridiculous" but also "false". I edit occasionally, like many readers. And the tone of this nomination defense, with 60% of the page written by the nominator, is one reason why I don't do more. Another is the "deletionist" stance taken by a small but active percentage of editors. Maybe all AfD nominators, like Did You Know... nominators, should have to have a set number of article creations, so they understand about dropping the hard work of others. 91.193.178.64 (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, per sources explained above. --Jayron32 15:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found another book published by the press of the University of the West Indies called Cricket Nurseries of Colonial Barbados: The Elite Schools, 1865-1966 which says that Combermere is "perhaps the first school anywhere to offer secondary education to black children" and also says that the school "provided the Barbadian community with the vast bulk of its business leaders and civil servants " in its first 75 years. The book devotes 40 pages to this school. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LiquidO Detection

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

This is an interesting technology, but based on the available secondary sources, I believe it's WP:TOOSOON.

The article itself is also a disaster: clearly a massive WP:COI violation, as the primary author of the article has the same name as the primary inventor of the technology, and the whole thing reads like a massive press release. Even if WP:TOOSOON doesn't apply here, WP:TNT surely does. PianoDan (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with the nominator in that I think it reads less like a press release and more like it was copied from a report to a funding agency. Other than that, though, I concur. It's an article-sized WP:COI violation that would need to get blown up and restarted from scratch, even if having it were warranted, which is doubtful. The secondary sources I can find don't go into much depth at all. This is barely a mention, and this review gives it only a sentence (The potential for improving the identification of inverse beta decay and reducing background is apparent with a novel detector using a dense array of optical fibers immersed in opaque scintillating liquid). That and the recent publication date are a strong WP:TOOSOON signal. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's more. Several of the sources aren't sources but links to author profiles next to author names, as if this were a paper. And over a paragraph of the article tells us things that were "confidential" and never published. This is just not written as an encyclopaedia article at all. Looking around, I'm not finding the independent sourcing for rewriting, or even re-stubbing, this. Checking the stuff that cites the 2019 Communications Physics paper, for example, I'm not finding that the rest of the world has written about this in much depth. Uncle G (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if notability was somehow established, WP:TNT applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons given above.--Srleffler (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly disagree with the deletion of this article. First, I would like to suggest that we assume the good faith of the main editor of the article. He is clearly involved with the subject and I agree that some parts needs adaptation regarding the styling (MOS:NOTE was already suggested at the beginning), but it is a relevant subject to be in an encyclopaedia and there are several reliable sources about it, some of them already in the references. From the page logs, It is also clear that the author sought some support and started editing on his sandbox, it already indicated for me his good will. Anyone here more experienced with editing Wikipedia knows how difficult it can be at the beginning to follow all its rules, and it's undeniable the effort already made to create relevant content in this article. Thus, saying that the article should be blown up and started from scratch can sound offensive and for sure is demotivating for beginners. Regarding the conflict of interest, since the author is one of the main active researchers on the topic, I would try to kindly advise him on how to proceed in such cases. Again, that doesn't mean that everything should be deleted, but adapted and improved, and the talk page of the article could be a good start for this purpose. --everton137 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than simply posting a blanket Duck Duck Go search - which references in that list do you specifically think clear this article of WP:TOOSOON? I agree that most of the sources in that search are cited on the page, but they're almost entirely single-author primary sources. I don't see any notable secondary coverage. PianoDan (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, merely linking to a page of search results isn't enough to demonstrate that good, usable sources exist. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one assumed bad faith from the creator. However, an article isn't subject to a pass just because it was created by newcomer who 'worked hard'. The article isn't suitable for inclusion in its current state, and has deep profound flaws that make it harder to fix than to create from scratch (assuming it meets WP:N, which is not clear it does). This comes from this article being written for an audience other than a general encyclopedia, by an author who is not unaffiliated with the project. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (welcome to hear suggestions).
I am the main author of the article here: a professional scientist with recognised and renown track-record in generating knowledge in neutrino science and leader of several international scientific collaborations, including order hundred of scientists across many countries. More precisely, I am the spokesperson of the LiquidO consortium (about ~70 scientists in 22 institutions over 10 countries), which implies supporting our communication/dissemination strategy for which there is NO interest other knowledge generation — our job.
Since WIKI's main goal is to favour knowledge dissemination and WIKI provides the means for this knowledge to be provided by those who generated it, we have provided our article on LiquidO Detection — first article ever in WIKI for me. So, I am certainly new and inexperienced in WIKI and the set of rules/conditions that articles must meet upon publication. Hence, I certain welcome all constructive feedback that would frame our contributions most usefully to the community. Any other conclusion may be likely rooted in some kind of misunderstanding. In any case, I do appreciate if we keep as basis for exchange the main guidelines of WIKI: a) "assume good faith”, b) “be polite and avoid personal attacks” and c) “be welcoming to newcomers”. Extra comments regarding the "LiquidO Detection" article here:
Contribition Publication Context: when I wrote the article (originally in my sandbox), I was proposed to publish it, including some feedback by “expert(s)”. I welcomed this very much as I hesitated on how to proceed (given my lack of experience). Indeed, this promised feedback reassured me to proceed with the contribution(s). Moreover, I was told that the “publication consideration period” (some kind review or evaluation, I gathered) that could last up to ~3 months, period over which I was encouraged to continue to improving the article while still unpublished. All this information was provided by WIKI and much of that never happened. To my greatest surprise (or even shock), the article got published within 24 hours with NO feedback whatsoever was ever offered.
Given the lack of the feedback upon publication, this was some kind of encouragement to proceed following the same lines of the original writeup. Since the article was far from the standard I intended (approval was far faster than told) and it had not yet been fully validated by all my collaborators (i.e. our LiquidO consortium of professional scientists), I was forced to push for further article for completeness and prompt some collaborators for urgent validation of the contents (successfully). Note: the contents are now being reviewed by the full team to further scrutiny the contents. So, some modifications may be expected. To add insult to injury, a few days after publication, we entered into another degree of shock when we discovered that some WIKI experts proposed the deletion altogether — thus directly wasting all the work and disposing its contents as outcome. This is far from the “be welcoming to newcomers” guideline of WIKI from which kind, supportive and constructive feedback. It is altogether surprising that some WIKI experts appear more focused on hammering contributions without offering alternative solutions to ensure knowledge is preserved, specially considering that the knowledge is provided by the scientific professional knowledge generator community. Is this really the message that WIKI community wants to pass here to the scientific community? This seems a rather contradiction to what the wikipedia should stand for. In fact, "delete knowledge kindly provided by first-line experts” should be the last resource, should any mending strategy failed. Also, trashing the effort of others seem right against the WIKI project voluntary basis. If an article, providing proved knowledge, including renown references, failed to match the standard of WIKI, we should trigger support and guidance — not rejection. Moreover, having "first-line experts" to contribute to their knowledge in the wikipedia should be encouraged and supported, else the main WIKI project may be jeopardised.
Beyond the above general impressions, I have duly gone through reviewers your comments and here is some feedback:
  1. First, for politeness, I will skip some of the unfortunate terminology used above and/or other appreciations (such as whether article was “massive press release” or a copy “from a report to a funding agency”) in general speculative and incorrect. I would only say that some of those remarks do not seem aligned with the WIKI principles of a) "assume good faith” and b) “be polite and avoid personal attacks”.
  2. Second, I would avoid discussion about scientific judgement as this is done, like in all other scientific fora generating knowledge, via peer reviewed publications, conferences and proposals for support/funding. In fact, on those grounds LiquidO is very well served; indeed very successfully despite its early age in technology. Hence, the information provided meets in full — to be best of my knowledge and ability — the WIKI policy as it relies on FACT(s) — with dates — based on information publicly available supported by recognised publications (even Nature) and world leading scientific fora or conferences. Further information may be provided, if needed. Should you have any question or suggestion on how to improve, we surely welcome that.
  3. Third, I have gone through the wikipedia deletion policy. I see the article contents do NOT meet any of the 14  listed “reasons for deletion”. Moreover, there exist “alternatives to deletion” (same article; such as “tagging”, etc), none of those has been proposed. Why? Hence, I conclude that the proposal for “article deletion” is both disproportionate and unjustified. Of course, any reasonable discussion for possible improvement is highly welcome, as reiterated and intended, as explained before.
  4. I gather that the main possible concern is that I wrote in the article and I am indeed "conceptor" of the technology (substantiated by many of the reference provided), thus I understand this is alluded as a possible [wikipedia conflict of interest |Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]. Instead, the article states the facts (to the best of our knowledge) and those facts should not entail as any kind of handicap or discrimination for contribution to the wiki by me — or anybody else — unless an abuse was identified. I state to my honour that no abuse was intended and, if anything may be misunderstood, I offer immediate resolution. On the hand and as argued before, I understand the wikipedia community should appreciate and encourage the direct contribution form the "first-line expertise", in this case any of the LiquidO scientists or experts. The fact that the article is in WIKI, implies we are opened to the scientific community feedback too. Note the articulation employed is similar to other scientific articles in WIKI, but room for improvement exist, given the above explain conditions explained (WIKI beginner and rushed contributions by WIKI faster than expected approval for publication). Still, I went nonetheless through the [wikipedia conflict of interest |Wikipedia:Conflict of interest] and I did not find any evident direct breaching of the rules by the article. Beyond the aforementioned historical note (including some key names). The article is not about me (or my family o my company, etc) but about the scientific knowledge generated and the status of the technology led by the work of a scientific collaboration (~70 people). While my writing style is unlikely tuned to the wiki style — yes, my work is about writing papers and proposals where several Nature’s and some millions have been achieved so far — I am very happy to be advised and guided, so that the article meets the intended tone. I do thank you in advance. Note this is indeed the constructive approach we expected from WIKI (“be welcoming to newcomers”) and we have so far not felt.
  5. Last, the article is indeed “orphan” on purpose because, as explained, we did not want to connect it yet to other wiki articles, since we awaited for all my collaborators to review it (ongoing) prior to proceed with further propagation and dissemination.
So, I am compelled to request the reconsideration of the deletion of the "LiquidO Detection” contribution, for which I fully disagree since a) the article provides unique knowledge so far missing in WIKI (incontestably the most important for us and WIKI) and b) the original authors are open to improve its style, should support be provided, as originally promised. So, I'd like to propose that we convert this discussion into a constructive, sensitive and respectful dialogue (less time-consuming and more enjoyable) to ensure more and better knowledge is provide to the WIKI as a way forward. So, I kindly ask you — wiki editors / experts — to kindly help me (us) help you with our contributions to WIKI, please. We are professional scientists with NO interest(s) whatsoever other than pure knowledge generation and dissemination, both our job, and we offer our knowledge to the community from which we'd be delighted to count on your kindest support and knowledge. Our team and myself would surely be most grateful. Anatael Cabrera (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve I also think this article should be kept. Certainly, the work of a beginner, which can be improved. Yes, the writer and the developer are the same, but I think that experts should be allowed to write about their work, with proper references and scrutiny. Not ideal, but not a reason to delete it all. Ajgw56 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator. First, I DO appreciate the author's enthusiasm for sharing their work on Wikipedia.
However, I'd like to suggest they carefully read WP:COIE. "Do not edit or create articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." Personally, I'll edit articles about particle accelerators, but I won't about my own company, or about companies the directly compete with it. The author's comment that "the contents are now being reviewed by the full team to further scrutiny the contents." is problematic - members of the LiquidO consortium should NOT have created their own page directly, and once it exists (assuming it is deemed notable), they should be using the Edit Request Template to request other editors make edits, rather than making them directly.
The other policies I'd like to point out are WP:OR and WP:PSTS. Wikipedia is not the place to present original research, and primary sources, while somewhat unavoidable in very technical articles, need to be accompanied with at least some secondary coverage to establish notability. Adding additional secondary sources to this page would be the number one way to improve its chances of surviving AfD. Failure to establish notability (A8) per WP:GNG is the deletion criterion at issue here. PianoDan (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - While I have no reason to doubt the author's motives here are noble in wanting to share their research, the problem remains that this just simply isn't what wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that follows the academic consensus, and is committed to being exactly as wrong or out of date as the current consensus. Wikipedia is not an alternative path to recognition for serious academic work or a parallel path alongside broader academic recognition - it absolutely must follow other recognition. If this research is truly as impactful and important as the author believes, it will be cited by many reliable, academic, secondary sources, which will then likely be used by uninvolved parties to write an article about this topic. But as wikipedia is a tertiary source that is and must be written and maintained by editors who are not credentialed experts, it is absolutely necessary that all information be verifiable in secondary sources. This is why we can't just have an article written by a subject matter expert without independent, secondary source citations. People who are reading the encyclopedia need to be able to verify the information presented on any wiki page without having to contact the author or rely on any trust that the information is correct.
This is entirely separate from the conflict of interest concerns, which are certainly also serious here, but those do not even need to be considered until it's established in secondary literature that this research is important and impactful. I appreciate that a lot of effort must have gone into drafting this page, but quite frankly there's no salvaging this contribution here whatsoever. I would recommend that the author, and the consortium they represent, invest time in the future into making sure that the avenues they pursue for spreading their research are appropriate and receptive, before they invest time and effort into how they will present their research. This is a useful lesson I have learned extensively outside of wikipedia in the corporate world: first sell the meeting, not the business. A lot of effort could have been saved here if the consortium had invested the time into making sure their work was aligned with wikipedia policies before spending so much time on writing this page. I am not sure if there was a disconnect here on the wikimedia side, but a fuller understanding of wikipedia policies by the consortium could have easily prevented this: while we don't assume familiarity of policies for all new editors, as this contribution is from a large professional organization, it seems that more initial legwork ought to have been done here. To the author: I would personally recommend that when you do find an alternative front for presenting this research, perhaps at academic conferences or when submitting review papers, or when you approach investors to make your technology marketable, that you take this advice into consideration. This will likely increase the chances that this research will one day be well-cited and verifiable enough to be included on Wikipedia. - car chasm (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strands

[edit]
Strands (edit | talk | history | 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 indication of real notability or non-industry press coverage. QueenofBithynia (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator per WP:CSK#1, I will plan to improve the article to include more data and place it in context. (non-admin closure) Bonoahx (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK number 1 men's tennis players

[edit]
List of UK number 1 men's tennis players (edit | talk | history | 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:NOTSTATS, list is too specific and only mentions men's singles players (as opposed to doubles players) who represented the UK at some point in their career. While this could be improved I can not see a reason why this can't be a category or mentioned on the specific subjects' articles (which they generally are). The UK is the only country I could find with a specific list of country-specific number 1s, and there is not a list for British women's players either. Bonoahx (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's no reason to delete this. It passes any guidance issues and is independently referenced. You also state that there isn't a women's list. Therefore why don't you create one? And the UK being the only country to have such a list is not a valid reason for deleting the article. Rillington (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original Vampires (The Vampire Diaries)

[edit]
Original Vampires (The Vampire Diaries) (edit | talk | history | 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 on a non-notable fictional concept, which is comprised almost entirely of in-universe plot summaries sourced to episode recaps, many of which are not even reliable sources. The only exception to this is the few sentences at the end about the show's development, which itself is already covered at The Originals (TV series)#Production. The actual characters listed here are already covered in a much more succinct format at List of The Originals characters, making this article redundant as a character list. As the concept of the "original vampires" from this franchise is not independently notable from the show itself, this article is an unnecessary spinout, and a general overview of the concept is already adequately described as part of the main article on The Originals (TV series). Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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! 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Coll-Barreu

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

Speedy deletion was declined on the grounds this was not obvious enough, but this is still obvious WP:PROMO and the subject very clearly fails WP:GNG (of the sources in the article, the link at the top is clearly a biography provided by the subject, the first proper ref does not mention him by name at all, and the others are all entries about buildings with "Text description provided by the architects"... Looking for other stuff does not yield any convincing examples either) and WP:NOTCV (because that is what this reads like, a CV...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOW. At best this is an outright hoax. At worst, someone trying to promote themselves. The argument in favor of this being a hoax is pretty strong, especially in lieu of this article. I'm also going to give the article creator a WP:NOTHERE block given the situation. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caste2caste sale

[edit]
Caste2caste sale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability whatsoever. Not a single link apart from the Amazon page[26]. Fram (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK and there is no plausible redirect target. DanCherek (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • what evidence you need to not to delete Samadhaan (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can provide RRRNA(isbn.gov.in) official letter of ISBN allotment. Samadhaan (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://isbn.gov.in/v2/admnis/applicant/ISBNAppliedBookList.aspx?app_id=30829&langid=1 Samadhaan (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • can you please guide me how to make you to get notability of this ?? Samadhaan (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was leaning towards deletion but the editor asked for sometime to make relevant changes. So if the editor failed to provide relevant sources then my vote will be delete. Afzlfc (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Book" appears to be listed only on Amazon India (as unavailable), and cannot be found with Google, which is a poor sign. The photographs of the book on the Amazon India site have clearly been manipulated and are not of an actual book. The publisher is not a publisher, but a printer, suggesting it may be self-published. And, incidentally, the printer's website is blocked by BitDefender, which speaks ill of the entire situation. The normal hurdle that must be cleared by a book before it deserves an article is that there must be independent secondary sources writing about the book. In this case, I'm not even sure the book clears the preliminary hurdle of being a properly-published book. It was published in mid February, recent enough that it ought to be available, long enough ago that if anyone was going to write enthusiastically about it, they have had some chance to do so. Elemimele (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked as well. Notability doesn't even enter into it. I cannot verify that the book purportedly with ISBN 978-9356204256 even exists. I've checked the Indian catalogues in Special:Booksources and they report zero results. As does the search tool at https://isbn.gov.in/ in fact. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • this book is published in February 2022 & first sale of book is finished. and coming to the lover of wikipedia, I never dare to create un necessary & un worthy stuff in wikipedia. Janapriya printers is printing press & no where address mentioned & how come you say that printer is suggesting self-published??? before making a decision try to get info from the editor right ?? I m not interested to defend to introduce good book to fight to place in wikipedia. For better visual presentation we will upload such a cover image, how can you that it is manipulated ?? you want me to upload original coverpage of the book ?? if you guys are suggesting delete, please go a head!! because wikipedia is not a business to promote. My pure intension to give good place to book, which made critical analysis on caste system. I m handing over things to the respected persons in this conversation as I want this book to be placed in wikipedia with pride, not by begging & with mercy. Thanking you. Samadhaan (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • for your kind information I will upload allotted isbn as image in wiki common, kindly check Samadhaan (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • kindly go through the image of ISBN allotment from http://isbn.gov.in
    • Caste2castesaleISBN.png( in wikimedia commons)
    • Indian ISBN site is not functioning properly in search zone, that is the major problem. you can check it in that Wikimedia commons.
    • Thank you Samadhaan (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/man-held-for-posing-as-bureaucrat-to-dupe-people-1.65026239 and the deleted revisions at Sampath Kumar Surappagari (author of this non-existent book) and checking out the purported newspaper at Dainik Prayukti (purportedly published by that same person, with its address being in Karol Bagh just as IANS reported, and listed as a company in 2013 just as IANS reported; but has no news in it, and no reported existence apart from a few regurgitated press releases some years ago, and was changed to struck off on the companies register years ago too) I am upgrading this, something that I rarely do. It's not just notability. It's not even just verifiability. These all three appear to be outright hoaxes perpetrated by almost single-purpose account Samadhaan (talk · contribs). And the offers of dummied-up cover pages, for this non-existent book as well as the non-existent newspaper, as well as the claims that the hoaxes don't check out because somehow the WWW site isn't working, no doubt next to be given as the explanation of the fact that none of the URLs in the dummied-up newspaper pages check out and the purported newspaper WWW site otherwise has about 1 "article" (which are just regurgitated tosh with some stock images added if one reads them) per year, fit exactly the pattern of hoaxery with dummied-up false documentation reported by IANS. Strong delete. Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In explanation of my comment on falsified images; this may be a misunderstanding on my part. Of the eight images shown on the Amazon India site, several show the book with a bar-code, several without. I took these to be the front and back cover. Looking at the versions of these pictures that show the book in perspective, one shows the edge of the book as the natural curve of the pages of a hardbound book, not as large as the covers. The other shows what I thought ought to be the spine, but which is actually just a neutral flat surface the full width of the book, which couldn't possibly be the spine of a hardbound book. On reflection I think the aim might have been to show a paperback version. I apologise if this was the case. The Amazon page does not specify whether the book is available in paperback and hardback (again a very odd situation; Amazon is usually very clear about the formats in which it sells). But in the end, this is irrelevant. From the perspective of Wikipedia, we cannot have an article about the book unless at least a couple of reliable sources have written about it independently, and no such sources appear to exist. Elemimele (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:HOAX as described by Uncle G — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 20:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PRIME (lifestyle management company)

[edit]
PRIME (lifestyle management company) (edit | talk | history | 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 appear to be notable. Coverage seems to be extremely limited, and the article looks to be purely promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Singh (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab page, the politician is the clear PT and is now at the base name. MB 14:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wii ISO Archive

[edit]
Wii ISO Archive (edit | talk | history | 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 more or less the same reasons raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii Backup File System: fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources at all since its creation 9 years ago, no sources found using both Google and the WP:VG/S custom search engine. theinstantmatrix (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is more appropiate for a wiki or site focused on the technical workings of the Wii Rlink2 (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the reasons that I and others have voiced at Wii Backup File System. In fact, this one is actually worse off because it's a smaller stub with zero references. Good luck finding one that isn't original research or from a self-published source. — voidxor 23:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JK.Kite (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden Street

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

Sources aren't sufficient for WP:NCORP. The Entrepreneur article, while long, quotes the founders exclusively and has independence issues. Hemantha (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Rename. As discussed and per the sources identified, the notable entity is the incinerator. The editorial work to move/rename does not require continuation of this discussion. Star Mississippi 19:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aragonite, Utah

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

It having been suggested very pointedly that I should look into this one, I've made a return trip. This is impeded by my usual topo/aerial source not going back beyond the 1970s, but what they do show in that timeframe is a string of buildings along the rails that looks nothing like a town, as they have a decidedly industrial look. Then there is a Quonset hut that sits away from the tracks, but around about 2000 they moved the siding so it now swings by this building, the others having been demolished. Searching shows lots of general references to aragonite and to the incinerator, along with a few rail-related hits and the one ghost town hit. The last talks about some building remnants, but there's nothing there that evidences ruins of residences. Mangoe (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source cited above by Chubbles literally tries to say that the mineral Aragonite is named after the "town" Aragonite ("This mineral, similar to calcite, but of greater density, is found near the small town named after it - Aragonite"). This is obviously not true - Aragonite is named after Molina de Aragón in Spain, where it was first identified in 1797. This source is therefore obviously not to be relied on.
  • GNIS is not a reliable source.
  • Utah Atlas & Gazetteer - I cannot access this source, but from what can be seen online it appears to be a map/atlas, and as such does not support notability.
  • Utah Ghost Towns - Self-published source, not reliable, does not state that the site was ever really populated but instead just a mine.
  • ARAGONITE HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR, UTAH - This is significant coverage... of the waste incinerator. It is also not independent of the source.
  • Aragonite Permit: Clean Harbors, LLC - This is about the waste incinerator, and is not independent of the source.
  • Utah incinerator faces penalties, Deseret News - This is the only independent, significant coverage here, but is ultimately about the waste incinerator company.
  • Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. to pay penalty for chemical reporting violations at Aragonite, Utah facility. US EPA - Government press-release, not independent coverage, and is about the waste incinerator.
This just confirms what Uncle G said - this place was likely never populated, just a mine and later waste-incinerator. There is some coverage of the waste-incinerator, but as a bare minimum another piece preferably from a different year in a different reliable and independent publication about it is needed to get it over GNG. FOARP (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You read the Utah's Mining Industry source backward, it says it's the place named after the mineral, but there's still no indication that an abandoned bunkhouse is really a "ghost town" or makes a notable former community. Reywas92Talk 15:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would this meet your WP:HEY for the incinerator? Ultimately, I'm not terribly bothered as to whether this article is located at its current site or is relocated to Aragonite Hazardous Waste Incinerator, though I hope that name change would not engender a stripping of the content about the geography and prior uses of the site. I am rather unpersuaded that "there is no there, there", in relation to a historical townsite (people who worked in the mines decades ago probably did not all live 45 miles away, for one thing), but if anything about the current article is genuinely inaccurate, I certainly want to correct that. Chubbles (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chubbles - I think the Salt Lake Tribune article gets this to a bare GNG pass for the incinerator. With the Deseret News piece this gets it over the line. WP:CORP is just passed as well, since both the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News are not purely local sources (instead they're regional, maybe even state-wide), and the subject matter is not WP:MILL. PS - the miners probably lived in a simple camp, not a permanent community. Typically they would only spend a matter of months there each year going by similarly remote mines in e.g., Canada. FOARP (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There was a rough consensus that the sources presented were not enough to make this subject meet our notability guidelines. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Stump

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

Renominating per WP:NPASR recommendation from User:Sandstein, as the last AFD had only one participant after three weeks.

As I stated last time, the sourcing here is horrendous. Most of it is just a personal blog, along with a few clickbait listicles about how "weird" the sheet music is and some YouTube videos of people pretending to perform it. There is an obituary cited, but obits in and of themselves are not reliable sources in the absence of anything else. (Furthermore, I could not find this particular obit anywhere else besides in the blog, so its use as a source doesn't pass muster anyway.)

The only participant in the last AFD added a clipping from the Reading Eagle, but it was written with a personally invested tone that suggests an editorial or otherwise non-journalistic coverage. A book about musicians was also added, but it only mentions Stump passingly in the context of other works.

John Stump and "Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz" have been Internet memes for ages, but there is no biographical or encyclopedic coverage to him or his work outside a few people having fun with it. Not all memes become notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Fee, Christopher R.; Webb, Jeffery B., eds. (2016). "Death Waltz". American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 297–298. ISBN 9781610695688.
    This is a two-page encyclopedia entry with a joint focus on one of Stump's works and another piece that shares its name. It's hard to get a word count from Google Books, but it's several hundred words (the font is tiny), so it's clearly WP:SIGCOV in my view.
  2. Gordon, Molly (16 July 1993). "Remove cattle from stage". The Berkshire Eagle. p. 7. Retrieved 19 February 2022.
    This is an arts column reviewing one of Stump's works in a regional newspaper of record in Massachusetts. It's unquestionably SIGCOV, and I disagree that the author's casual tone means she is unable to write about Stump independently—she has no relationship to him beyond reviewing his work.
  3. Kemper, Gary (13 February 2006). "In Memorium: John Stump". Glendale Focus. Vol. 3, no. 2. p. 3. Retrieved 27 November 2020.
    This is a reported obituary in a local magazine written by its publisher, the only complication being that he knew Stump. You write that obits in and of themselves are not reliable sources in the absence of anything else, but per the previous nomination, I believe you are confusing paid obituaries with reported ones. There's a huge difference—paid ones are supplied by the person's family and therefore don't count as independent. Reported ones absolutely do count. Regarding your being unable to find the obit independently, that is immaterial: per WP:V, Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.
Any two of those three is sufficient, so take your pick. There's further coverage from several other sources that aren't quite SIGCOV, e.g. Gersten, Jennifer (25 September 2017). "4 More Unplayable Works (That Were Eventually Played)". WQXR. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
Beyond GNG, there's a case under WP:ANYBIO #2. I agree with you that not all memes become notable, but a satirical work that's persisted for 40 years has a much greater claim to cultural significance than the latest internet fad—Stump composed what is likely the most prominent example of satirical sheet music of all time. I don't think we could justify pages about both Stump and Faerie's Aire, but we have enough for one, and it makes sense to have it located at Stump given that he's the broader topic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sdkb: I don't need your filibuster. I just explained why the sources aren't legit. The encyclopedia is only a passing mention. The Reading Eagle article is an editorial with a personally invested tone. And the obituary only seems to exist on that one blog post, because I can't find it anywhere else online. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails GNG, NBAND, and ANYBIO. There's a case to be made that Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz passes GNG but Stump certainly does not. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you speak to whether or not you found the encyclopedia entry to contribute to notability? Based on my OCR scan, it's approximately 930 words, split equally between Stump and the folktale, which is clear SIGCOV. I would be willing to restructure the article around Faerie's Aire as an ATD, but per the WP:BROADCONCEPT guideline, I think the current structure is better. I note that, per WP:NBIO, reviews or coverage of a person's work (the Gordon piece being a quintessential example) count toward notability for the person. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Google books doesn't provide much of a preview but I don't see SIGCOV for Stump, only for Death Waltz. I think the outcome of this discussion needs to be deletion, regardless of any future effort to restructure the piece. Both articles about this subject and Death Waltz already resulted in deletion, so it might be un-wise to try again right now; maybe in another decade better sources will exist, per WP:NODEADLINE. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you haven't yet been able to access the full Encyclopedia of American Folklore entry, it may have been premature for you to !vote. Per above, coverage of Death Waltz counts for Stump: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work. ... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The first two sources I provided count as such coverage. I guess you could try to make an IAR case that that's not enough, but Stump's enduring popularity makes me inclined to be generous rather than stringent in interpreting guidance here—there has been enough coverage to write a fully sourced medium-length biography page, and it serves readers better to keep it than to delete it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see no further purpose in this conversation; my !vote stands. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I've looked at the sources as noted; the obits all seem to be based from or refer to the one by the subject's nephew, which lean into primary sources, I believe. In re the newspaper arts column, I think it would be stronger were it in a larger newspaper, and not a small regional daily. I just don't think any of these really cut it to establish notability. There may be something that could be done with the Death Waltz, potentially, if there is any scholarly review of the piece that has emerged or does emerge, but right now, this doesn't make it for me. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. The sources provided by SailingInABathTub have not been discussed. Sandstein 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antwain Britt

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

Fails WP:GNG. Main coverage is through routine sporting reports, no SIGCOV found. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 05:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such requirement, notability is not temporary. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable."
He was considered "notable" because he met WP:NMMA guidelines, which allows pages to be created in hopes that GNG will be met. When a fighter or athlete retires we need to review the page, and if it doesn't meet GNG we delete the page. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 21:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not follow however that none exists.[1][2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ Ed Miller (17 September 2008). "A former heavy weighter, fighter shows 'Ultimate' potential". Virginian Pilot. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
  2. ^ Case Keefer (16 November 2011). "Antwain Britt comes full circle with Strikeforce main event bout at the Palms". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
  3. ^ Loretta Hunt (13 May 2010). "Make Way for 'The Juggernaut'". Sherdog.
  4. ^ John Morgan (19 November 2010). "With Strikeforce Challengers 12 win, Antwain Britt wants another shot at "Feijao"". MMA Junkie. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
  5. ^ "Antwain Britt". ESPN. Retrieved 24 March 2022.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The "delete" argument is that this article makes scientific claims not supported by reliable academic sources. The "keep" argument is that while that may be so, the claims have been reported in reliable sources. I'm inclined to give the "keep" opinions a bit more weight (we do cover notable pseudoscience), but the "delete" arguments are not baseless, and the "delete" opinions are much more numerous. Sandstein 20:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Ebal curse tablet

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

See Talk:Mount Ebal‎ - there has been no peer review for this yet and if you read [32] it's clear that virtually everything about it is or will be challenged including the language, date, inscriptions, etc. Note that it was found in Canaan before the creation of Israel, that it was found without any context by a Creationist. WP:NOTNEWS applies and this sort of extraordinary archaeological claim should not be based on media reports. The fact of the media reports is IMHO not sufficient reason for an article or even its mention in other articles. Also note that at the date claimed that the inscription would not have been about the Jewish God but about the deity Yahweh, who became one of the gods worshiped by the early Israelites before they became monotheistic. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SENSATION. The story could be mentioned when competent independent experts publish enough about the supposed artifact to properly contextualize it. Until then, WP's hands are tied. jps (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article you cite is prima facie evidence that Haaretz is not a reliable source for such matters. The problem of conducting science by press release is well-known, and in this case it looks like Haaretz has been hoodwinked. It isn't the first time. jps (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sensationalist media reports aren't WP:RS for archaeological content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What exactly are the grounds for deletion? The lengthy blog post by Christopher Rollston which Doug has very helpfully produced surely, along with the respectable Israeli press stories, disposes of any claim of non-notability or WP:SENSATION. Rollston is exactly the right sort of specialist RS one wants in this field, and should be the main source. The press stories are actually not bad in clearly indicating there will be controversy over this when the thing is published. It has indeed not yet received a proper academic paper, but when it does, we can be sure it will be back, generating plenty of RS even if the the claims are adjusted/discounted by most. Even if it were a hoax (which no one has yet suggested) it would probably become notable. jps's gutting of the article, while at Afd, and introducing a mispelling of Stripling's name, is most unhelpful, & I have reverted it. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability". A 'Keep' argument based around assumptions that suitable sources will become available at a future date is less than convincing, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rollston + 2 longish press stories = notability, imo, even if the basic facts/conclusions are not firmly established (as for very many subjects from similar dates). Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If basic facts are not "firmly" established, how do you write an article? I'm happy to consider an example of how to write an article based on a blogpost and a few shoddily done press-releases-cum-articles, but in my experience this is just not something that I've ever seen competently executed. jps (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Conclusion at talk page of Mount Ebal. Since usage of the "LOL" and the term "worse" on Jpost. As if something over here is "bad." And googling who ... is active here... 1. Fanacism and extremism are not limited to one side. 2. An indirect admission that the objection is motivated by one political side and not a moderate one at that.Truth3v3r (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What conclusion? Doug Weller talk 16:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The notability of the object is dependent on the sensationalist interpretation of ambiguous material as reported by non-academic sources. - Donald Albury 13:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication.
    Moreover it is not that extraordinary; the artefact is dated 1200 BC; the term Yahweh was found in Egyptian inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1402–1363 BCE) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Late_Bronze_Age_origins_(1550%E2%80%931200_BCE) Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation at a later date when sourcing is actually, well, there. Sensationalist near-churnalism plus a blog post trying to hold back said sensationalism are not a good foundation to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as others have said, for now. Per the above, the extraordinary claims being made in association with this tablet require vetting beyond that done by the general media. I don't think Wikipedia will be harmed by waiting for better sources, while I think it could be if we print huge claims which are later retracted. As ever, reasonable minds may differ on the question. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the properly "extraordinary claims" have ever been mentioned in the article; Rowland does not seem to see the claims the article actually mentions as very far-fetched, though properly scholarly process is needed. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am betraying my nerdish side a bit much, but even the claim of the earliest usage of the tetragrammaton strikes me as pretty extraordinary. But, as I said, reasonable people can reach very different conclusions on this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From memory (of Rowland), even if their dating is correct it would only push this back 3 centuries was it. Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not that sensationalist; the term is older and was found in Egyptians inscriptions : The oldest plausible occurrence of Yahweh is in the phrase "Shasu of Yhw" (Egyptian: 𓇌𓉔𓍯𓅱 yhwꜣw) in an Egyptian inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1402–1363 BCE). The fact that it appears 150-200 years later in Hebrew inscriptions does not change the timeline of the existence of the term; just that Israelites adopted the term from Shasu earlier than previously documented. Considering that both Shasu tribes and Israelites are from the Levantine region, it seems reasonable that cultural diffusion could occur between the two groups especially during the chaos of the bronze age collapse. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting into quite a can of worms here! And though I generally agree with you, the relationship (or perhaps identification?) of the Shasu and the Israelites is a fraught problem at best. It would still strike me as remarkable if, indeed, the tetragrammaton itself were verified on this item (as distinct from cognates, related terms, etc.) That said, I understand both your position on why the article should be kept and why the claims are not sensationalist: I just come down slightly differently on both. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please take note of what Wikipedia:Reliable sources has to say regarding the use of newspapers etc s academic sources: "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics". Archaeology is unquestionably an academic topic, and not one on which Haaretz (or any other general newspaper) is likely to have much expertise. And if one were to ignore that, and nevertheless take Haaretz content as reliable, the source would have to be used in a balanced manner: making it very clear that they are reporting Stripling's claims as claims, rather than fact, and noting the doubts raised by the experts they consulted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to claim it is reliable for this material, you need to explain why it wasn't also cited for its reporting regarding the 'scholarly issues' raised by the qualified scholars it consulted regarding Stripling's claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment? That Haaretz was cited by who? Can you make your point clearer? Haaretz is considered a reliable source by wikipedia list of sources. I don't understand how not citing something suddenly makes Haaretz not a reliable source. Patrick.N.L (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cite in the Wikipedia article for the issues raised by scholars responding to Stripling. The article fails to note any of that. And please read WP:RS. There is no such thing as an abstract 'reliable source': Haaretz can be used for general news reporting, but nothing suggests that it has any specific expertise on archaeological subjects. For such matters we need sources with appropriate expertise, rather than ones merely repeating unverified claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to cite in the wiki article the issues raised by scholars; i have no problem with that also we could cite the fact that no research paper exists yet; which gives some context.
Do you have an article or a source that discusses, summarize or points out one or more of those issues. I was looking for it.
I agree Haaretz has no expertise on archeological studies, but it can still report a press conference on an archeological find where scientists from 5 different academic/research institutions have worked on. For example, no scientific article exist for the apollo of gaza but just the fact of its discovery and the reporting by mainstream media is enough to make a Wikipedia article on it : "To their great frustration, archaeologists have not been able to get their hands on the Apollo, and instead must pore over a few blurred photographs of the intact deity"
I don't see why the discovery and announcement of the tablet in mainstream media, which scientists from USA, Israel and Czech republic have analyzed (and many from non-religious institutions), cannot be treated as a possible discovery but the Apollo of Gaza, which has not been analyzed by scientists, can have its page. Patrick.N.L (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair; if this article is to be deleted because there is no scientific paper on it; so should be the wikipedia page on the Apollo of Gaza. Patrick.N.L (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And yes, there is no scientific paper on the tablet. Which is why we shouldn't be reporting unverified claims as to its significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that a peer reviewed article is planned for later this year.[33] The team that will produce the peer reviewed report includes Peter Van der Veen, who seems to be a follower of David Rohl's chronology.[34]. Doug Weller talk 07:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead archaeologist is Scott Stripling. He received his PhD from Veritas International University, which "has an evangelical doctrinal statement that emphasizes 'three legs' of biblical authority: inspiration, infallibility, and biblical inerrancy". See [35]. A starting point of biblical inerrancy does not give confidence that he is looking at the evidence impartially. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Continued scholary argument about the object is an argument for keeping the article, not deleting it. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 'scholarly arguments' appear to consist almost entirely of suggestions that the claims made in the newspaper stories aren't properly supported by evidence. Which in Wikipedia's terms means that the newspapers stories aren't reliable sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for me, the "argument" thus far is an indication that there will almost certainly be an article at some point. I am just not sure why we would rush to include this; there will undoubtedly be better scholarly sources in (relatively!) short order. I am of the opinion that we should wait for the subject to be more fully developed, but as ever, I am mindful that others may reach the contrary conclusion in complete good faith. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having watched the press conference, we should exercise EXTREME caution. These guys' soupçon of credibility should be buried under an impermeable layer of salt until they publish or at least release full scans. The one drawing they've released is not exactly encouraging (the he is ok but the yod and waw need, uh, imagination) and they're an ideological organization by design. I hope it's real -- would be an amazing contribution to our understanding of a hundred other things -- but it doesn't yet deserve a page or even a mention on wiki. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Archaeology, and Palestine. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify The article is simply not ready, as no quality sources yet exist. We can quickly resurrect it once a formal publication is made, assuming it gets there. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and draft the article. Archaeological items that were not published in an academic, peer-reviewed format, are non-existent.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the argument seems to be about whether it's authentic. News sources aren't credible sources as to authenticity, except to the extent that they quote credible sources. But even if it turns out to be a hoax, which is entirely possible, it's newsworthy because it might be authentic, and is being analyzed or debated by scholars. An obvious hoax that appears and vanishes in an instant with little publicity might be non-notable. A widely publicized "find" that requires scholarly analysis to authenticate or refute is likely notable, whether or not it proves to be authentic, and a newspaper is perfectly competent to report about that. Hoaxes can be notable too! P Aculeius (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably not a hoax. It's a pretty interesting artifact that opportunists are trying to advertise as the sort of massive find that gets a wiki page, with no evidence whatsoever. The bar to getting sensational news coverage of an unexceptional find through misleading press releases is so low that we can't rely on normal sources. We don't want an encyclopedia that you can get your artifact into just by making wild claims and never having to substantiate them. This literally happens dozens of times a year, but most people only see a couple of examples so they aren't disillusioned as anyone who reads them all would be. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A good parallel is the Voynich MS page -- there's a viral story about a decipherment claim in RS every few months but none of them are ever substantiated so the page editors have restricted the wiki page to peer-reviewed publication. We should use the same standard for any susceptible area and biblical archaeology certainly qualifies. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; yet another "sensational" find; talking about making a mountain out of a molehill. Where to start? First, note that this "find" were made by Associates for Biblical Research, a group associated with several dubious claims (eg about the walls of Jericho); the "find" was made public at a press conferance at Lanier Theological Library. These are groups dedicated to "proving" the historicity of the Bible.
And note the widely absurd claims, (“This is a text you find only every 1,000 years,” Haifa University Prof. Gershon Galil; or: 'Artifact is testament to Jewish people's deep connection to Samaria'; Head of the Samaria Regional Council Yossi Dagan said </facepalm>); while more "sober" experts, like Israel Finkelstein and Christopher Rollston, are quite ......doubtful, to put it diplomatically.
As Rollston writes in his blog (linked in the deletion request): "But it’s worth looking even more at some of the dramatic claims. Stripling stated that: “One can no longer argue with a straight face that the Biblical text was not written until the Persian Period or the Hellenistic Period, as many higher critics have done when we clearly do have the ability to write the entire text [of the Bible] at a much, much earlier date.” Galil makes the same basic statement: “No one can claim the Bible was written in later periods, the Persian Period or the Hellenistic Period.” ...this is based on... four words! Rollston: "But to say that based on those four words or roots that somebody could write the whole Bible….well, that’s a bridge (way) too far for me. After all, there are 8500+ words in the Hebrew Bible",
Sensational claims based on the flimsiest of evidence are 13 to the dozen in the field of "Biblical archeology"; until peer-reviewed articles appear: delete, delete, delete. Huldra (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, none of this stuff has ever been in the article. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has not been in the article yet but pretty sure that Salami slicing tactics will ensue. What's the rush? The find is a couple of thousands years old, surely a few months waiting won't hurt. Kershatz (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 20:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You Can't Stop the Music

[edit]
You Can't Stop the Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria at WP:NSONG, not notable enough to warrant its own article as a single. -Liancetalk/contribs 03:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more book now from before 1998 and added information from it, although I only have limited access to it. Rlendog (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. North America1000 13:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Curtis Brown

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. The Film Creator (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. See WP:MONARCH for a summary of previous outcomes of similar cases, with which consensus conforms here also. Sandstein 20:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Sophie of Romania

[edit]
Princess Sophie of Romania (edit | talk | history | 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 notability except for being her father's daughter, and a possible claimant to the currently non-existing throne of Romania. Most sources currently in the article are self-published by the subject's family. Third-party sources only refer to her among her father's daughters. Her publications (a children's book and some photography albums) are rather unimportant and don't appear to have received any significant coverage outside her family. Desired outcome is merging salvageable info into Michael I of Romania#Family or Romanian royal family#Descendants of King Michael. Anonimu (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, I tend to agree with you, Karl Gustavo. But I'd guess that only a tiny percentage of "individuals of royal families" have made notable contributions to society or similar; and yet loads of them get articles. (I think you've confused Wikipedia-defined "notability", which is close to mere celebrity, with actual noteworthiness.) However, the Romanian monarchy ceased to exist before this person was even born, so she's hardly an individual of a royal family; and she doesn't seem to have achieved (?) celebrity. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikkipedia has a lot of articles that do not meet our inclusion criteria. We do not require people to have done anyrthing per se to get articles though. We just require them to be covered in multiple reliable sources that provide indepth coverage. Whether all the articles we have on members of royal families meet this criteria I am less than sure. We clearly still have some work to weed out deposed royal family cruft. People who are actual reighning morarchs are notable, but exactly which family members are notable beyond that to some extent depends on sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do need to be able to say more in the article than just who their family members were. We need to be able to say substantive things about the person's own actions. However that is not the same as their actions themselves actually having been anything over than reported. To pick someone almost at random Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll probably has more sources than almost any article, so the article is clearly justified. With Louis XIV we only have articles on three of his six legitimate children, but the other three all died the year they were born. On the other hand we have Marie Thérèse of France (1667–1672) which basically tells us 1-that her mother wanted her to become queen of Spain, 2-what people called her and 3-that she died of consumption. I am really struggling to see how this article is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Reformation Front

[edit]
American Reformation Front (edit | talk | history | 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:NORG fail (t · c) buidhe 07:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Web search turns up their Telegram, Bitchute, and Instagram profiles, along with a listing at SPLC: https://www.splcenter.org/states/texas . This does not establish notability per WP:NORG and WP:GNG Rlink2 (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 10:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Type

[edit]
Adobe Type (edit | talk | history | 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 lacks neutrality, rarely gets edited, adds very little information to Wikipedia beyond the pages it already links to, and has been a stub for a very long time with very little substance to build off of to improve it. Supertanno (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Derian

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

Borderline G11, very obviously derived from marketing copy with little editing to make it encyclopedic (not a CV - OTRS permission on talk page). The thing is, I can't find any independent coverage of the subject. All the sources are primary, including his own website, press releases, and youtube. I found nothing substantively about him on a search. The shows don't appear to be notable either, so redirecting as WP:ATD isn't in the cards. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough; search on multiple search engines turns up profile listings that scrape Wikipedia, along with his other sites. There are some sources mentioning him, but they are just passing mentions (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/new-discovery-show-rods-n-wheels-sets-out-to-restore-cars-bring-american-history-to-life and https://www.blogtalkradio.com/chattininmanhattan/2014/03/03/cim-chats-with-casts-of-rods-n-wheels-show) A search for Twisted Gipsy turns up other sources (https://eu.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/communities/conejo-valley/2018/11/25/local-fleetwood-mac-tribute-band-headlines-borderline-benefit/2025113002/), but that's for the band and not him.
Article is in need of major improvement, but that is not a factor in deleting articles per WP:BEFORE Rlink2 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Marquess of Donegall. Sandstein 20:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Chichester, 8th Marquess of Donegall

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Patrick Chichester, 8th Marquess of Donegall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nobleman with no inherent notability, fails WP:BIO. Never sat in the House of Lords (he inherited the title in 2000, one year after the House of Lords Act 1999) so can't qualify for WP:NPOL either. The two peerage websites in the article are deprecated per WP:RSP, and Google News only returns a passing mention for 1998, the year before his father lost his seat in the House of Lords. Previous AfD ended as no consensus in 2014. Pilaz (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal and Child Health Care Bolari, Gombe State

[edit]
Maternal and Child Health Care Bolari, Gombe State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially unreferenced as none of the 3 references mention "Maternal and Child Health Care Bolari". Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Searches in Google yield only Wikipedia mirrors and DDG yields nothing at all. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. G4. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jayathunga

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ryan Jayathunga (edit | talk | history | 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 was previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Jayathunga, as were numerous drafts, all for the same reasons. This is virtually a re-creation of the previously deleted article - no changes or improvements to the referencing/sourcing. If this is deleted it and Draft:Ryan Jayathunga should also be salted. Noting that there is a potential conflict of interest by the article's creator which has never been addressed either. Dan arndt (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalagechia Jagadish Vidyapith

[edit]
Kalagechia Jagadish Vidyapith (edit | talk | history | 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:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the article was created. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The state51 Conspiracy

[edit]
The state51 Conspiracy (edit | talk | history | 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. Among the current sources are a reddit post, a google support page, the website for the marketing firm, a blogpost by a violinist, a source that doesn't mention the name except to thank them for a location, an article from a low-quality source describing an album release, and the company's website. I can't find anything searching Google that indicates that the marketing firm meets WP:ORGCRIT, so I propose it be deleted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also has sources from news and government websites, which indicate high-quality data and notability of company and meets WP:NCORP. I suggest this article should not be deleted. but, paragraphs that refer to low credibility sources should be removed immediately. Sahilaim (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Wallace

[edit]
Deborah Wallace (edit | talk | history | 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:CREATIVE as a playwright and also WP:NACTOR. Lots of coverage for a detective of the same name, but little coverage for this individual. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was history merger done. This was a history merger, which is not really an AFD matter although it does require the use of the administrator deletion tool. The article is back at its location in draft space with the full edit history, with no prejudice to the decision on whether it belongs there or not. I did not even adjust "Railway Station" to "railway stations". ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Railway Station in the United States

[edit]
List of Railway Station in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a little unconventional as I'm not asking for outright deletion; however, the creator of the page indicates that "This is a work in progress". I had moved Draft:List of Railway Station in the United States from article space to draftspace per WP:DRAFTIFY, since it appeared that the page was not yet ready for mainspace. That draft is basically the same as the current mainspace page; both have no citations. I also left a note for the page's author encouraging them to add citations to the page.

As I was moving the first page to draftspace, it seems the creator of the original draft edited this page again. Since the page had already been moved, they posted their edit to the actual mainspace page, effectively creating two duplicate pages. I am asking that the mainspace page be deleted only because a draft with the same content already exists, not because of any content-related concerns. The creator has indicated they're still working on the list, so it should be hosted in draftspace, not mainspace. Epicgenius (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: would it be better to delete the draft and move this article to the draftspace, since the creator has been editing the mainspace article? — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Eastern Ukraine offensive. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 09:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horlivka offensive

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

As per WP:GNG, the article Horlivka offensive does not seem important enough to require its own page, due to the lack of news surrounding the subject and the lack of any new information on the "battle" as all relevant news articles are over 20 days old. I would suggest either deletion or a possible merge into Eastern Ukraine offensive should anyone deem this important enough to remain mentionable. Arakui (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Eastern Ukraine offensive, as per the above. QueenofBithynia (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are no sources to prove that this "counteroffensive" is real, the only sources listed in the article are all owned by the Ukrainian government or have their citations as posts from twitter/facebook. It's similar to the Kruty skirmishes article, where the only sources available were also only the Ukrainian (government) ones. -Amuuun (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note It looks like they're moving very close to Horlivka (source: the map), but I could be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.82.204.49 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
aka at least the claim then Dawsongfg (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders: Making the Team

[edit]
Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders: Making the Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability at best. The article is hideously laden with WP:FANCRUFT detailing every last moment of every last person to appear on the show. It's also got a heavy case of WP:REFBOMB:

Rundown of the sources

1. TV Guide listing

2, 4, 75, 76, 86-88. CMT's website

3. Deadline.com, mentioning it tangentially in a press release that also name-drops several other shows

5. "Renew Cancel TV", a blog with no evidence of editorial oversight

6, 7. Press release reprinted in Futon Critic

8-17, 19-23, 25, 26. 28-31, 33, 34, 57, 58. Instagram profiles

18. An upload of the show

24. Article about the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders that only mentions the show at the very end

27, 66, 67, 73 77-83. Dallas Cowboys' and/or Cheerleaders' official website

32, 35-37, 39, 41, 42. YouTube videos from the Dallas Cowboys

38. A podcast

40, 45-52, 74. Facebook

43, 63. A sketchy looking cheerleader news site with no evidence of editorial oversight

44, 89. Dead link

53, 68. Twitter

54, 55. News articles about a cheerleader on the show being involved in a lawsuit. These do not mention the show at all.

56. Dead link to a personal blog

59. NFL official website

60, 62, 64, 65. 71, 84, 90-93. News coverage on an individual, which does not mention the show at all

61. Dating profile (?!?)

69, 70, 85. Biographies on personal/business websites

72. Genealogy website

94. Broken link which seems to be an attempt to hotlink an image

A search for sources found a ton of social media profiles and YouTube videos pertaining to the show, but the closest thing I could find to a reliable source was this interview about the show coming back after COVID put it on hiatus.

The only sources on Google News that I could find were things like this or this. In otherwords, local newspapers writing human interest articles on local people getting their 15 minutes of fame on the show, which do not cover the show to any degree of substance. I was also on TV and had the local papers write about me; that does not make me notable. Other sources on Google News are just "how to watch this show online" or "best shows about X" listicles. I was unable to find anything more substantial.

If it turns out that there is sourcing that I've somehow missed in the paltry 63 hits I get for the title on Google, then clearly some WP:TNT is needed here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One, two, three. And, regardless, WP:NTVNATL suggests this is a notable topic. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of molluscan genera represented in the fossil record

[edit]
List of molluscan genera represented in the fossil record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List with no clearly defined criteria for inclusion. This was originally created as List of extant animal genera represented in the fossil record , and was moved to the current title (without discussion) with the rationale that entries were "at least 70% mollusks". The mover made no effort to remove non-mollusks.

Early discussion at Talk:List of extant animal genera represented in the fossil record expressed concerns that it included entries that were not extant animal genera.

Several editors (including myself) have made dozens of edits trying to clean up the list. There remain many entries point to the wrong topic and require disambiguation. There remain many non-molluscs.

I don't think "List of extant animal genera represented in the fossil record" is a manageable topic for a list. Humans continue to discover fossil members of extant genera. Constant maintenance of a list of extant animals also known from fossils would be needed (and it hasn't received necessary maintenance under either of its titles). This was never a "list of molluscan genera represented in the fossil record", as it includes non-molluscs and (under the original title) excludes molluscs known only from fossils. Plantdrew (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify Currently this list is a pile, which is explained by its origin (as noted above). I agree that the original "List of extant animal genera represented in the fossil record" is not really manageable. In contrast, both "List of molluscan genera represented in the fossil record" and "List of extant molluscan genera represented in the fossil record" would seem doable, but currently the list is neither. And this is what, 8000 entries? Can't leave that in mainspace for incremental purging - it's plain misleading, and will be for a long while. If a correctly curated list with a more narrow ambit is to be made of it, that should be done in draft. If there's no appetite for that, then delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About-turn - formulating the actual functional premise of this list (below) makes me realize that this would be an artifical make-work construct, requiring constant updating with no sensible payoff. Delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well personally I'd think this should be deleted as far too big to be maintainable, but if Draftify is the preferred route then I'll go along with that. If consensus moves towards delete then please count me in that group. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Am I misunderstanding, or wouldn't all known molluscan genera be represented in the fossil record -- including the ones that are still extant and have living species alive today? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd considered revising my nomination to make a similar point. Extant taxa have an evolutionary history. We haven't discovered fossilized representatives of all known extant taxa, but there is no reason to think that the fossils don't exist. We just haven't discovered them yet; I'd say it isn't likely that we will ever discover fossils of ALL extant taxa, but it isn't inherently impossible. Some animals are more likely to be fossilized than others; jellyfish don't fossilize well, animals with hard body parts fossilize well. Molluscs fossilize exceptionally well (hard shells, many live in water which helps preserve them after death); this probably explains why the initial list was so heavily slanted towards molluscs. Plantdrew (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so - so this would be a kind of running tally of "which genera that we know should be in the fossil record have we actually found as specimens". - I'll admit that when written out like this, it sounds like a rather risible undertaking. Huh. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. North America1000 02:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N'Gunu Tiny

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

Businessman BLP does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- the Emerald Group company might be notable, but this is not WP:INHERITED by the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_28&oldid=1081172299"