Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< October 27	October 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. This AfD is a train wreck. I suggest that an widely advertised RfC on the notability of species happen. Until then, both the keeps and the deletes are arguing mostly past each other. Additionally, Cbl62 pointed out a number of the articles in the batch that have been expanded while this AfD was in process making the wholesale redirection much more of an editorial decision that should require more input on a case by case basis. Keeps have a vast numerical advantage (22 to 9). This is not a vote count, but that large of a skew does count for something when trying to figure out the will of the community. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bothriospila[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The following are proposed to be redirected to Bothriospilini, with categories left intact, per WP:CONTENTFORK as they duplicate the content of that article.

This would not prevent them from being split off again in the future, in line with WP:WHENSPLIT.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science and Animal related deletion discussions Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs)

Strong oppose - No consensus established for this sort of wholesale merge of taxonomic articles. Dyanega (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There is absolutely consensus for redirecting microstubs that duplicate content from other pages; this is literally no different than what we do regularly for countless cricket players and footballers. Zero information is being deleted. If editors can find sufficient independent, secondary SIGCOV for a standalone they can go ahead and remake the articles individually, as they should have done in the first place. And if editors really want to have their own walled garden of database entries to add wikidata to or whatever they can go to wikispecies, which was created for this purpose. JoelleJay (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect The topics do not meet WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Species are, by definition, notable subjects. And detailed information to meet GNG can be found for every single one. Hence why every AfD nomination of a recognized taxonomic species fails, because they are notable. Anyone arguing otherwise is expressing their own ignorance of the topic as a whole. Silver seren^C 01:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not relevant here, WP:PAGEDECIDE is - and there is no guideline saying that every species must have a standalone article (there isn’t even one that says that species are presumed notable) BilledMammal (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not relevant here

Then you shouldn't have brought this to AfD. Merge discussions should happen on the talk pages or, since you're wanting to merge so many, at the relevant Wikiprojects. An RfC could have also been made for a broader decision if that's what you're going for. But AfD is meant to determine notability of subjects. Silver seren^C 02:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am a bit confused by both of your statements: WP:PAGEDECIDE is part of WP:N. Is notability at stake here, and what is the connection of notability to a standalone article versus a merge? Is WP:MERGEREASON a subset of the considerations of WP:PAGEDECIDE? NeverRainsButPours (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is to determine whether an article should be kept, and it does this by determining that the topic is notable, that the article doesn't violate WP:NOT, and the article currently warrants a WP:STANDALONE article. If it fails to determine that any of these are true, then the article cannot be kept.

Here, the argument is that the article doesn't warrant a standalone article, and as such arguments that say "Keep, is notable" are useless and should be dismissed, just as the argument "Keep, doesn't violate WP:NOT" should be dismissed if the nomination was on the grounds that the topic was not notable. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As such, arguments that don't rebut the reason the article was nominated for deletion - such as "Keep, doesn't violate WP:NOT" when the argument is that the topic is not notable, or "Keep, is notable" when the argument is that the topic doesn't currently warrant a standalone article - are not relevant, as it doesn't matter whether what they argue is true.

Oppose merger merger of these articles will result in an excessively long and difficult to navigate tabular article if all the information is merged into Bothriospilini. This also appears to be a misapplication of WP:CONTENTFORK as these species level articles do not, in fact, only duplicate information already found in Bothriospilini.Jahaza (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The information is already at Bothriospilini, and it’s only 6000 bytes. How is that “excessively long and difficult to navigate”? Further, what information is missing from Bothriospilini? BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, the topics are individually notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (oppose merge). This is getting ridiculous. Long-held consensus is that species are independently notable and meet GNG by definition. Content fork is being completely misapplied. There is no possible reason for redirecting these stubs. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Long-held consensus is that species are independently notable and meet GNG by definition". Mind pointing out where such a consensus might be found? Avilich (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  And how does anything "meet GNG by definition"?! By definition, nothing can "meet GNG" merely by verifiably existing. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (oppose merge). What BilledMammal has been doing is ridiculous, and I'd support sanctions. Species are notable, and mass redirecting hundreds of notable articles without discussion should not be allowed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every stub on a described species is expandable into at least a start class article. This is a disappointing doubling-down from an editor who seems unable to realize that they are not going to change established consensus extending to thousands of articles by creating POINTy mass AFDs. (Coming off some apparent participation at the ongoing mass creation/AFD discussion this is particularly tone-deaf.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with the possibility of future splitting. "Scapanopygus cinereus is a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, the only species in the genus Scapanopygus" is a simple database entry, and not a helpful article to a reader. A reader looking for information will have to go through other wikilinks to find information as it is; better to take them somewhere at least a bit more comprehensive first. If/when these are expanded into start class articles, then they would be helpful standalone articles for a reader. It would also be beneficial if there was more sourcing than a single dead link; I'm sure these are actual species, but there is not much on the articles to show this. CMD (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI, the Scapanopygus article is no longer a single sentence; it is now 4 sentences with 3 citations. Several others in this list have also had information and sources added. Esculenta (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom Argento Surfer (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all The common outcome that species are generally kept has become circular logic without a directive in a guideline. A single published article describing the species – or a database entry – fails GNG, and this line at WP:AFDCO does not actually override that to establish an absurd concept of automatic notability! Even if people believe individual species are notable, per WP:NOPAGE notable topics can still be covered in other articles. In these cases there is not enough content for stand-alone pages so they should be merged/redirected to the genus/other article, which could still have a couple sentences describing each one to be more useful than just a bulleted list of links that fail to actually provide additional information. I do not think Wikipedia needs literally millions of articles to be a database of species names that are redundant duplicates of a main article. Even if they could be potentially expanded to have a few sentences, there is no need to have this sort of microstub until someone gets around to doing so. If Bothriospilini has the potential to become long, merge to genus articles instead! Reywas92^Talk 15:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per my comments on the Adalbus AFD and also because this is far too long a list to review properly in the lifetime of an AFD. SpinningSpark 15:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Per WP:NOPAGE: "an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page". I believe this applies to all of the articles listed here. I've spent the last bit looking for sources and information for some of these articles; they're out there, one just needs to spend a bit of time and add them. Esculenta (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"is better expanded" So where's the expansion??? If no one's going to do this for tens of thousands of such one-line articles, they should be merged. Reywas92^Talk 15:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really need to supply diffs? And we're not talking about "tens of thousands" of articles, just the ones listed in this Afd. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per lots of arguments already. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Including these in a single list makes it easier for readers to find and compare species without clicking through to articles which contain no additional information. No objection to splitting out individually as articles are expanded. –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CMD. Ajpolino (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as to the genus-level articles on Chlorida and Ranqueles (beetle). Other species within the genuses could more appropriately be redirected there instead of jumping all the way upstream. Cbl62 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep as to Chlorida inexpectata which has now been expanded by User:Esculenta to include an acceptable level of sourcing and information to warrant a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a deletion or redirect would directly go against WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Species are inherently notable, and all that is needed for such an article is a reference that the species exists. Also, WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA is explicitly clear that the current state is the correct placement, and any change to the structure would have to be undone. In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus. In short, we don't have separate pages for the species and genus, but instead they are merged at the genus level (the lowest unique rank). Going up to the tribe (Bothriospilini) would be inappropriate at best and just violate WP:NOTBURO policy. The nomination and redirect comments are just outright ignoring guidelines and aren't valid options here. KoA (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized this was a mass nomination, but the same concepts above would apply. I took a look through each species or genera, and none of those are even available for deletion or redirect. This is a very strange special case the nom seems to be trying to create. This is not the place to upend how standard taxonomy article structure is handled. I would encourage the nom and other supporters to learn how taxonomy articles are handled before shooting from the hip as this is definitely WP:SNOW and borderline disruptive. KoA (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Species are inherently notable

I don't see this supported by any policy or guideline (SPECIESOUTCOMES being an essay), and in fact it is directly contradicted by WP:N: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do need to be careful of comments like this in terms of WP:WIKILAWYERING to avoid established community practice (and again NOTBURO policy). If someone is not familiar with how SPECIESOUTCOMES is actually used, they are welcome to look at all the species AFDs where consensus with it has been endorsed. Really the only time species articles are deleted or redirected is when there's a serious question on the sourcing or if it really exists. Either way, if someone tries to make wild claims about species being a short-term interest or somehow promotional, we do need to be careful about subject-matter competence and dismiss that outright. KoA (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but it's not wikilawyering to invoke an essay in claiming community consensus for inherent notability? The exact same circular reasoning of "they're never deleted at AfD" was used to argue train stations are inherently notable--and now we have guidance at GEOLAND explicitly stating train stations must meet GNG because the community recognized AfD outcomes don't mean anything when they're always attended by a large cohort of wikiproject editors !voting keep. JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, are there any of the articles listed above that you think actually don't meet GNG? Remember, sources not being in the article isn't an argument for deletion or an argument for not meeting GNG. Do you think any of the articles do not have proper sourcing that exists to meet GNG for them? Is that a serious belief you have? Silver seren^C 22:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are three issues here, GNG, PAGEDECIDE, and NOT. In my opinion being a named species does not guarantee secondary SIGCOV providing anything beyond a jargony list of attributes, most of which will be shared within the genus. We do not need separate pages on each of the one million+ insect species if they are just duplicating the tiny amount of known info on them from a dedicated professional database. That goes against NOT. For a similar reason, we don't accept sports stats databases as sources of athlete notability, even though they might include a large number of separable attributes, because the community considers inclusion in even pro sports DBs to be too indiscriminate for a general-purpose encyclopedia. A set with millions of members is hardly discriminating. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be at least a partial avoidance of my question. Do you think the only info available on these articles is biological information pertaining to the genus? And we generally don't use databases for sourcing in these either, the common databases are just used for the most general taxonomic info. Proper scholarly publications are the main avenue of reliable source coverage for species. If athletes had academic publications written about them, our coverage of sportspeople would be much more robust, I expect. Silver seren^C 00:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It remains insanity that people treat SPECIESOUTCOMES as a policy rather than mere summary of what often happens, instead choosing circular logic of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS of keeping other species means all must have their own articles. There's no such thing as "going against" anything on WP:AFDCO because it's not a controlling directive. "Species are inherently notable" this is FALSE and has NEVER been established a guideline, so your claim of "outright ignoring guidelines" is BS. Nothing is inherently notable, but rather presumed notable in some cases, and topics about which there is little to say are welcome to be merged even if notable. Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "insanity" is a small group of editors charging in wanting to change community norms for taxonomy articles, often barreling over some of the nuances specific to the subject. It goes back to the subject-matter competence issue mentioned above, especially when editors come in hot to the subject. Some of it is also policy violating mentality for WP:NOTBURO where it essentially boils down to saying you didn't formally encode this community norm in policies and guidelines, so it must be ignored. You still need to make a major justification for a special case of going against community norms, and there's nothing particularly special in that sense on this set of articles.

Not to mention that blinders approach has also led to violating actual guidelines like WP:MONOTYPICTAXON where we go down to the lowest unique rank. That means if only one species exists in the genus, then the species is housed in the genus, or if one species in the family, then the species article is at the family level, etc. KoA (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Just to add on to my initial comment, but based on comments by the nom (and other support comments), it's very clear WP:BEFORE wasn't engaged in at all. Notability and decisions are not determined by the amount of content or sources currently present in the article in the manner the nom is trying to do. They need to actually look at sources rather than hand-wave about there not being enough material, especially for a mass-request like this. Here's just one example for Chlorida denticulata. If you go straight to one of the sources, you already get a summary of where it is found and what host plants it has for key biological information, but also a list of sources for more information:

Extended content

Chlorida denticulata Buquet, 1860 Type locality - Cayenne. (MNHN). Distribution - Guyana, French Guiana, Ecuador. Host plants - Eperua rubiginosa Miquel, Ormosia paraensis Ducke (Caesalpiniaceae), Hevea guianensis Aublet (Euphorbiaceae). Chlorida denticulata Buquet, 1860: 623; Thomson, 1878a: 17 (type); Williams, 1931: 224 (distr.); Tavakilian in Hequet, 1996: pl. 11, fig. 2; Tavakilian et al., 1997: 331, 338 (hosts); Monné, M. A., 2001b: 54 (cat. hosts); Monné, M. A., 2005: 566 (cat.); Monné Monné, M. A. & Hovore, 2006: 28 (distr.); Morvan & Morati, 2006: 8 (distr.); 2011: 14 (distr.); Touroult et al., 2010: 28; Giuglaris, 2012: 61 (distr.).

It even gives you the citation to the original description, so heading over there (p 623-624). There's over a page of description in just that one source, much less all the other sources mentioned in the above list. I'd seriously advise the nom to work on expanding articles with these relatively easy to find sources rather than drive-by nominations that BEFORE is supposed to prevent. You could add things like how the species looks, identifying features, what species is similar to it, etc. You could even follow the sources to plates of the species even.[5] That's just from a small amount of searching even. There should be a massive amount of this in terms of BEFORE for such a large nomination like this. KoA (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:BEFORE, I assume you are referring to D, which says Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability? The main concern wasn't notability. BilledMammal (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BM, I really suggest avoiding talking past people like that or the short hot-takes quickly after decent sized comment like mine. We are at AfD, and the species/notability question is what drives their page existence. No escaping that. The additional part I was commenting on in BEFORE in C (such as WP:CONRED) was that you are expected to fix these problems through normal editing if you feel strongly, and follow up on the talk pages, related Wikiprojects, etc. that could have helped you with the sources if you were having trouble with them. None of that. Instead, you're basically demanding a bureaucratic change and demanding the someone split that content out later again without actually digging into all the relevant sources yourself (or at least showing you did). Go expand the articles if you feel strongly about it. There are many insect species articles that need expansion and only so many editors out there, and this way of going about it is just a WP:POINTY use of AfD. KoA (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page existence doesn't just require notability; it also requires compliance with WP:NOT, and it also requires that the topic currently warrants a standalone article.

There are many inspect species articles that could be expanded, and so few editors available to do this that almost none are expanded; the articles under discussion here haven't been expanded in eight years. As such, we should get the articles in a format that is usable by readers and then when someone has time split the content out. This also matches improving the article through normal editing, with one of the normal editing practices recommended being WP:ATD-M. The rejection of the subsequent redirection of the species articles then brought us to WP:BEFORE C#4, which requires an AfD be opened. BilledMammal (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that is an extremely superficial dismissal of BEFORE requirements as others have pointed out below. KoA (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per our OR policy, articles must not be based on primary sources. Most databases and research articles are primary sources (although discussion of other papers within a research article can be secondary). Regardless, the matter at hand isn't whether each of the species at AfD or 1 million total insect species could meet GNG, it's whether including standalone articles on each of them is warranted per PAGEDECIDE and NOT. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't quite what OR says, and you're just repeating things that have already been debunked at the other AfD.[6] As for databases, those are usually moreso tertiary sources as they are typically academic databases detailing species information. Some literally are taxonomic encyclopedias. How the initial description and secondary literature works here relevant to this AfD is also in my other linked AfD comment. KoA (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Oppose merger. In addition to the other objections noted above, there are some practical objections to up-merging existing species articles to the genus level:

1) While it can be relatively easy to merge articles, it is far more difficult to accurately revise the text following the split of a taxonomic article into separate articles. As a genus article develops, there are few instances of clearly identifiable sentences that pertain only to one of the species. Assessing each fact can entail having to verify the original source, not only for the presence of the fact, but also the negative of that fact for the genus as a whole before removing it. As a result, the splitting of a complicated genus article into new species articles results in more work than more creating a new genus article from scratch. However, if the genus and species articles are developed separately and in parallel, this difficulty will not appear down the road.

2) An existing species article may have many redirects from common names or other scientific names (synonyms and alternate combinations) that point to the species article title. After a merge to the genus level, and the species page converted to a redirect, these redirects will then be re-targeted by a bot within a few hours to avoid the double-redirect. After the bot has finished (12-24hrs after the page move), although the species level article could be restored, the redirects would now be lost until manually re-created.

3) A genus article is about the genus as a whole, and this deters editors from adding species information as a whole, especially as it may be impossible to add the information in an even manner. This will only serve to hinder the development of the article(s).

As well as the battleground mentality that is starting to appear, I see some opposition to stub articles, sometimes further denigrated as "sub-stub" or "micro-stub", that is based more on WP:IDONTLIKEIT than an appreciation that these are valid articles containing unique information. If we truly believe that we are creating an encyclopedia that will encompass all of this information for the future, then we should be building up the framework and not constraining ourselves by merges that would delete some of this information and organization. We need to look at our long term goals of what we want to build and what in time-frame our efforts are to take place (WP:DEADLINE). Think big. Loopy30 (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) What can be easily split is the elements that are clear refer only to a single species.

2) Creating a few redirects takes less than a minute.

3) Is there any evidence that editors are more likely to expand a low-traffic micro stub than they are to create a new article?

BilledMammal (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BilledMammal,

1. Yes, it may indeed be easy to take an element that refers to the species and put it in the species article. But to complete the split, it is still necessary to review both that fact (and all the others in the genus article) to see whether it should then remain in the genus article. Determining what was true for the species is not the same as untangling what may or may not be correct for the rest of the genus.

2. In some cases there many (20+) redirects. It is often impractical (and undesirable) to list the synonyms for all of the species on the genus page. Also, when these redirects point to the species title, they also serve the purpose of alerting any future editor that an article already exists, thereby avoiding the creation of duplicate articles at different titles (yes, that has often happened).

3. Yes, several editors have noted that they are either overly intimidated or not as willing to create a new article compared to being able to add to an existing article. What I have not heard of is if there are any editors that prefer to start from scratch rather than add to an existing article (but I doubt it).

Loopy30 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re 3, experience shared by WikiEd and some statements by FA writers suggests that both very new and very experienced editors often prefer starting a new article or rewriting articles from scratch. This likely differs per person of course, some will as you suggest prefer working from existing text. Either way I am not sure it matters too much to this discussion, as neither outcome will affect the existence of information on an article, so there is always a place to work off it. CMD (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that citing SPECIESOUTCOMES as a reason to keep is as circular as citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to keep (or delete) school articles. --Izno (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/oppose merger as unhelpful in building an encyclopedia. Many good arguments already made above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all On procedural grounds, if the desired outcome was a many-to-one redirect, then AfD was the wrong place to raise this discussion. Second, as Spinningspark noted, this is too big a bundle to expect most !voters to evaluate on the typical timescale of an AfD. Third, it's not "circular" to argue that species articles should be kept because species articles historically have been kept; rather, that's basing a judgment upon precedent. (Precedent that a later discussion could overrule, but even so, it's a sensible starting point.) Nor is that an appeal to "other stuff exists", which is typically dismissed as a bad argument because stuff can exist without being noticed. Here, the very fact that we have a statement about the common outcome of species AfD's indicates that species AfD's have, in fact, happened. And so it's sensible to say that what was a good idea then will continue to be a good idea now. (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is, to my eye, roughly on a level with WP:NJOURNALS: not yet elevated to an official guideline, but a reflection of sensible community practice and generally good advice regardless.) All that aside, I share the concern of KoA that more scrutiny of each article should have been necessary before embarking upon a mass nomination like this, the concern of Jahaza that a merge would result in a disastrously unusable table, and the view of Esculenta that these short articles are easily expandable. See, for example, recent additions to Scapanopygus. I had thought the following remarks by Dyanega were on this page, but they were on another, so I'll copy them here: For the record, while I can see the reasoning behind the restructuring of genus-level articles into tabular form showing the constituent species, there are several very important things that exist on species-rank articles that would be completely lost if this approach were adopted, and among these are the following: (1) not all species in a genus fall under the same categories - they can be from different countries, different continents, different geological periods, and have been published by different authors, and in different years. There are MANY common types of categories that would be almost completely depopulated if we banned species-level articles. (2) synonymies appear in the taxoboxes of species-level articles, and those lists of synonyms would also be lost entirely. Likewise, when synonyms exist as redirects, having a species-level synonym redirecting to a genus-level page will make it impossible to determine which species that name is a synonym OF. It might look good to have a table of species, but frankly it's a terrible idea.. XOR'easter (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find these species category arguments interesting, but they lie in stark in contrast to the existing and apparently widely accepted practice of quickly removing all such categories from a species article if that species is reclassified into its own genus. Arguments against tables of species are also in contrast to apparently accepted practice, as these are present on existing articles (eg. Ibis, Panthera). CMD (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when a species is moved into its own genus, a species redirect should remain (when done properly), with categories for classification, year described, location, named by, etc. Your argument about species tables with the two examples you give doesn't really apply here, as all of the species in those tables have their own articles. Esculenta (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not following that second part. You're suggesting tables should exist when species have their own articles, but shouldn't exist when they don't? CMD (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of a table in a genus article summarising the species within does not mean that the standalone species articles can't exist. Esculenta (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. I'm not sure how that was read into my comment which explicitly listed two examples which do have standalone species article. CMD (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - I'm back and have a little time, so I have a number of things to point out, please bear with me. (1) BilledMammal accused me of canvassing. I originally posted to exactly one page - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Why? Because all of the merged/altered articles affected were WP:TOL pages, and because WP:TOL has, within it, space EXPRESSLY DEVOTED to such changes as proposed merges, and to which BilledMammal did not submit any such proposals. (2) Given that WP:TOL does, in fact, have space dedicated to approving/rejecting merge proposals, I think it is entirely understandable that I would be under the impression that the WikiProject does, in fact, have an established policy and legitimate claim to authority over such actions, and I acted accordingly, reacting to what I saw as a massive and unprecedented policy breach. Being accused by BilledMammal of acting in a non-neutral manner is predicated on his actions NOT being a breach of policy, and WP:TOL having no authority at all, and all the evidence I had in front of me is that it WAS a breach of policy. Others here and elsewhere have stated that WikiProject policies have no authority or enforceability at all, and I find this surprising, and apologize if I assumed too much. (3) Likewise, BilledMammal accused me of not assuming his actions were in good faith, but breaches of policy such as not getting approval for article merges, especially when they delete unique content do not appear to be good faith actions, unless an editor is acting in complete ignorance of policy. An editor acting in good faith who is bulk-deleting content, especially when all of that content is flagged as belonging to a specific WikiProject, should be consulting with that WikiProject in advance. Just because an edit is bold doesn't mean it isn't genuinely destructive, and I would argue that demonstrably destructive edits should be rolled back until they have been discussed and approved. (4) Policy and rules aside, BilledMammal admitted, directly, that they did not know what content in the articles being merged was or was not valuable, as well as admitting, directly, that they did not look at each such article to assess whether there WAS any unique content that would be lost. That sort of bulk editing, when you don't understand what you're causing to be lost, is not just bold, it's reckless. If there's a fire, you don't adopt a neutral stance and wait to see if it will go out on its own; you call the fire department. (5) When it was pointed out what deleted content was valuable, and what was unique, BilledMammal dismissed the point, saying that once he was made aware of the problem, some of it could be salvaged, and the rest, like taxonbars with Wikidata links, was not worth salvaging. Again, the time to learn what content needs to be maintained is BEFORE one removes that content, not after. Second, despite attempts to dismiss things like Wikidata links as not worth salvaging, I would argue that for many of these articles the Wikidata links are the single most important and unique source of information in the article, and - most importantly - ONLY Wikipedia species-level articles contain and make use of the full cross-referencing capacity of Wikidata. (6) Consider just one of the articles BilledMammal has proposed deleting; Knulliana, containing only a single species. The taxonbar was added by an editor after the article was created, and via Wikidata it links this record to Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, BioLib, BugGuide, CoL, EoL, EPPO, GBIF, iNaturalist, IRMNG, ITIS, and NCBI. Not a single one of those linked sources crossreferences to the others. For that matter, Wikidata records themselves do not cross-reference to other Wikidata records; you cannot look at a species entry in Wikidata and determine from that how many species are in the same genus, or what family it is in. ONLY Wikipedia species articles serve to provide a reader with all of the information available for a species, and the information available through the Wikidata crossreferences is VAST - it includes not just the taxonomic information, but the geographic distributions, phenologies, host associations, biological notes, photographs, and records of actual physical specimens and their data. Just go to that Knulliana article and click on those Wikidata links to see how much information is contained there - all of it lost if the article is deleted. It is precisely this information that BilledMammal has specifically stated is not worth including in Wikipedia, at the same time complaining about how these stubs contain nothing useful or unique. Wikipedia species articles that contain a Wikidata linked taxonbar do NOT simply "duplicate the content" of a genus-level article (because the genus-level articles do not contain those Wikidata links), and they contain far more than just what is immediately visible in the text of the article. Despite comments I've seen some people post, species-level articles do NOT simply duplicate or mirror what is found in Wikispecies, they do MUCH more, because they contain a Wikidata link, while Wikispecies cross-references to almost nothing, not to Wikidata, and not even to Wikipedia. (7) As others have noted, deleting or merging articles not only does nothing to improve them, but it makes it harder for anyone else to improve them, just like deleting the brackets from a redlink makes it harder for anyone to know that an article needs to be created. All existing redirects pointing to species articles will no longer have a proper target, because you can't target individual entries in a table. (8) Designing a table format that can accommodate for all the possible permutations is not practical; BilledMammal's initial attempt had only three fields - species name, "first described", and range. If you wanted to have an actual table that could accommodate existing species article stub content, it would contain (a) present species name, (b) past names/spelling variants/synonyms (of which there can be be 50 or more), (c) authorships and years for all these names, (d) the geographic distributions, (e) host associations, (f) existence of subspecies, (g) images, (h) descriptive notes, and (i) references, at a bare minimum (i.e., without having to omit existing content of merged/deleted stubs). Even for a small genus, nine columns, and the possible amount of content in some of them (especially considering how many would have to be left blank) would be unwieldy enough, but for groups like beetles, there are some genera with over 3000 valid species! Those genus articles are bad enough as just lists, they will become impossible to use if they are converted into tables, and the unfortunate truth is that all but a literal handful of the species articles for those enormous genera are stubs. We are MUCH better off with 3000 individual articles than a gargantuan table. (9) Something else that is overlooked is HOW DO MOST USERS ARRIVE AT WIKIPEDIA? To continue the example above, if you google "Knulliana" the #1 Google hit is the Wikipedia article - the same article that BilledMammal has just proposed to delete. Call me crazy, but you shouldn't go around deleting the #1 source of information on an organism on the entire internet just because you assert that species stubs are wasteful and inefficient. (10) For me, the bottom line is this: once a species article referring to an actual valid taxonomic entity has been created and crossreferenced, it should not be subject to arbitrary decisions to merge or delete it. If the name is synonymized, then it should immediately be changed into a redirect to the valid taxon name, but that's about the only way a species article should ever be made to disappear. BilledMammal has not engaged with the relevant Wikiproject, and has dismissed the concerns about the effort of editors who have helped to improve a page, as being irrelevant to whether a page should be maintained. Well, Wikipedia is a community effort, for one thing, and the community should have a say in the matter. The other side of this is that an editor who does not understand what the content is that they're removing should not be making such a decision unilaterally, especially when there are editors who DO understand what the content is, and how valuable it is. (11) I will echo the calls by others to establish, once and for all, an explicit AND OBJECTIVE policy regarding species articles, however high up it needs to go in the WP administrative hierarchy to make it enforceable. It is hard enough to keep the existing articles organized and curated without some existential threat that if an article does not have some arbitrary amount of arbitrarily-defined improvement by some arbitrary deadline, it can be wiped away by anyone who feels so inclined, without discussing the matter in advance. That's a recipe for disaster, and I don't regret categorizing it as such. Dyanega (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nominator, JoelleJay, and Avilich. Species are notable enough to have a redirect, but not necessarily a whole page, and especially when that page is a stub. --Spekkios (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For many reasons previously articulated. It is not up for us to decide how readers might prefer to find information in this project. Some readers may want a list, some may want more specific information which can be found on a dedicated page. I do believe that species by definition are notable. --Enos733 (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL. In addition, I'm not proposing redirecting any pages which contain more specific information than exists in the list. BilledMammal (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information linked to by the taxonbars is not being carried over to the redirect target because you are deleting the species-specific taxonbars. That includes, as noted, geographic distribution data, host associations, photographs, phenology data, specimen records in museums, all linked to individual species and accessible on the pages you are converting to redirects. That is a LOT of very specific information being lost. Dyanega (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTDATABASE, articles don't exist to provide a location for a database of external links. BilledMammal (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read those policies before you try to assert that they apply here. They very clearly do NOT apply in this context. Dyanega (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, visit Template:Taxonbar for a tutorial on what a taxonbar is, and what it is intended to do. You are, effectively, claiming that taxonbars violate those two policies. They do not. Dyanega (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonbars don't. Taxonbars as the sole reason for an article to exist do because such articles are simply repositories of external links, which is forbidden by WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTDATABASE. BilledMammal (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is inane. A linkfarm is an indiscriminate collection of links. The links in taxonbars are to specific pieces of information, a practice explicitly allowed in LINKFARM There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links. The taxonbar is not the sole reason for a stub article to exist. The article exists as a platform for further expansion. If all that ever could exist was the taxonbar then you would have a case for NOTDATABASE. But further information does exist as has been proved repeatedly on species articles. SpinningSpark 22:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And when an editor adds that information the article can be restored. Until then, when we dismiss the argument that we need to keep it because of the taxonbar, WP:CONTENTFORK doesn't permit us to keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating stubs is a practice long established on Wikipedia. We don't delete stubs just because they are stubs. We delete them when a WP:BEFORE search shows that expansion is unlikely/impossible. CONTENTFORK is a ridiculous rationale when you have to dismiss something from the article (with an equally ridiculous rationale of LINKFARM) before you can apply it. SpinningSpark 22:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal here is redirection, to avoid duplicating the content, not deletion. And the ridiculous argument here is that using an article as a directory to external resources is sufficient argument for its existence. In addition to the two aspects of WP:NOT that I have already cited, that also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BilledMammal (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection deletes content, and you are the person duplicating it. Despite your repeated invocation of WP:CONTENTFORK, you again seem to be applying a policy out-of-context. Forking is what happens when two articles overlap so much that any edits to one would also be appropriate for the other article, at which point they are better off merged. That is not the case for species articles versus genus articles UNLESS the genus contains only one species - and in that case, WP policy does explicitly state that they should be a single article, but that is the ONLY case in which merging genus and species articles is indicated by policy. The article you should be referring to instead (and yes, I know it isn't an official policy, but please refrain from attacking it on that basis) is semi-duplicate, which goes over the issue at hand here. Allow me to quote from it: "...if there was a significant amount of information about apples in the Orange (fruit) article the correct thing would be to move the content about apples into the Apple article rather than merge Orange (fruit) to Apple. On the other hand there may be separate articles for a settlement and low level municipality - even though the separate article for the municipality does not duplicate much content in the settlement article, for example, it would still be a semi-duplicate. Generally per WP:BEFORE C1 if there are problems with content forking they should be dealt with through normal editing rather than merging the articles. Similarly, just because the articles don't have content forking problems due to good editing doesn't mean the articles should be kept separate, similar to Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. However, semi-duplicates have a higher risk of content forking though the article may be less likely to be merged if distinct content has been added that may justify an exception." (some punctuation added) I will emphasize that this article not only suggests that merging is not the preferred course of action, but that the movement of content is to the article for which it is most appropriate; that is, if a genus article existed and had a table of species data, then the correct procedure would be to remove detailed species data from the genus article, and move it to the species articles, thereby removing the forking problem. You are advocating exactly the opposite, and you are in fact taking steps that create a tautological argument: you are moving content INTO the genus articles, and after you have duplicated the content, then you are claiming that there is a content fork that can only be resolved by merging the articles. The fact is, until you attempted to move that content into the genus article, there was no fork at all; you are the person who has created the problem you claim to be trying to solve. Second, taxonbars ARE "distinct content", whether you are willing to accept it or not. Taxonbars are a fundamental feature of Wikipedia, and they appear on over 400,000 articles - you can't just dismiss them as irrelevant and not deserving of protection from being deleted. Dyanega (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood WP:CONTENTFORK. It discusses situations where the content is redundant, and states that such situations are to be avoided in favour of a single source of truth; it doesn't make any distinction between articles that won't be redundant in the future and articles that will be.

It also includes an exception that demonstrates your misunderstanding; rather than saying that content that won't be redundant in the future should be split off immediately, it says it should only be split off when the article becomes too large to include all of the content - in other words, when it stops being redundant.

As for Taxonbars, would an article consisting only of external links be a valid article or would it be speedy-deleted under WP:A3? BilledMammal (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking WP:CONTENTFORK as a rationale for your proposed merger was (and still is) incorrect as the information was not duplicated between the source species/genera articles and your intended destination article (Bothriospilini). Having little experience in editing taxonomic articles, you may have just been unaware of the distinct information that would be deleted. As this unique information has now been pointed out (assuming you missed it on previous discussion pages), it is unwise to keep claiming that WP:CONTENTFORK applies here. Loopy30 (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify what information is missing? BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on YOU to show redundancy, not on us to prove otherwise. Take a look at the Knulliana article, in the version immediately prior to your attempted merge: [7]. Now, take a look at the Bothriospilini article, the version immediately prior to your attempted merge: [8]. Anyone, ANYONE, who looks at those two articles will immediately see that there is almost nothing in those two articles that is duplicated or redundant. There was no justification for the merge. I will say it again, since you seem to still refuse to acknowledge it: these articles were perfectly fine before you tried to merge them. There was never a fork problem until you created a fork problem. Dyanega (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what information is missing from the version after my expansion? If you can't answer that then your objections on the ground that information would be lost seem rather baseless; this isn't a vote, and you need to present evidence for the closer to consider your opinion. BilledMammal (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose merger.. If the page is deleted and moved to a tribe table, not only will existing information be lost, but most of the incentive for others to add content is lost as well. Bob Webster (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What information will be lost? In addition, WP:HALFDONE suggests that creating stubs and sub-stubs doesn't add an incentive for editors to improve them and may have the opposite effect. BilledMammal (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the nominator rather disruptively recently changed the target to an old non-consensus diff rather than the actual target page content. Editors at the target page Talk:Bothriospilini were already complaining about the confusion this and the edit warring at the article caused, so just making sure that remains fixed. To quote Plantdrew there, the AfD was predicated on CONTENTFORK, where the content forking was performed by the AfD nominator shortly before opening the AfD, and changing to a diff was just continuing that issue. Editors commenting before this comment should be aware of this misdirection in case they were looking at the edit-warred version that didn't have consensus and based comments on that. Apologies for not catching this sooner, there's been a bit of cleanup to try to keep up on. KoA (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be disruptive apart from being policy violations of notability compounded by a refusal to follow TOL guidelines for the structuring of knowledge, assuming that the nominator does not get taxonomy, an analogy with geographically nested entities could be considered but unable to see enough intent in trying to reason or be reasonable. Elsewhere claims that this is "... to increase the utility of these articles for average readers", not every entry and every part of an article anywhere is for the "average reader". Shyamal (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, without prejudice to re-expansion of individual articles per Spekkios et al. and, indeed, every entry and every part of an article anywhere is for the average reader (there's a reason we have a {{technical}} template). I've previously said the same about fish species and individual articles about dams: the reader is better served by having basic information about list entries (species, dams, whatever) grouped on one page in order to provide context, rather than separating this basic info onto standalone pages. It's not a question of notability, it's a WP:PAGEDECIDE issue. The species "sub-stubs" can easily be merged into a table (by genus, or tribe, although there are some issues with tribe stability), including pictures of each species and synonyms and everything else on the "sub stub" pages. Individual species articles can still be expanded by anyone who wants to add more information to them than what would fit onto a row of a table. Redirects from species names and synonyms can still function by being targeted at a specific row of the genus table. No information would be lost by merging sub-stubs; instead, the reader will gain context. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to redirect/merge by genus than you're actually opposed to this AFD, not in favor of it? Jahaza (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging ...by genus, or tribe.... Levivich (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Silverseren. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all/Oppose merge ~~Really this has no business at AfD~~. (Sorry for earlier tone. Trying again) A suggestion of this sort should be discussed somewhere other than AfD. What is being proposed here is a sweeping change in how species-level articles are generally handled. (Yes, I'm aware that it isn't official policy). Joyous! | Talk 00:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this isn't the right forum for such a large-scale policy change. Also, I don't understand why submitting an AFD but wanting to merge instead of delete. It's not like this was a procedural outcome of a different discussion. Thirdly, before User:BilledMammal made this nomination, they were alerted to a discussion at WT:WikiProject Tree of Life#Species article merges, and failed to participate. Finally - the nomination appears to be WP:POINTY an has been made in bad faith, as there was already an ongoing discussion at WP:ANI (Undiscussed mass article merging and redirection by BilledMammal) about the nominators mass merges in this area. Nfitz (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Oppose redirecting This is a WP:TRAINWRECK; Knulliana had more significantly more information when the AfD was initiated than any other nominated article. I think it could stand alone as a stub (not a sub-stub) in it's state at the time of the AfD nomination. It has since been expanded, along with other articles nominated in this AfD. The genus article Knulliana gets more page views than the tribe article Bothriospilini (12/day long term vs. 1/day) Tribes are taxonomic minutiae; they are rarely mentioned in sources with SIGCOV of a species. Families are regularly mentioned. Genera are inherently mentioned as the first word in the binomial name of a species. Readers might reasonably expect to find Wikipedias most detailed coverage of a species in a genus article. As a test case, this AfD seems to seek to set a precedent that Wikipedias most detailed coverage of a species could be found whereever it "fits" (by article size). Species might be covered in detail in an article for genus/tribe/subfamily/family. This isn't an outcome that would help readers at all. I'm much less opposed to merging species sub-stubs to genus articles than merging species to an arbitrary higher taxon. Plantdrew (talk) 02:03, 5 November 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. I discounted all struck sock comments, and gave less weight (but did not discount entirely) to Venkat TL's comment given they were only topic banned after commenting here. Legoktm (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Shoban[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being a spokesperson of a political party's state wing is most certainly NOT an WP:NPOL pass. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Skynxnex (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is entirely sourced to press releases which lack independence from the subject or to articles with just passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this passes WP:GNG or WP:NPOL], because there is not significant coverage and not a political position. ZanciD (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC) blocked sock. Venkat TL (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG due to the significant coverage of her activist work in Local Telugu Media. Yes she has not yet won an election, but I find that this is frequently used as an excuse to delete articles of notable activists using WP:NPOL. NPOL is not the only criteria. Telugu media coverage of her work. [9] [10] [11] [12] English media [13] [14] [15]. Venkat TL (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Venkat TL has been topic banned from this subject. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commenthave mentioned [16] [17] [18] English media whatever links you have mentioned, many youtube links and youtube links do not prove that you are notable person [19] [20] [21] The news link you have shown is a press release so fail WP:GNG I think delete. Lionfox0909 (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC) blocked sock. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are youtube official channels of Telugu news sites and newspapers. If you can read Telugu (I can't) you will be able to find their sites and detailed write ups too. Venkat TL (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These youtube videos are interviews by the subject being the spokesperson for her political party. Which is not enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO TheWikiholic (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per reasons by Venkat TL. NPOL is not the only criteria. Timothytyy (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Venkat TL has been subject to an indefinite topic ban on the subject of politics in the WP:ARBIPA topic area, broadly construed (that includes related individuals, political history, etc.) And can you please enlighten me on what other criterias that gives the subject notability? TheWikiholic (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheWikiholic Thanks for your information. After an inspection of the sources and the content, I think that the article is quite useless in terms of readers' interest. So I will go for delete instead. Timothytyy (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading this page shows that it has secondary sources but looking at the page it seems that this page has been promoted but this page can be corrected ~~WP:TOOSOON~~, so that it takes NPOV.🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC) blocked sock TheWikiholic (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide the secondary sources that you found in the article covering the subject in detail? TheWikiholic (talk) 07:35, 30 October 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. This discussion has the same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila and they should really be seen as in tandem. Like Bothriospila, the keeps and deletes were mostly talk past each other and the keeps have a numerical advantage. I suggest that an widely advertised RfC on the notability of species happen to find a consensus about the issue of keeping or deleting these articles. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adalbus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The following are proposed to be redirected to Bimiini, with categories left intact, per WP:CONTENTFORK as they duplicate the content of that article.

This would not prevent them from being split off again in the future, in line with WP:WHENSPLIT.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science and Animal related deletion discussions Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs)

Redirect. Seems perfectly in line with our P&Gs. If editors can find sufficient independent, secondary SIGCOV for a standalone they can go ahead and remake the articles individually, as they should have done in the first place. Duplicating all the reader-relevant info on genera pages into separate microstubs on each species, apparently based on a couple wikiprojects' LOCALCON that the AFDOUTCOMES essay is a prescriptive guideline, goes directly against CONTENTFORK and NOTDATABASE. Isn't there wikispecies or something where all this can be held anyway? JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect The topics do not meet WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Species are, by definition, notable subjects. And detailed information to meet GNG can be found for every single one. Hence why every AfD nomination of a recognized taxonomic species fails, because they are notable. Anyone arguing otherwise is expressing their own ignorance of the topic as a whole. Silver seren^C 01:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Silver seren mentioned, the subjects are individually notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (oppose merge). This is getting ridiculous. Long-held consensus is that species are independently notable and meet GNG by definition. Content fork is being completely misapplied. There is no possible reason for redirecting these stubs. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every stub on a described species is expandable into at least a start class article. This is a disappointing doubling-down from an editor who seems unable to realize that they are not going to change established consensus extending to thousands of articles by creating POINTy mass AFDs. (Coming off some apparent participation at the ongoing mass creation/AFD discussion this is particularly tone-deaf.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Species always have scientific descriptions, at least by their discoverer, or else they would not have an official species name. That is enough to make them notable. Also the noms claim that the articles "duplicate the content" of Bimiini is no longer true (if it ever was) due to subsequent expansion. SpinningSpark 15:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all The common outcome that species are generally kept has become circular logic without a directive in a guideline. A single published article describing the species – or a database entry – fails GNG, and this line at WP:AFDCO does not actually override that! Even if people believe individual species are notable, per WP:NOPAGE notable topics can still be covered in other articles. In these cases there is not enough content for stand-alone pages so they should be merged/redirected to the genus/family article, which could still have a couple sentences describing each one to be more useful than just a bulleted list of links that fail to actually provide additional information. I do not think Wikipedia needs literally millions of articles to be a database of species names that are redundant duplicates of a main article. Even if they could be potentially expanded to have a few sentences, there is no need to have this sort of microstub until someone gets around to doing so. Reywas92^Talk 15:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the Wikispecies page for Zehra, Sybilla is a misspelling of Sibilla, and Sibilla is an "unjustified nomen nov." according to "Cerambycidae of the World 2017". So, these Sybilla species pages will need to be redirected to their current names, regardless of what happens in this AFD. Esculenta (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since none of those articles currently exist, that would be a move of the existing articles to the new titles, not a redirect. And before doing that, a better source than an open wiki would need to be found for the name change. SpinningSpark 17:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cerambycidae of the World. Esculenta (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Including these in a single list makes it easier for readers to find and compare species without clicking through to articles which contain no additional information. No objection to splitting out individually as articles are expanded. –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is suggesting deleting the genus article with the list? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this source without trying. [22]. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The original description of Adalbus by Fairmaire and Germain runs to three pages of dense text. That's substantial coverage in anyone's money. SpinningSpark 18:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also primary, and so does not contribute to GNG and can only be used for simple non-controversial information. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be another subject-matter competence issue. This is not a medical topic where we essentially require secondary academic sources. It is a scholarly source in a peer-reviewed journal, so trying to jump on dismissing it as "primary" like it was a blog is inappropriate. In medical fields, meta-analyses, etc. are generally the most authoritative secondary sources. Over in taxonomy, the original description and any related published secondary updates (e.g., name change) are the authoritative reliable sources where the species is getting independent coverage, similar to how someone might have a biography written about them (let's assume unauthorized/independent). Literature structure varies a bit across disciplines.

If there is serious doubt about an original published description, secondary sources are obviously a gold standard, but that requires serious doubt. For a species, significant coverage begins when it is described and recognized as something separate from all other species, which is kind of a big deal. That's especially when sources continue to verify that, so there really aren't any actual GNG issues being articulated here. In short, this source would be the bare minimum for passing GNG for a species if one understands how taxonomy literature works, which almost always is tied to verifying usage in other scientific secondary or tertiary sources for name accuracy. It's only when you have an initial description and that species isn't included in other monographs or updates that notability is a serious question. KoA (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OR, articles must not be based on primary sources. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge... a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. Research articles are always primary for the research they contain[23]. In the natural and social sciences, primary sources are often empirical studies -- research where an experiment was done or a direct observation was made. The results of empirical studies are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences, so those articles and papers that present the original results are considered primary sources. It has less to do with accuracy and more to do with ensuring material is NPOV and DUE, and this extends equally across all disciplines governed by GNG, including those in science. That source would absolutely not be acceptable as the basis of an article, for the OR reasons above as well as WP:OLDSOURCES: Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. JoelleJay (talk) JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:OLDSOURCES keep reading: Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. If the source hasn't been superseded, then what's the problem?

For WP:OR: Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense.

Please don't cherry pick! YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...you really think there haven't been developments in beetle taxonomy and terminology in the last 200 years?? And per the succeeding two sentences, the statement in OR is clearly referring to sources used for particular statements; it's certainly not overriding the bolded policy that articles cannot be based on primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the description of Carabus violaceus holds from 1758, so maybe less changes than you think. I also think WP:OR may need a reword. Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources implies that sometimes they don't! YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY says A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, which makes your statement hilarious because this scientific description of a new species is entirely straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. In any case, my main point here wasn't GNG, it was in answer to the "all we have is database entries" criticism. SpinningSpark 12:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's more hilarious is that you skipped over all the rest of the policy on primary sources, including Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. JoelleJay (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should change career to stand-up comic; the source we are talking about isn't currently in the article refs at all. The page can hardly be based on it, even if it was added now. SpinningSpark 22:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am pointing out that that source cannot contribute to GNG, both because GNG directly asks for secondary sources and because any source that cannot be a basis for an article obviously can't contribute to GNG, and so it is irrelevant that it contains "substantial coverage". JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: Should the article for Homo longi exist with the sources that it has? Plantdrew (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not analyze the relative contributions of each source to the text in that article, but glancing at the reflist I see multiple review/summary articles that could easily be used to sculpt the article, in particular the Science one and the recap by a science journalist from The Guardian. Those seem to fulfill GNG. The fact that the other primary research articles very likely contain secondary coverage of the prior research in their intro/discussion sections also helps, although not if they're just the same group self-citing. JoelleJay (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elmidae in that every article is expandable where the nom didn't follow WP:BEFORE and that species by definition are notable. There are sources to do so if someone feels strongly and has the time, so trying to force a redirect is inappropriate. This is not a WP:MONOTYPICTAXON where we are supposed to merge to the articles. Lautarus is set up correctly in that sense since only one species exists in that genus, but the proposed target Bimiini obviously has more than one species. KoA (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep /Oppose merger as per the arguments above and at similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila. Opening more than one test case at a time on the same issue was really not necessary. Loopy30 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elmidae, Spinningspark, and KoA, as well as the arguments I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila, which generally appear applicable here too. When I open a general encyclopedia, I expect to find articles about species, and none of the WP:QUASILEGALISMS thrown about have shaken that basic expectation. XOR'easter (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elmidae. It is not up for us to decide how readers might prefer to find information in this project. Some readers may want a list, some may want more specific information which can be found on a dedicated page. I do believe that species by definition are notable. --Enos733 (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL. In addition, I'm not proposing redirecting any pages which contain more specific information than exists in the list. BilledMammal (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the nominator rather disruptively recently changed the target to an old non-consensus diff rather than the actual target page content. Editors at Talk:Bothriospilini were already complaining about the confusion this and the edit warring at the article caused, which mirrors what happened here so just making sure that remains fixed. Editors commenting before this comment should be aware of this misdirection in case they were looking at the edit-warred version that didn't have consensus and based comments on that. Apologies for not catching this sooner, there's been a bit of cleanup to try to keep up on. KoA (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per other comments above. I don't see any reason why these articles need to be separate. --Spekkios (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:PAGEDECIDE for the same reason as the other AFD. All the information on the various genus/species pages would be better presented on a single page. Levivich (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this isn't the right forum for such a large-scale policy change. Also, I don't understand why submitting an AFD but wanting to merge instead of delete. It's not like this was a procedural outcome of a different discussion. Thirdly, before User:BilledMammal made this nomination, they were alerted to a discussion at WT:WikiProject Tree of Life#Species article merges, and failed to participate. Finally - the nomination appears to be WP:POINTY an has been made in bad faith, as there was already an ongoing discussion at WP:ANI (Undiscussed mass article merging and redirection by BilledMammal) about the nominators mass merges in this area. Nfitz (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Oppose redirecting Tribes are taxonomic minutiae; they are rarely mentioned in sources with SIGCOV of a species. Families are regularly mentioned. Genera are inherently mentioned as the first word in the binomial name of a species. Readers might reasonably expect to find Wikipedias most detailed coverage of a species in a genus article. As a test case, this AfD seems to seek to set a precedent that Wikipedias most detailed coverage of a species could be found whereever it "fits" (by article size). Species might be covered in detail in an article for genus/tribe/subfamily/family. This isn't an outcome that would help readers at all. I'm much less opposed to merging species sub-stubs to genus articles than merging species to an arbitrary higher taxon. And given the states of the species/genus articles and the proposed merge target Bimiini, if sub-stubs are going to be merge it might be worth considering merging tribes into families/subfamilies. Plantdrew (talk) 02:08, 5 November 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of district attorneys by county[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

District attorneys throughout the US are not a notable grouping, failing WP:NLIST. Most members of this list are non-notable individually. Additionally, not every county has a district attorney. As the article itself states, sometimes prosecutions are handled by multi-county districts, or by a state agency. Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Law, and United States of America. Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename I think this is an appropriate subarticle of District attorney, but it could be moved to List of current district attorneys in the United States to address the nom's concerns. Reywas92^Talk 16:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm not really seeing a need to provide a list of officials at the county level in any office. We don't cover politicians below the state level generally on wikipedia per WP:NPOL; so I"m not seeing the need to catalogue/list officials at this low level of governance either.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I also intended to cite WP:NOTDIRECTORY in the nomination but forgot to mention it. Edge3 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL means that we don't have articles on most county-level politicians, but not that we can't cover information on them in broader articles. Indeed, since most of these people wouldn't be notable, having a list of all of them is perfectly reasonable per WP:CSC. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as county-level district attorneys are not inherently notable, and a list of such figures is equally non-notable. I would not object to moving this list to user space or a relevant project space to use as a resource for determining whether we are missing articles for people on these lists who were notable for other reasons. BD2412 T 06:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful informational list. I'm fine with the rename suggested by Reywas92. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with BD412 and nom, many of these county attornies are not notable and although the list is useful that should not be a reason to keep this list. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a total rebuttal of any reason to keep content because of its utility: If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. It is becoming more important to know who these individuals are. 47.189.246.224 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and NLIST, but not NPOL: district attorneys aren't politicians per se. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this useful information. It is valuable and can be used for research. Also, there is no reason not to include it. Keep it. 2601:647:8481:42E0:E80B:970B:9AFD:F161 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL isn't a very persuasive argument. A lot of things can be considered useful, but because we're not a directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY), we shouldn't necessarily have an article. Edge3 (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an even split and I don't see many policy-based arguments. BD2412 had an interesting suggestion of keeping this article in Project space (maybe a relevant WikiProject) to use for reference of articles that might be created in the future.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only if this remains well-updated and sourced, and a rename to List of American county prosecutors might be more appropriate since there are multiple names for this office. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not every state has county prosecutors. Some states, for example, handle prosecutions through a state agency, and in other states the prosecutors might have authority over districts spanning multiple counties. Edge3 (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or re-name if needed. This is a great resource for seeing who's notable - or not. It's also exactly the sort of list that our core readership needs to navigate. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 5 November 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 split decision. No consensus on the main article and delete on the season articles. Both relist did not yield additional input, so a third did not seem to be helpful. It may be worth nominating just the main article by itself in the future to try to come to a better consensus about its inclusion on Wikipedia and to do a full source analysis. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FIA Masters Historic Formula One Championship[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. A WP:BEFORE check yields no WP:SIGCOV, almost exclusively passing mentions with the occasional WP:ROUTINE news article. Tagged with WP:V issues for almost nine and a half years. Wikipedia is not a database. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Motorsport, and Europe. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are subpages to this article:

Delete 2016 and 2017 season articles as they clearly don't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. I will double check the general event article to see if more sources do exist for it, but if people don't find any, then that article should be deleted too. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete season articles, but leaning keep on main article - I believe I have seen coverage of the broader series (but not individual seasons) in print sources, though I do not currently have access to them, and online searches produce so many false positive results (ie. "Charles Leclerc takes historic victory in Formula One race") that it's extremely difficult to determine what online coverage might exist of this series, with this Motor Sport magazine article being the only thing a quick search could find in the mess. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep and re-nominate separately due to varying levels of notability. The season articles are likely candidates to be deleted per WP:NSEASON and WP:GNG, though possibly WP:SIGCOV exists on the series as a whole per user:HumanBodyPiloter5’s analysis. Bundled nominations should be avoided in these cases as many users will employ an WP:ALLORNOTHING approach. Frank Anchor 15:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete season articles definitely. The main article itself is still so threadbare on information even after a decade (it honestly ought to be nominated itself) that it renders those articles completely irrelevant. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NSEASONS has no bearing on these articles as that is a notability guideline for team season articles (eg 2022 Geelong Football Club season). I agree with others that the season articles should have been nominated separately, however. A7V2 (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a clear Delete on the season articles but not much feedback on the main page up for review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 28 October 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!} 06:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalary Topy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous CSD A1 in May 2007 as the page Kalari topi, seemed to fit the same criteria for deletion. Kazamzam (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a small non-notable village. Insight 3 (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V - doesn't cite any sources, it doesn't look like it ever cited any sources, and I couldn't find any. Hut 8.5 13:09, 31 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Smith (marine biologist)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current sourcing includes some primary sources, some brief mentions, and a semi-in-depth article, although it's mostly an interview. Searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG, and he does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see adequate sourcing (e.g. Youtube as sources) to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEY. I've added a few RS. I agree that notability is not super strong but I feel there's sufficient to justify the page and meet WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above arguments. Onegreatjoke (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY. Deus et lex (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the added sources are in-depth about the person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the interview is (you concede that above). Deus et lex (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect for your significant and voluminous contributions, that does not seem to be true and appears to be a widely misused and misunderstood proposition: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." (see Wikipedia:Interviews). Cabrils (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Comment - Cabrils is absolutely right, this claim is consistently raised and incorrectly cited. The real question is whether the source is promotional or not and reliable, not whether or not it is an interview itself. This one is clearly a valid source and can be used for determining notability. Deus et lex (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - you are both incorrect. The WP policy, PRIMARY, states, "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." (emphasis mine). Further, note "D" in that same policy lists interviews as primary sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is correct. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's not - that policy is put in the context of op-ed pieces and is dependent on context. There is no blanket ban on interviews establishing notability - the question is whether they are independent enough or promotional. I wish people would stop perpetuating the myth that they can't be used. Deus et lex (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing the interviewee says, whether in quotes or not, counts toward SIGCOV for GNG. Neither do primary descriptions of the subject or interview setting. And neither do interviewer "summaries" of statements the subject made. That leaves us with very little material from the interview--not enough to meet SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing an NPROF pass here, and the sourcing doesn't look to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the article has been edited with the goal of improving it, I still don't see how it passes NPROP, much less WP:SIGCOV. Adjuncts are dime a dozen (I was myself for many years), and are rarely notable unless they do something else important. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 5 November 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!} 06:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Right Hand[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not show non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:NSONG. MB 21:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the song doesn't fail WP:NSONG. WP:BEFORE says: "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." You obviously didn't. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MB: Could you please look at Talk:Devil's Right Hand#Sources? I did a quick Google Books search and listed some reliable sources I found.
Could you maybe be so kind to close your nomination? I can promise I will expand the article some other day or (more likely) month, but not right now... --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While some of the sources Moscow Connection lists have fairly minimal coverage, others are substantial, thus meeting GNG and NSONG. Rlendog (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG per Rlendog's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 05:11, 29 October 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 05:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Ehsanul Karim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain the reason for selection of this article for deletion which has multiple valid references? Dawoodkarim (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain the reason for selection of this article for deletion which has multiple valid references? Dawoodkarim (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has multiple valid references, he is not a living person, he is famous in his field. I do not support it's deletion. Dawoodkarim (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dawoodkarim, you don't need to make the same comment three times. The reason for nominating this article for deletion is in the deletion rationale at the top of this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how he passes either WP:SOLDIER or GNG.TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there are valid references! Why not considering them? Dawoodkarim (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOLDIER has been depreciated, but I doubt he would have passed it in any case. And I just don't see enough for GNG. Intothat darkness 15:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:13, 4 November 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. SouthernNights (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ziauddin (army officer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bangladeshi military officer fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Bangladesh. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The creator of the article has created four other articles, one has been deleted, and the rest are all related to Mohammad Ziauddin (army officer). The other articles they created are Mohammad Mafzalur Rahman, Waleed Ehsanul Karim, and Fazlul Karim (lawyer). They are poorly sourced, seem to have photos from the family album and reek of conflict of interest.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. He is the main subject of this source which has indepth coverage: [24]. However, I am not familiar with this website and am uncertain of whether it is a reliable secondary source (I believe it may be a primary source?). The sourcing here is not great. That said, I think there is a case that he meets criteria one for WP:ANYBIO as the recipient of the Bir Uttom which is verified to this government website: [25].4meter4 (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The website belongs to Prothom Alo, is considered RS.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He has received the second-highest military award and the highest military award for living personnel. One of the seven receivers of the highest gallantry award in Bangladesh served and died under his command during the war. The subject was a decorated veteran of the Bangladesh Liberation war who lost his commission in the Bangladesh Army after writing an article critical of Bangladesh-India ties. Two years later, the President of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, is killed by army officers, following years of tension and suspicion between the army and the government. One of the problems they had with the president was the Bangladesh-India ties. While the article is not in the best shape, I am inclined to believe he is notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't a measure of what the article says, it's a measure of how well the article references the things it says to third party reliable sources. Even a winner of a high-level military award still has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on his sourcing before he actually gets a Wikipedia article for it, and doesn't get over the bar on primary sources or glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles that aren't about him (which is what the references here are). Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is in-depth coverage in a reliable source, Prothom Alo. There is a book on him written by the vice-chancellor of a university in Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can locate better referencing than has been offered here. Winning a high-level military award is certainly potential grounds for a Wikipedia article, but it isn't "inherently" notable enough to absolve an article of actually having to be supported by WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources rather than government-published primary source reports. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article and the sources. Please take another look at it.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the article has been improved since the time of nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the news Articles not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the EPW article, I find 39 mentions of Ziauddin, including this: " This time the attempt involved a young Bengali officer, Mohammed Ziauddin, who was stationed at the Army's General Headquarters in Rawalpindi. Along with two other Bengalis, they made a daring late night crossing into India via the Sialkot sector of the Pakistan border. The escape of these two men was to have an important impact on the development of the liberation struggle, and the post independence structure of the armed forces. Immediately after independence Taher and Ziauddin would between them command 90 per cent of the' country's infantry. Together they would begin to initiate forms of military organisation unheard of in the subcontinent."^[1] Referenced across two pages in Franda's "Bangladesh, the first decade"^[2]. The January 2022 piece from the Daily Star is an over-view of Ziauddin's Liberation War record.^[3]

References

^ Lifschultz, Lawrence (1977). "Abu Taher's Last Testament: Bangladesh: The Unfinished Revolution". Economic and Political Weekly. 12 (33/34): 1303–1354. ISSN 0012-9976.
^ Franda, Marcus F. (1982). Bangladesh, the first decade. New Delhi: South Asian Publishers. pp. 240–241. ISBN 9780883330067.
^ ইশতিয়াক, আহমাদ (31 January 2022). "খেতাবপ্রাপ্ত বীর মুক্তিযোদ্ধা: মোহাম্মদ জিয়াউদ্দিন, বীর উত্তম". The Daily Star Bangla (in Bengali).

FWIW, it should be noted that the award he has is effectively the highest gallantry award possible for someone living, the higher award has only been awarded seven times, all during the Liberation War...and requires death in battle. The award he has received has only been issued to 69 people in a country of 150+ million. Passes two elements of WP:ANYBIO: (1) received a well-known and significant award (2) person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Vinegarymass911 and Goldsztajn —MdsShakil (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Goldsztajn. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 22:47, 3 November 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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khela Jokhon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Source search not indicating a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NFILM ASUKITE 19:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. ASUKITE 19:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or redirect to Arindam Sil. Film not released yet. Found source here. DareshMohan (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until it has been released to see whether it receives coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reviews, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 2 November 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. Discounting the many socks, this discussion becomes a quite straightforward close. The deletes have it based on numerical advantage and policy-based reasoning. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Kumar Srivastava[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN government civil servant UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I initially misread his position, but as an administrative officer I don't think he meets WP:NPOL. Please ping me if anyone more knowledgeable about the Indian government structure says otherwise. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, @Alyo:, please refer to my comment. Indian government system is dependent pn Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers. They head districts, divisions of Indian states and then administratively head union and state government departments. Chief secretaries are very very senior IAS officers and should qualify WP:NPOL. Think of them as US federal deputy secrecies with the only difference being chief secretaries are career IAS officers. 103.59.198.83 (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I spent 15 minutes reading about this before !voting, and while I'm sure they have a lot of responsibility, they do not appear to be "elected politicians" as envisioned by NPOL. I'm an administrative lawyer myself, so I completely understand the importance, but I also know there are literally thousands of civil servants and simply fulfilling their duties does not equate to notability. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Alyo: I would have to disagree with you on that. American undersecretaries and deputy secretaries or chiefs of staff are given notability for simply holding their positions. I don’t see as to why the same should not apply for career civil servants.
  
  The point is not being one of thousands of civil servants —the guy literally heads the state government of India’s biggest state by GDP and is a senior member of the premier civil service of India. He’s literally the chief of staff of the state government. The job itself should confer notability as it does for defence personnel of equivalent status. If UK permanent secretaries (and heads of devolved admins) are given notability simply for their positions (as they should), I don’t see why the same shouldn’t be extended to Indian chief secretaries. Besides there are tons of articles on former chief secretaries and their equivalents (army generals and unit secretaries) who are given notability for holding their position. That should be the case here as well. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 23:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Because we don't treat civil servants the same as elected officials, simple as that. When NPOL confers notability on leaders of statewide governments, it's applying to (at minimum) the top three members of this list. When you say the guy literally heads the state government of India’s biggest state, to an American it implies he holds one of these positions. That's what I initially thought when I came across this article in NPP. I do not in fact believe that American state-level (as opposed to national/federal) chiefs of staff are guaranteed notability just because of their position. They might be notable for other reasons, but here the only sources are about Srivastava taking office. There's no other claim to notability. I think unfortunately you're blending a lot of very different topics and positions (for example, I would treat army generals as totally irrelevant to this discussion) and then wondering why they aren't all treated the same. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am conflating the two because in an Indian context, the two are related. Secretaries of Indian government (chiefs of staff; equivalent to UK perm secs) are treated as equivalent to chief secretaries. People occupying one post move to the other laterally and vice versa. It’s analogous to permanent secretary of the Scotland or Northern Ireland executive (both of whom have articles) and permanent secretary to a UK government department. Sue Gray for example was perm sec for Northern Ireland before moving to Cabinet Office as second perm sec. I’ll try to find sources for him tomorrow (there are some in Marathi) but I genuinely think him holding the post itself confers notability — chief secretaries are responsible for heading state admins as secretaries to the state cabinet. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 23:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SshibumXZ, it might be best to bring this up at WP:N as an SNG. Valereee (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Valereee: thanks for the suggestion. I do plan to do that sometime in the future. It’s just been I have been off of Wikipedia for a while and WP:NPOL was interpreted to include civil servants in prior AfDs I participated in. But I think it’d be best if there were uniform guidelines for this. Thanks again! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example of why I was conflating the two, Shrivastava would chair the meeting of the state disaster management authority, of which the local corps commander of the army, a lieutenant general (someone who automatically qualifies GNG), would be a participant. I think the interpretation of GNG advocated here would lead to absurd situations such as this. And that’s why it’s not done so for UK civil servants, where sub national chiefs of staffs are guaranteed notability. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — He’s a senior civil servant/Indian Administrative Service officer. Indian government system is similar to the UK and Ireland and differs wildly from the US. Senior civil servants are in charge of the administration of government departments and executives. Chief secretaries of states are regarded as “lynchpins” of administration. As a Chief Secretary he heads a state administration and ranks 23rd on Indian order of precedence — clearly qualifies WP:NPOL. Numerous IAS officers of the level of chief secretary such as Rajive Kumar (who also served as a Union secretary) have articles, so do Union secretaries such as Rajiv Mehrishi (who was also once the chief secretary of Rajasthan or Rajiv Gauba. Think of these people as senior civil servants in the UK of permanent secretary level such as James Bowler or Sue Gray or Japanese administrative vice ministers. 103.59.198.83 (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Another point — his status is equivalent to a four-star general, India’s vice chief of army staff, and secretaries to Indian government. 103.59.198.83 (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an aside this was me through my uni’s collective IP. I apologise for not logging in. Been a while since I edited on here. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 23:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- He ranks 23rd along with literally hundreds of other people, following other hundreds (thousands?) in the 22 long lists of people who come before. That is not a claim to notability. This is not '23rd in line to the throne'. It's how we decide in what order people enter the room and are seated. Valereee (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not with hundreds of people I don’t think. There are only 28 Indian states. So 28 chief secretaries. Indian order of precedence can be a very good proxy of notability — it’s literally the list of senior most politicians, civil servants, judges and military officers. At any rate, the point is that the job itself is notable — chief secretaries head state executive committees among other things and are equivalents to four-star generals and are above corps commanders of Indian Army who qualify GNG because of their jobs. I don’t see why someone who’s responsible for the administration of the biggest Indian state by GDP shouldn’t. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 23:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Valereee is saying there are hundreds of people in total in the 23rd step, not hundreds of chief secretaries. All 3* officers, plus all District Judges, etc. And I have to agree, that chart actually presents a very good argument against using itself for notability, given how many people fit into each step from, say, 15 down. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct. There are hundreds at the 23rd step. Valereee (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      
      My apologies. That article has gone through quite a bit of vandalism, I just realised. District judges and all are not in the order of precedence (see the MHA source cited), they are quite junior. And I’d have to disagree with the other part as well, in a government system as large as India’s quite a bit of people occupy important posts. The size of this country is hard to comprehend. But with a billion plus people there are quite a lot of senior moats. That doesn’t make them any less important. There are 50+ union ministers, 100s of state ministers, and 100s of generals — wouldn’t make those positions any less important. There was only chief executive officer of Delhi Metropolitan Council (the predecessor of modern day chief minister of Delhi) for example. Yet the position itself was way less important than a union minister. As is shown in its placement in the order (below secretaries). Yet the position was important in itself as the head of the nominal Delhi administration, which guarantees it notability.
      - I think this stems from the conflation of Indian/Commonwealth governments and American governments. Both work in a completely different manner. There’s no proper equivalent to a chief secretary in American context — a permanent civil servant who acts as the secretary to state cabinet and heads the state admin, the closest I can think of is like the chief of staff of Puerto Rico.
      I still maintain that the job itself congers notability. I’m a state’s rules of business, the state chief secretary — as the secretary to cabinet — is responsible for quite a lot of stuff. Think of them as a sub national equivalent of Cabinet Secretary (United Kingdom) (except that Maharashtra is larger than the UK) — responsible for enforcing the ministerial code among other things. They are also responsible for law and order, development, disaster management among other things. This coupled with the protocol afforded to it should confer the officeholders notability. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Chief secretary (India); unless this job confers notability, this person doesn't appear to be notable. Valereee (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somewhat high-up functionary, nothing notable that I see. His photo looks like a scan of his id badge, likely a copyvio. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — He’s a senior civil servant/Indian Administrative Service officer. Indian government system is similar to the UK and Ireland and differs wildly from the US. Senior civil servants are in charge of the administration of government departments and executives. Chief secretaries of states are regarded as “lynchpins” of administration. As a Chief Secretary he heads a state administration and ranks 23rd on Indian order of precedence — clearly qualifies WP:NPOL. Numerous IAS officers of the level of chief secretary such as Rajive Kumar (who also served as a Union secretary) have articles, so do Union secretaries such as Rajiv Mehrishi (who was also once the chief secretary of Rajasthan or Rajiv Gauba. Think of these people as senior civil servants in the UK of permanent secretary level such as James Bowler or Sue Gray.

I maintain that the job itself congers notability. The state chief secretary — as the secretary to cabinet — is responsible for quite a lot of stuff. Think of them as a sub national equivalent of Cabinet Secretary (United Kingdom) (except that Maharashtra is larger than the UK) — responsible for enforcing the ministerial code among other things. They are also responsible for law and order, development, disaster management among other things. This coupled with the protocol afforded to it should confer the officeholders notability.

Mr. Manu Srivastava was appointed and Chief Secretary for the State of Maharashtra, with 4 senior IAS officers in race to the position of top bureaucrat of the state following the retirement of State's Chief Secretary Debashish Chakraborty.^[1] ^[2] The Officer who has reached to the position of being selected as the Chief Secretary of the the state having the highest GDP itself confers for notability.

In the case of President's rule is imposed in the state, Chief Secretary of the state, as the chief advisor to the Governor, runs the administration of the state. And state of Maharashtra in India being the the state with highest GDP of US$ 450 Billion and third largest state area-wise. Hence the person at the head of bureaucracy of the state carries the responsibility of the State Administration and stands notable. By far the most important, function of the Chief Secretary is to coordinate the activities of the entire state government machinery.

He is the principal channel of communication between his government and the Central government and other state governments and in this capacity plays a significant role in the administration of law and order and planning. --202.189.224.14 (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this SPA is not the same person as the other IP, then they have extremely similar examples and wording choices. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yeah no, @SshibumXZ is this you again? Why are you leaving additional votes as a different IP. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AlyoI am not the same as @SshibumXZ, however the explanations as given by @SshibumXZ were very much true and I am from the state of Maharashtra in India and know and understand the position of a Chief Secretary. And more over as I saw that the article was re-listed for discussion hence taken a fresh discussion I copied the say of @SshibumXZ and added some of my own. Even though I am not a very regular on Wikipedia, and don’t have an ID nor would like to have one. 2402:3A80:741:1AFA:405B:C1AA:D217:91C2 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alyo: no. I know better than to engage in sock puppetry. I just have been much too busy with academic work to focus on Wikipedia though I am actively contemplating bringing an SNG discussion with respect to career civil servants in the UK and India. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 17:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, apologies for casting aspersions then. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. No harm, no foul. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 18:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The Hindustan, Times. "The Hindustan Times". The Hindustan Times.
^ The, Hindu. "The Hindu".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are thousands of IAS officers inside this country who are doing their duty, this does not prove that they are notable. She has played her duties which every IAS officer plays, I think not meet WP:BIO. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"He" is probably more appropriate... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It’s unfortunate to have to explain that there are 28 states in India and only 28 out of thousands of IAS officers reach the status of becoming a Chief Secretary. Hence the person having reached this status itself is notable. Voting for Delete just after creating an ID couple of days back and without proper justification for the same, and try to disrupt the sanctity and glory of Wikipedia. Such activities needs to curtailed as this allows an opening for trying to earn money in the wrong way by the way of contacting the principal subject.

As rightly pointed out by UtherSRG, the voter doesn't even have the knowledge of the gender of the subject officer.

I have lived in India for sometime and do understand the Indian bureaucracy as its similar to the one in the United Kingdom. I am in Mumbai at this point of time. After a little bit of research on the subject and available sources, I could come to a point of view of the person being notable and should have a place on Wikipedia.

Every IAS officer has to pass a selection procedure marked by the UPSC with an average success rate of 0.2% and they have an aspiration/goal to become the chief secretary. But very few to the maximum of 28 Officers reach this status.

He is an Indian Administrative Service officer of the 1986 batch and was the Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department) since 27th February, 2021. He has also held charge as the additional commissioner of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (02/06/2005 - 23/05/2008),Additional Chief Secretary of Revenue and Forest Department from February 01, 2020, Additional Chief Secretary (revenue) (01/05/2018 - 24/02/2020), and the District Collector of Nagpur (22/06/1998 - 07/10/2002) and Kolhapur districts (01/12/1995 - 20/06/1998).^[1]^[2]

References

^ "Executive Record Sheet".
^ "Posts Held".

He was selected by one government (Maha Vikas Aghadi) coalition government headed by Mr Uddhav Thackeray and subsequently was made to continue by incoming new government of NDA headed by Mr. Eknath Shinde which itself gives notability. --Honorablehither (talk) 08:36, 1 November 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. Consensus is that the subject appears notable. The subject's (lack of) compliance with our COI policies is not a consideration for deletion, as long as the text is neutral, etc., which can be fixed through the editing process. Legoktm (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Baldoni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am puzzled by the outcome of the previous AFD as the notability of the subject doesn't seem to have been investigated properly. The main basis for keeping was that WP:AUTHOR was met due to his books being in many libraries, but that is not a valid criterion for passing. The only review of his work mentioned there was a 2009 review in Harvard Business Review. I have managed to track a copy down but it is a very brief review (around 200 words). Then there is this review in the pretty obscure but presumably reliable Graziadio Business Review. I have looked for more sources but have been unable to find anything that is inpedendent of the subject. If those are the only sources that exist, it does not appear to me as if either WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR are satisfied. SmartSE (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In searching my university libary there appears to be enough critical reviews of his books to pass WP:NAUTHOR. I added some reviews from peer reviewed journal articles and magazines to the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your careful consideration of my article. I respect Wikipedia and it is my go-to source for information which I often cite in my articles. I agree this forum should NOT be used for promotion.

My career as an author is well documented. I have published 15 books and another coming in April 2023

Additionally I have contributed over 900 articles to journals, including 200 to Harvard Business Review, the remainder to SmartBrief, FastCompany, Inc and most especially Forbes.com where I have been a contributor since 2013.

This is NOT self-promotion. A quick search on these platforms will reveal my library of contributions... Some 350 of I have gathered for students to use free at library.johnbaldoniblog.com as a resource for their studies and self-development. [Note: each of the articles/videos contain link to original publication.]

Again I appreciate the rigor Wikipedia exerts and hope that you will not delete my short bio.

Thank you. Jbaldoni1952 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your careful consideration of my article. I respect Wikipedia and it is my go-to source for information which I often cite in my articles. I agree this forum should NOT be used for promotion.

My career as an author is well documented. I have published 15 books and another coming in April 2023

Additionally I have contributed over 900 articles to journals, including 200 to Harvard Business Review, the remainder to SmartBrief, FastCompany, Inc and most especially Forbes.com where I have been a contributor since 2013.

This is NOT self-promotion. A quick search on these platforms will reveal my library of contributions... Some 350 of I have gathered for students to use free at library.johnbaldoniblog.com as a resource for their studies and self-development. [Note: each of the articles/videos contain link to original publication.]

Again I appreciate the rigor Wikipedia exerts and hope that you will not delete my short bio.

Jbaldoni1952 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep reviews in journals are ok for AUTHOR. Article really needs more details, but should pass GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - Keep. despite the participation by the subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I have some serious issues with the subjects "participation" and the fact that there has been no COI notification. A "Jbaldoni1952" has made at least 13 edits, not all minor, and of 41 editors since the article was created it seems to have been deemed unimportant or missed. In this AFD, Jbaldoni52 has self-identified as the subject. As a note: the 1st nomination, likely a bad faith nomination, did mention possibly half the article was "purely self promotional and unsourced self-description". COI was mentioned "...the article does appear to have some COI issues (due to the edits from Jbaldoni52v) and needs some serious editing..." but no indication the subject was aware of this. That would be crying over spilled milk but a clear COI warning is surely needed.

Another concern is the statement by the subject "This is NOT self-promotion". Of course it is! Not wanting to impugn your integrity (Jbaldoni1952), but there is possibly a small amount of not being entirely honest as your participation, comments from other editors, and the SPA editing seems to show. At any rate, there is also several instances of clear single purpose account editing. The user name "Theprfreelancer" could be a big hint. User:Homermcness took some time of from that editors SPA with Marshall Goldsmith to create this article and make one other edit. These things are indicative of Self-promotion and possible marketing so please refrain from directly editing the article in the future. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC) ‎[reply]
Thank you for pointing out my participation. My intention was mere correction or minor addition. If I crossed the line, then the error is mine. I apologize. I know you and the team will make the right decision for Wikipedia. Jbaldoni1952 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: You missed Yuyui220 who was almost certainly employed to update the article this month, adding a photo and removing the maintenance tags. @DGG and 4meter4: I really don't understand why you have applied WP:NOTPROMO as a rationale for deletion in the (ongoing) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Barry Rosenberg (scientist) and yet do not feel it applies here. Would we have this article if it were not for the subject repeatedly paying to promote themselves here over an eleven year period? The answer is almost certainly no. SmartSE (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse The text in this article is encyclopedic in tone and verifiable to the cited independent secondary references. There is no use of hyperbole here, and it just states the facts unless quoting a published independent review that gives an assessment. Promotion is not an issue in this article, and frankly the COI concerns here are minor as the text is non-problematic in relation to the sources which I have examined. The text in the Louis Barry Rosenberg article however, inflates the importance of the subject beyond what is in the sources and uses a non-encyclopedic tone to promote the subject. It needs a complete re-write to align with our policies.4meter4 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I must be missing something so I suppose I will just bow out as hypocrisy is a step down from hyperbole. To attempt to minimize paid editing that has not been disclosed, is against more than one policy and guideline, to include the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) policy. The behavioral guideline on Conflict of interest was actually as far as I got, having only glanced at the SPA contributions, but it did not require an extended investigation or even concerns of outing when a name such as Theprfreelancer is found. In my opinion, shared by not a few, paid and COI editing should in no way ever be considered "minor". I have concerns with the non-cholent attitude concerning something the community does not deem "minor".

@ Jbaldoni52, +223, +619, +111, and +706 edits would likely be considered more than a "mere correction or minor addition".

With all these participants, SPA's, PR freelance editors, and the subject, I have yet (maybe I missed it) to see any disclosures and it is not a stretch for someone to at least consider the possibility of "deceptive activities". See: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editors. I am in the camp with "Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. At some point I wonder why there has not been any warnings or reporting?

If I have missed an RFC (required by the WMF) to "revoke the disclosure provision" or a new RFC on COI editing please point this out. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 28 October 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!} 21:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soteli Maamta[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG per my sources assessment table below. My WP:BEFORE search only found trivial mentions, 1, 2, 3, 4. VickKiang (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://ww.web.pk/2020/hum-tv-drama-serial-soteli-maamta-cast-story-ost/		~ Has an about us page but no editorial policies.	Except for the last two paragraphs, this is a routine overview on the plot and cast, IMHO this falls under "announcements columns, and minor news stories" per GNG	✘ No
https://www.trendinginsocial.com/soteli-maamta-a-heart-wrenching-drama-serial/	Probably independent	Per about us at https://www.trendinginsocial.com/about-us/, the site is a blog	Decently long review	✘ No
https://www.phupo.com/2019/11/25/new-drama-soteli-mamta-featuring-hammad-shoaib-amna-malik-fawad-jalal-uroosa-qureshi-hasan-ahmed-going-to-hit-tv-screens-soon/	Probably independent, though the format is press-release like	Is a blog powered by Wordpress	Routine one-paragraph announcement and image gallery	✘ No
https://www.lahoreinternational.com/about-us/		~ Has an about us page at https://www.lahoreinternational.com/about-us/ though I couldn't find any staff listings or editorial policies	Probably WP:SIGCOV	~ Partial
https://www.urdupoint.com/daily/livenews/2019-11-26/news-2154722.html		Probably RS, also has a WP page at UrduPoint	Short one paragraph routine announcement	✘ 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}}.

Comment. Pinging WaddlesJP13, who previously PRODed it, and Lillyput4455. VickKiang (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found nothing useful in a search. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've not been able to find any good sources since I first looked for some. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on the face, looks notable, but digging into the sourcing and a BEFORE search, did not show enough to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wrongly sorted this into the deletion sorting for films, fixed now, now is included in the TV deletion sorting list. VickKiang (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I'm still looking out for reliable sources related to the subject. Also few of the included sources are adequate enough for the article existence. The show is notable soap in "Pakistan" and has received criticism for its complexed plot. Lillyput4455 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because article does have independent sources solely covering the subject. It was a popular show during its broadcast and have gain recognition too in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.46.151 (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because article does have independent sources solely covering the subject- what about the requirements for reliable sources that constitute of significant coverage? Also, popularity isn't synonymous with notability. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:34, 29 October 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!} 21:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Bakhtiyarov[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. The article was also deleted from the Russian Wikipedia in 2011: ru:Википедия:К удалению/10 мая 2011#Бахтияров, Олег Георгиевич. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Russia. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotion created by a single-purpose account. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:10, 4 November 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!} 21:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deconcentration of attention[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable term. The article is almost entirely based on self-published sources. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable topic based on self-published sources. Appears to be attempt to promote someone's concept. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:07, 4 November 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!} 21:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Brog[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not that many sources, most are small websites focused on the Jewish-American/Israel sphere. One is literally a YouTube video. Not really any national in-depth coverage. Brog doesn't seem to have done anything or gotten the necessary coverage to determine notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brog has been notable for a long time, primarily through his leadership of CUFI, and to a lesser extent on account of his recent congressional race. These have been covered in state-level publications including Nevada Independent, national publications including The Forward and Fox, and international publications like Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Haaretz and the AP. Several of these are Jewish publications, but that has no bearing on RS. Freelance-frank (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Buzzfeed News, Vox, and other RS covered Brog's participation in organizing the National Conservatism Conference. Freelance-frank (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are examples of the longest RS coverage most specifically centered on Brog at different times and contexts:

Role in CUFI and general profile, The Nation, 2006, note that there are 3 additional pages listed at the bottom: [26]

Role in Maccabee Task Force, The Forward, 2015: [27]

Role in national conservatism, Buzzfeed News 2019-present: [28]

2022 Congressional campaign, article also gives significant general background The Forward: [29]

Freelance-frank (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. There is not enough significant coverage outside of Brog's unsuccessful primary campaign to merit a WP:GNG pass. GPL93 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Israel, and Palestine. Freelance-frank (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Brog had been just a failed candidate for elected office, the article would be deleted, but he's more important in his other roles. See, for example, this article in Tablet (magazine), not yet mentioned[30] or this[31] in Methods of Studies in Religion. He's also the author of a number of books that, while to me not very interesting, have collected some reviews or articles about them[32][33][34].--Jahaza (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The sourcing presented by Freelance-frank and Jahaza is easily enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Sal2100 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage about Brog is in-depth and in reliable and verifiable sources. The significant coverage is about him and his various roles, not merely about a political race. The notability standard is met. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable with valid sources, significant coverage. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:12, 4 November 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. and SALTed given general disruption around this web series Star Mississippi 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character from a web series that does not have an article on Wikipedia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Entertainment, and Internet. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. The series it's from had its article name WP:SALTED upheld. See Deletion review discussion and AN discussion. Skynxnex (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skynxnex: I was considering speedy deleting it but didn't know what criteria this would fall under. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WaddlesJP13: Yeah me, neither. I believe I have seen admins close AFDs early, without something technically meeting a CSD criteria if it's clear it will be deleted. And thought it'd worth voicing support of that. Skynxnex (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability in a spectacular manner -- Whpq (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Argento Surfer (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatantly non-notable and appears to be part of a long-term attempt by a specific user to create articles on this series. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a complete lack of appropriate sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Devoke water 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not a notable character who has not received the coverage necessary to clearly and firmly establish WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 3 November 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!} 21:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Lima[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence she passes N:AUTHOR. Reviews appear limited to blogs and other non RS sites Star Mississippi 19:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Women. Star Mississippi 19:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No critical reviews of her first book found, I really haven't dived in to find any for the other 5 she has listed. Nothing comes up in Gsearch about her as an author, can barely find anything. The award nomination might help notability, but I'm unsure how "important" the award is. Leaning delete for lack of sources or reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I couldn't find any reviews either. The book covers all have a quotation from Charlaine Harris (who doesn't appear to be with the same publisher) but they don't state where it came from. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:39, 28 October 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. Legoktm (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Dolittle characters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, list of characters written about from an WP:INUNIVERSE point of view. Two its four references listed are WP:PRIMARY. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) Lists of individually NN things associated with N franchises, such as character lists are described in WP:CSC and hence routinely kept, in large part because of my other justifications, 2) These characters span multiple film, television, and book depictions, so there is nowhere else to reasonably merge this content, and 3) the characters are themselves covered in a non-trivial way in multiple academic sources, such as A Dr. Dolittle Circus, Anxieties of an Animal Rights Activist:The Pressures of Modernity in Hugh Lofting's Doctor Dolittle Series, Children’s Literature of 1922: Historicity and Modernism in Margery Williams’ Velveteen Rabbit and Hugh Lofting’s The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle... which represent about 5 minutes' of work with Google Scholar. No objection to improving the article, but there's no policy-based reason to delete it instead of cleaning it up. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is with these results. They're academic sources, not about the characters in the Doctor Dolittle series, but about the series itself. The list fails WP:NLIST, these characters haven't been discussed or analysed in RS'es.

Furthermore, doesn't WP:V matter at all? Notability is not WP:INHERITED, just because WP:ITEXISTS. I'm not going to be a WP:POINTy dick and blank nearly the entire article since it is for the most part completely WP:UNSOURCED. And if delete isn't the result, what's there to merge? There's nothing actually worth keeping here. Nothing I'd consider encyclopedia: creation, development, reception, legacy. It just retells the stories from the characters. Like Great Glass Sea Snail:

This enormous undersea mollusk with a transparent airtight shell is injured when the mysterious floating Spider Monkey Island finally comes to rest in The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle. The animals arrange for him to ferry Dr. Dolittle and his party back through the ocean to Puddleby. In the 1967 film, Dolittle resigns himself to living abroad for the rest of his life due to the price on his head issued by General Bellowes. The [renamed] Great Pink Sea Snail takes Matthew, Tommy, Emma and a host of small animals from the [renamed] Sea Star Island back to England."

Not enough relevant coverage in third-party sources to meet the WP:GNG, not enough out-of-universe to meet WP:NOT#PLOT and unsourced. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you know more and better than this about our policy. WP:NEXIST, WP:SAL, WP:DINC... Plot summaries that describe characters are independent RS for those characters; we don't need a "list of X characters" source to have a list on the X franchise's characters. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More sources include an on-point RS just about the voice cast of the latest movie: Meet the Voice Cast of Dolittle

Other Google News items I ran across while googling “Dolittle polynesia” include Dolittle Is Different From The Books — & It’d Be A Huge Problem If It Didn’t, Robert Downey Jr. chats with animals, sets sail in first trailer for 'Dolittle', Catch a Glimpse of Selena Gomez-Voiced Giraffe in New ‘Dolittle’ Trailer, Ginny Tyler, Mouseketeer, Dies at 86 (NYT), Balancing Photorealism and Animal Personality in DOLITTLE. Scholar search with the same string finds Doctor Dolittle for Real? Raising Questions About Interspecies Communications, The Craft of the Cobbler's Son: Tommy Stubbins and the Narrative Form of the Doctor Dolittle Series. The fact is that individual characters and the characters as a whole have received multiple, independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Doctor Dolittle, which needs to be rewritten from fictional character fancrufty bio with trivia into a proper article about the notable book series in question. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If there were a series or franchise article, that would indeed be a plausible merge. However, the proposed target article is the fictional depiction of the central character in the books and other media adaptations. Merging a list of characters article into another character article is problematic. Creating a central article on the franchise and rewriting the rest into summary style would be ideal... who has time to do that? Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite/clean-up. A lot of WP:PLOT info that makes this poorly constructed. But it's probably notable, and better as an aggregate than several articles. I agree with Jclemens that it's hard to find an appropriate merge target between several related articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Jclemens: and @Shooterwalker:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am in agreement with Jclemens on this one. I believe this list needs a lot of work, but I do think this is notable enough to warrant this list. Aoba47 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens and others above. Removing the list would unnecessarily weaken our coverage of a significant series of novels and related media. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. Although the list needs some work, it is still notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:18, 5 November 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!} 21:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faris Shafi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient significat coverage indicates lack of notability, fails WP:GNG. Lack of multiple significant roles in notable films, fails WP:NACTOR. AmirŞah 19:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. AmirŞah 19:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I have added refereces from The Express Tribune, Dawn, Geo, Jang, GulfNews, BOL News,The News and Daily Times. These all sources are considered as reliable for Pakistani related topics. There is much more coverage on Urdu Languages news portals. Subject is mentioned here in more than 3 dozans pages of Wikipedia, which shows his significant coverage only on WP. Yes he acted in one film but this page in not only based on that film. He Has had significant roles in multiple notable television dramas, so WP:NACTOR is not issue.Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it clearly has WP:GN. I really can't see why it has been nominated for deletion in the first place.142.181.162.174 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject has some significant press coverage both in English and Urdu. Also appeared in the recently released block buster film The Legend of Maula Jatt and in some notable dramas. Therefore, overall passes WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG criteria 1, 2, 3. He is not just an Actor. Fifthapril (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All links ypu mentioned are not considered as WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS. AmirŞah 09:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the first two, but the third and last reference provided here is significant independent RS.4meter4 (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Could you kindly let us know your idea about this article? I think sources are not significant, independent and reliable simultaneously. AmirŞah 09:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BASIC. One of the quality independent sources says he is Pakistan’s most popular rapper, and overall the sources are focused on his work in music and not film. In particular the Times of India piece provided by Fifthapril, and the “Soundcheck: Injecting Immunity” piece in Dawn cited in the article are examples of independent significant RS. Many of the other sources are press releases and interviews and passing mentions, but I think overall there is enough here to demonstrate GNG has been met.4meter4 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. AmirŞah 14:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in many newspapers. Partofthemachine (talk) 18:10, 29 October 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!} 21:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentsquare[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 19:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and France. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NCORP. Multi-billion dollar international company. Three best sources: Wall Street Journal 1, TechCrunch, and Wall Street Journal 2. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are funding announcements, nothing at length about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significant funding announcements - not routine. So they technically don't fall afoul of WP:NCORP. And for the people who can't read the sources, just using the first one as an example: Wall Street Journal 1 - after the first two paragraphs, which I agree are about funding, we get this: Contentsquare’s artificial intelligence-powered technology helps clients across sectors, from Japanese e-commerce giant Rakuten Group Inc. to German automaker Bayerische Motoren Werke AG , or BMW, analyze and respond to the behavior of customers on websites and mobile apps. The company analyzes some 3.2 trillion customer interactions a month to create what it calls “more human” digital experiences. “Today, the digitalization of the world is touching every industry,” Contentsquare founder and Chief Executive Jonathan Cherki said. The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated consumer use of technology to interact with companies, he added. “The digital experience market’s potential is expansive and still in the early innings of adoption,” said Bo Stanley, a Sixth Street partner who is co-head of Sixth Street Growth. “We believe the best companies use times of uncertainty to build value by investing in their products and markets, and that’s what Contentsquare is doing and why we are investing.” Contentsquare’s technology focuses on customer intent rather than identity or other personal information, Mr. Cherki said. For example, the company offers clients “cookieless analytics” that zero in on the experience of their customers without attaching digital tags that let internet and advertising companies follow users. “You do not need to choose between privacy and personalization,” Mr. Cherki said. Mr. Cherki started to work on what would become Contentsquare while studying at ESSEC Business School near Paris. Founded in 2012, the company has since grown to employ around 1,500 people, including more than 400 in research and development roles, working from 17 locations worldwide. Contentsquare will use the latest cash infusion to expand both product offerings and the company’s geographic reach as well as for investments in accessibility, privacy and sustainability. Mr. Cherki sees growth opportunities through acquisitions as well. Contentsquare acquired six operations in the past three years, including last September’s purchase of Hotjar Ltd.—a provider of analytics and customer-feedback tools—to broaden its offerings for small and midsize businesses.

That's certainly not just a "routine funding announcement". And certainly not a rehashed press release. Is it possible you just read the title and jumped to conclusions? Just pointing this out since the closer may read your comments and not actually see that the source is different than how you described it. And nobody will admit they are wrong. I'm not going to respond to each comment below, but when I see someone parrot "routine funding announcement" it's clear the person didn't do WP:BEFORE and actually read the source. There's an unfortunate amount of hostility here due to the bad faith nom who I have a history with, but if any experienced business editors want to read the full text of any of the paywalled articles, email me and I'll send it to you. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you remove the content regurgitated from Cherki and the generic descriptions of their "artificial intelligence-powered technology" analysing "3.2 trillion" customer interactions a month, there's nothing left. There's no "Independent Content" as required by ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing has changed in the 3 months since this was last deleted at AfD. The sources in this version of the article are different but problematic for other reasons, as 8 of the 9 references are routine funding announcements, and the 9th is churnalism based off a press release. When a company's only claim to notability is that investors have given them money, that's a dead giveaway that notability isn't there. The company claiming that they are a "multi-billion dollar international company" is not a criteria of WP:NCORP, which specifically points out that big numbers like that don't mean anything. - Aoidh (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are funding announcements and each appears to basically be a rehash of the other. Many, many PR sources, few if any about the company. Directory listings in Gbooks, it peters off from there. Nothing for GNG we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not much in French-language sources [35] five things you need to know about the company, [36] This in Forbes France talks briefly about the unicorn funding, rest are funding announcements and PR type stuff. Blogs and the like. So, one ok-ish source, one brief mention and tons of fluff, I don't think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an article on Fr wiki about the company, but it wasn't linked to this one. The sources there seem to be about the same quality, perhaps a bit more flowery as they're talking about a French company. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This in Le Monde is a brief piece about the funding [37], nothing substantial. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP and insufficient sources per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, e.g. searching the titles of sources reporting funding announcements lead to press releases, e.g. ContentSquare Raises $20 Million in Funding for Global Expansion (BusinessWire), Contentsquare Raised $60 Million Series C Round Led by Eurazeo, Bringing Total Venture Capital Funding to $120 Million Since 2016 (PRNewswire), Contentsquare Completes $190 Million in a Series D Round, Accelerating Innovation in Digital Experience Analytics (BusinessWire), Contentsquare Lands $500M Series E Investment Led by SoftBank Vision Fund 2 To Fuel Rapid Global Expansion and AI-Driven Digital Experience Innovation (BusinessWire), Contentsquare Closes $600M Growth Investment Round Led by Sixth Street; Doubles Valuation to $5.6B and Brings Total Funding to $1.4 Billion (BusinessWire). Beccaynr (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Comment - Posting links to press releases that aren't even in the article and then using that to attack the sourcing is classic WP:STRAWMAN. Instead, please review the best sources I pointed out above. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you did more than just cursory skimming of the titles, you would see that there’s a lot of in-depth coverage beyond funding. And don’t kid yourself. Billion dollar companies are not ”routine”. Don’t do the encyclopedia a disservice. The nom has stated in the past that he doesn’t have access to the WSJ, so we know he’s not reading the sources. The rest of you can do better. Otherwise, what’s the point? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ORGSIG, No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it. I regret not referencing the previous AfD in my previous comment, because NCORP and the issue of dependence on press releases was discussed. Also, via ProQuest, I can access the WSJ.
- "Sixth Street Leads $600 Million Investment in Contentsquare; The transaction values the Paris-based customer experience analytics firm at $5.6 billion" Armental, Maria. Wall Street Journal 20 July 2022, ProQuest 2692226382. This is a 493-word article.
  - The WSJ begins: "Investment firm Sixth Street Partners led a $600 million growth investment in digital analytics company Contentsquare, which included $200 million in debt." The press release noted above begins: "Contentsquare, the global leader in digital experience analytics, announced today that it has closed a $600 million growth investment round, including $400 million in Series F equity and $200 million in debt financing"
  - The WSJ continues: "The transaction values the Paris-based company, whose legal name is Content Square, at $5.6 billion, double the $2.8 billion it reached following an investment round last year led by SoftBank Group Corp.'s Vision Fund 2." The press release states, "Since raising its Series E of $500 million in May 2021, the company’s valuation has doubled to $5.6 billion."
  - The WSJ notes other investors include "SoftBank, French national investment bank Bpifrance, Eurazeo SE, KKR & Co. and BlackRock Inc" and the press release notes Sixth Street "joins new and existing investors Bpifrance, Canaan, Eurazeo, Highland Europe, KKR, LionTree, SoftBank"
  - The WSJ includes quotes from the company's self-description, Contentsquare founder and Chief Executive Jonathan Cherki, and Bo Stanley, a Sixth Street partner who is co-head of Sixth Street Growth. The press release includes different quotes from Jonathan Cherki and Bo Stanley.
This WSJ article is the most-frequently cited source in the article. However, per WP:CORPDEPTH, trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability and examples of trivial coverage include standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as [...] a capital transaction, such as raised capital, so this source does not offer sufficient depth per the guideline to support notability.

In addition, per WP:ORGIND, examples of dependent coverage include any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism) and works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by itself, or re-printed by other people. If the WSJ had more than churnalism from the press release and quotes from the company, a company employee, and investor employee, i.e. greater depth and distinct independence as outlined in the guideline, we might have a discussion about how strictly to interpret the guideline when a source also includes quotes from the subject. However, this brief article lacks the depth and independence needed, per WP:ORGCRIT, to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. Beccaynr (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, thank you for your detailed comments on the WSJ article. It is very helpful. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for trying to recreate this. I added Forrester's and Frost and Sullivan's analyst coverage of the company, which shows independent notability. The description of the funding as "routine" is deceptive. See the Forrester coverage naming the March 2021 funding as the largest ever for a French company. The later round was even larger. Certainly not routine. To say otherwise insults careful readers and business experts. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Forrester blog/advertisement ("Schedule an inquiry with us if you want to know more about the experience analytics space") discusses the "French Tech Ecosystem" and then is largely an announcement of Contentsquare plans, e.g. "Continue international expansion, by focusing on the US (already 50% of its business) and expanding more in Asia", "Accelerate product and AI innovation", "Continue M&A to enter new analytics segments", similar to what the press release dated the day before says, e.g. "Contentsquare will use the capital to further develop its platform and advance AI innovation to accelerate its market vision", "The newly secured funding will also support Contentsquare’s rapid growth and geographic expansion, M&A activities". Also, Frost & Sullivan appears to require payment for its prizes, and the eight-page report consists of:
- a cover page
- a page of introduction about Frost & Sullivan, its award and brief mentions of Contentsquare
- a page about "the business advantages of digital customer journey analytics" without any mention of Contentsquare
- a page that continues on about "the business advantages of digital customer journey analytics", then a large paragraph introducing Contentsquare, and then the beginning of a superficial 3-paragraph analysis
- a page with the continuation of the 3-graf analysis, a brief summary of acquisitions, and the beginning of a superficial overview of key features
- a page with more key features and a conclusion section
- a page about the Company of the Year recognition
- a page about Frost & Sullivan
so the independence and depth of these sources do not appear sufficient for supporting notability. Beccaynr (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The largest funding round is certainly a WP:BIGNUMBER, but since there's 0 coverage that isn't churnalism parroting a press release or in some way non-independent, it is indeed the very definition of routine, and non-independent to boot. Throwing around claims of large funding doesn't escape the fact that this article is lacking significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, which per WP:GNG is the bare minimum required. - Aoidh (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of words to basically say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I suppose I was naïve to think that the folks who voted delete earlier would change their minds after seeing the new coverage. Let’s see what new editors think. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this conversation is full of in-depth analysis that editors have clearly put effort into writing. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that WP:NCORP or WP:GNG are met. Coverage is routine, run of the mill corporate annoucements and lack anything resembling in-depth coverage of the subject.Slywriter (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gaslighting. All the coverage is in reliable third party sources. Lots of in-depth coverage. Largest TWO funding rounds in French tech history. Hopefully the closer will be more discriminating. I’m disappointed at the lack of business savvy editors coming to this article’s defense. This is a glaring problem with Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other sources in the article can be compared to the press releases listed in my first comment above:
- ContentSquare raises $20 million to boost its global expansion plans (Tech.eu 18 Oct 2016) begins: "Paris-based ContentSquare, a web and mobile optimisation platform, has raised $20 million in a Series B round from Highland Europe." The press release dated 18 Oct 2016 begins: "ContentSquare, an experience optimization platform for online and mobile businesses, announces today the completion of $20 million in Series B funding. The capital investment by Highland Europe will support ContentSquare’s global expansion and attract new talent to advance the company’s vision." Tech.eu continues: "The fresh round of funding will be used for ContentSquare’s global expansion as well as hiring new talent" and quotes founder and CEO Jonathan Cherki as well as Tony Zappala, Highland Europe, for exact quotes from the press release.
- Contentsquare, the digital experience insights platform, raises $60M Series C (Techcrunch, Jan. 28, 2019) begins: "Contentsquare, the cloud-based software that helps businesses understand how and why users are interacting with their app, mobile and web sites, has raised $60 million in further funding."
  - The press release dated Jan 28, 2019 begins: "Contentsquare, a fully-automated SaaS digital experience insights platform that drives leading global enterprises to improve engagement and revenue, announced today that it has raised a $60 million Series C funding round led by Eurazeo".
  - Techcrunch: "Leading the Series C round is global investment company Eurazeo." [...] "the company has released two new solutions for customers: CS Live and AI Alerts, which deliver customer experience information in real time. CS Live provides Contentsquare’s clients with a way to immediately identify consumer metrics on their websites without the need for a dashboard."
  - Press release: "two new solutions for customers, CS Live and AI Alerts, which deliver customer experience information in real-time. CS Live has provided Contentsquare's clients with a unique way to immediately identify consumer metrics, on their website with no need for any dashboard."
  - Techcrunch: "Its customers include Walmart, Samsung, Sephora, Tiffany, LVMH, AccorHotels, Goldman Sachs, Avis, GoPro, Ikea, Nissan and others."
  - Press release: "Contentsquare works with a roster of top companies in retail, luxury, travel, hospitality, automotive, finance insurance space, including the global major brands like Walmart, Samsung, Sephora, Tiffany, LVMH, Accorhotels, Avis, BNP Paribas, GoPro, Ikea, Nissan, and more."
  - Techcrunch also appears to be quoting from Contentsquare's self-description in its report.
- Contentsquare puts the four corners around $600 million at $5.6 billion valuation (Tech.eu, 21 July 2022) begins: "Parisian customer experience platform Contentsquare has raised $400 million in a Series F financing round that is complemented by $200 million in debt financing. With the company now valued at $5.6 billion, this brings the firm's total funding raised to $1.4 billion." The press release dated 21 July 2022 begins: "Contentsquare, the global leader in digital experience analytics, announced today that it has closed a $600 million growth investment round, including $400 million in Series F equity and $200 million in debt financing, bringing total funding to $1.4 billion" and states "Since raising its Series E of $500 million in May 2021, the company’s valuation has doubled to $5.6 billion." This Tech.eu post includes a direct quote from Bo Stanley that appears in the press release, a link to ContentSquare's blog, "According to the firm", "The startup reports", and "The company reports" information, as well as other churnalism from the press release.
Also, this: Contentsquare closes a mammoth $600M round as customers clamor for digital analytics (Techcrunch, July 20, 2022) contains substantial quotes from CEO Cherki from an email interview and "the company today announced", "according to Cherki", "He says", "Cherki says" forming most of the article.
And this: Over half of Aussie customers leave a website after page one (IT Brief Australia, 30 Mar 2022) has quotes from Cherki about a ContentSquare report, some information from the report, and a quote from Albert Nel, senior VP at ContentSquare, without analysis or commentary from the writer of the post.

These sources are also not sufficiently in-depth nor independent to support this article, which should be excluded as WP:PROMO based on the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have emailed functionaries about concerns regarding undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry in this AFD. It would be helpful if it could be kept open until they have been able to investigate. SmartSE (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note As I suspected, TechnoTalk has been confirmed as a sock of Timtempleton and they have both been indeffed: [38] [39]. It is reasonable to assume that they are also undisclosed paid editors, although we cannot be sure. SmartSE (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added additional sources to expand the article some more. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- The Luxury Daily source you have added [40] was discussed in the previous AfD as sponsored content [41], and the local.fr source added was also discussed in the previous AfD [42] as trivial per WP:ORGDEPTH.
- The Venturebeat source is based on a press release dated the same day and extensive quotes from CEO Cherki.
- The ESSEC website is not independent - CEO Cherki is an ESSEC alum and appears to be promoting ESSEC.
Beccaynr (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beccaynr has done an excellent job of analysing sources and I agree that there is nothing in terms of new sources that pushes this subject past NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 07:35, 3 November 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Mer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yes, it's a copyvio going as far back as 2007, but the broader issue is that I cannot identify any sourcing with which to write an article. She was a child actor who now works in costume design, but coverage is limited to credits, nothing approaching N:BIO. Star Mississippi 19:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Texas. Star Mississippi 19:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scattered mentions of her costuming for various film and tv works, nothing substantial. Not GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most in-depth articles about her are "conversations" she has had with local blogs, like this 2021 Q&A interview in ShoutOut SoCal and this 2019 Q&A interview in VoyageLA – in other words, doesn't meet WP criteria for significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:46, 3 November 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 nomination withdrawn in light of new sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Wolfe Glick[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article does not pass WP:BASIC. Lots of promotional content and peacocking. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Games, and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Im currently the main contributor if this article and would like to recommend that you reconsider. I have removed as much puffery as I can, apart from the sentence saying that Glick is one of the best players in the world. This is because this is arguably true, and this is the general consensus of the Pokémon VGC community. Also, I created this article due to other pillar figures in the community such as Ray Rizzo and Park Se Jun both have their own articles and Glick is arguably of the same importance. I will continue to refine and improve the article and hope you will reconsider this nomination. User:Schminnte 18:49, 28 October 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. / nomination withdrawn per @Cielquiparle:'s research/edits. Star Mississippi 14:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meteor Studios[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the bankruptcy had a little pickup, nothing lasting. All I can find are credits to their films, but it's unclear that they had a prominent role (so undue) in the creation thereof, and no viable AtD as many are blue links. The award nomination is a deadlink, but it does not appear to be a notable won, nor is there evidence they won. Star Mississippi 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Organizations, Companies, and Canada. Star Mississippi 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The VES Award seems notable. The links to it were removed by @Cielquiparle: as nonfunctional. I found a working site listing the nominees and winners, but neither Meteor Studios nor any of their works are listed in any category. That could be because the page lists the names of individuals and not their employer, but I have no way of knowing which, if any, of these people worked at Meteor Studios. Several new sources added by Cielquiparle appear to be reliable and grant notability, but I can't access them at this time. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see the problem at the time of nomination, but the article has since been improved with the addition of several other acceptable sources. Even more sourcing would obviously be welcome, if possible, but what's in the article now is sufficient for notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, it was essentially a weak sub-stub (two sentences) with a list of works at nomination. Have expanded significantly to tell a coherent and complete story, as this really was the largest visual effects studio in eastern Canada, groundbreaking in its own way in introducing CG to TV and film (even though CG has since fallen out of favour and is now often regarded as "humdrum"). While it started out with a mission to create cost-effective CG on TV budgets, in the end it turned out to be financially unsustainable and went bankrupt, leaving 130 vfx artists unpaid for three months' work. The case of Meteor Studios thus became a symbol for the vulnerability of vfx artists (in contrast to union- and guild-protected Hollywood workers), according to Variety magazine. Anyway, for SIGCOV satisfying WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, I would point to the 2002 feature article in Millimeter (identical to this one on Digital Content Producer); the 2005 feature article "Meteor Streaks Into Effects Orbit" in The Montreal Gazette; the 2008 post-bankruptcy article in The Montreal Gazette; and the 2009 article in Variety magazine. Even though the articles incorporate quotes from interviews, they also incorporate many facts as reported by those respective publications. In addition, the article now includes information on the 2002 Emmy Award (couldn't work out the VES thing mentioned above) and additional coverage about individual film projects that appeared in Playback: Canada's Broadcast and Production Journal. Pinging @Star Mississippi: in case you are available to review the article as it stands now: Meteor Studios. Thank you. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thanks for flagging as somehow Twinkle didn't watch this despite the nomination. I will withdraw. AfD shouldn't be clean up and that's certainly not how I intended it, but glad it crossed your watchlist to find the sourcing. I don't think the interviews are an issue at all as they're complementary. Star Mississippi 14:24, 2 November 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. Consensus is a merger isn't needed. If someone wants to create a redirect, that's an editorial discussion. Star Mississippi 15:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Jeffrey Dahmer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't seem to be necessary. Most of the information is already in the main Jeffrey Dahmer article. Any non-trivial details can be added since the article isn't excessively long and hard to read. As @CJC-DI mentioned on the talk page, John Wayne Gacy (GA) does not have a separate article dedicated to his victims. Neither does Ted Bundy, also a GA. Both of the killers have even more victims. Mooonswimmer 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jeffery Dahmer for reasons said above. No need for multiple articles describing the murders. Main article can always go into more detail. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 18:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to primary article. The individual victims could have their own stand-alone article, if required. Seems to duplicate information. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see keeping this if it was an extensive discussion, this is a brief mention of each murder. It's amply covered in the main article about the fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Dahmer article already covers each victim. CJC-DI (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is incomplete, reads like a eulogy and what pertinent information it does contain is largely already covered within the Jeffrey Dahmer article itself. Delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely unnecessary fork of an existing article. Dahmer is only notable for his murders and nothing else. The title has no value as a redirect; users who know Dahmer's name will find the target, those that don't won't be helped. SpinningSpark 14:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CFORK which is not needed Bruxton (talk) 23:10, 2 November 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 the article for now and consider merging or deletion later. Not a single comment beyond the nominator proposes a compelling argument for immediate deletion of an evolving event that clearly meets general notability—the only question is whether a separate article is merited or not. The encyclopedic material is substantial compared to the current biography of Paul Pelosi, and it's not solely about Nancy Pelosi, so merging is not the clear solution at this time. Draftifying is not appropriate either, given the preponderance of reliable source material obviously proving basic notability. Steven Walling • talk 05:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too soon. Title is problematic. Most sources mention an unclear motive. None mention an assassination attempt. While it's plausible, it's original research at the moment. Mooonswimmer 17:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — It is very, very clear that this is an attempt to kill Nancy Pelosi from a source the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN are citing, because the assailant said "Where is Pelosi?" and attacked Paul Pelosi. An attempted attack on Pelosi is already notable, compounded with the successful attack on her husband. More information will come out before this AfD closes. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you can say that with confidence. Jocelyn doubleday (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems that way. It's difficult to imagine what DePape's goals were here other than harming Nancy Pelosi. It's possible there was some other motive, but it seems very clear there was an intention to attack. Genabab (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate by WP:NOTNEWS until there is more information by reliable sources. I suggest drafting the article and working on it as more information is released. There's no need to rush an article out until there's actual content to write about. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 18:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I draftified the article with the same thoughts, but it was moved back to the mainspace by @ElijahPepe. Mooonswimmer 18:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the motive is "unclear," you're lying. Paul Pelosi was tied up "until Nancy gets back" and the attacker shouted "where is Nancy?" while attacking him with a hammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiahlaitinen99 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a highly notable attack and it is clear that the Speaker of the House was the intended target. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree with the title? Is calling it an assassination attempt appropriate at the moment? Do any reliable sources refer to the attack as such? Mooonswimmer 18:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title can be discussed later, but deleting the article is not the solution. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information may be all very new but that's never been a criteria for deletion. This definitely looks like an assassination attempt. At worst, it may need a title change. 51.37.53.192 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify per WP:RAPID wizzito | say hello! 19:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For all they know, it was a homeless person who recognized them as they entered the house. This can be drafted until we have clearer details on what happened exactly. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, it is clear that you have not read the sources. Nancy Pelosi was in Washington. The assailant broke through the glass doors at the back of the house at about 2:30 a.m. and was shouting "where's Nancy?" Plenty of details are available. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And there has been no examination of the person's state of mind/if they had a mental illness, or if they entered with intent to injure her. That's why it's best to draftify at this point, I think anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources, beyond headlines and bullet points, police haven't even formally responded yet. This is nothing we can build an article upon. You need GNG, not passing mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The San Francisco police chief has given a press conference hours ago. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can update the article with better sources, what we had at the time I commented was, well, not much of anything. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was there intent to harm her or was this another random break-in by someone that knew she lived there is my point. One case is more notable, the other isn't. Until we can establish that, the article should be incubated. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. The New York Times, the Washington Post and many other newspapers are devoting major coverage to this attack, and it is clear that the assailant was an election denier whose target was the Speaker of the House. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although you're probably right, "it is clear that (X)" is always a dangerous thing to say. If X is clear, you should be able to find a source to cite. DS (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is just one of many sources that describe his spreading of conspiracy theories including 2020 election denial, and shouting "Where's Nancy?" while engaging in extreme violence against her husband speaks for itself. Cullen328 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's OR, we have to wait until the authorities say what it is. "Dude says things online" isn't good enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, that is most definitely not original research. The CNN coverage is investigative reporting by a reliable source, and many other reliable sources are also reporting on the spreading of conspiracy theories by the accused. We are under zero obligation to "wait until the authorities say what it is." Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for "the authorities". The coverage of this attack has been massive and it easily meets the GNG. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok, we'll take the !vote and see what happens I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You want to meet GNG, you need sources, just because you say it's important, doesn't make it so. We need newspapers/magazines etc explaining what happened and why it's important, or the wiki gods will likely delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, the quantity of reliable sources now in the article is utterly irrelevant, especially for an article that is less than 24 hours old. What really matters is the reliable source coverage in the real world. A simple Google News search shows that multiple (dozens or hundreds) of reliable independent sources worldwide have devoted significant coverage to this attempted homicide of the husband of the Speaker of the House. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:RS are describing it as an attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi. CJ-Moki (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article but the title should probably be changed until the assailant's motives have been confirmed. – Anne drew 19:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeinto Paul Pelosi. This is new and I think having an article is premature at this point. We have ample coverage at Paul’s page already. If this had involved Nancy I think it would be different perhaps, but that is not the case. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mergeinto Paul Pelosi. The short final paragraph on that page is sufficient to inform knowledgeably. Being a small part of that page means regularly updating minute-by-minute would not be appropriate. Having this page with fuller detail encourages/enables errors with misleading or misrepresented information. Wait for the facts before creating such pages. Wordwood (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An undeniably notable event, and an easy WP:GNG pass. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable event, but should probably be renamed to "Attack on Paul Pelosi" or something similar until we get more details that this was for sure an attempted murder of Nancy Pelosi. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also voting Keep, though maybe the title should be something like "Attack of/on the Pelosi residence"?
DecafPotato (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources are covering it as an assassination attempt. Sure, per WP:NOTNEWS we don't need to rush to get an article up about this, but per WP:RAPID we don't need to rush to delete one either, and it seems highly unlikely to me that an assassination attempt on the the US Speaker of the House isn't notable. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate in draft space Just because this was likely an assassination attempt does not mean that it's going to need its own page and this is just WP:TOOSOON for one. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per others. Plenty of sources. We're a wiki, no need to rush to delete. Feoffer (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can be re-evaluated in a year. But for now, reliable sourcing and definitely within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how notability works. But I think we will have to reevaluate this after the WP:RECENTISM fades. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Muboshgu, that kind of is how notability works. The nutshell at Wikipedia:Notability begins with "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Articles involving recent events sometimes do get merged up or deleted later, even if it seems likely that they will be better off as a separate page at the beginning. We can make our best guess now, but we can also change our minds later, if that whole "over a period of time" thing doesn't seem to have panned out after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Saying "it's notable now but we can reevaluate in a year" is counter to that. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has been moved to Attack on Paul Pelosi. Cullen328 (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Very notable, and well referenced. Juneau Mike (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Boldly moved to Attack on Paul Pelosi, although WP:MURDERS suggests a better title is Assault on Paul Pelosi. However, this is a WP:BLP related article with judicial implications for the perpetrator, so may be WP:TOOSOON to decide a particular title. Leave at its latest title, for the moment, and revisit after the judicial processes take their course. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:SIGCOV--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:40FD:48DD:61E3:7466 (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Strong sources, notable, and timely. Will need some expansion as more information comes in but for now there's no reason to delete at all.--Zehaha (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This is an extremely notable event. 142.161.173.231 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There are other similar persons who attempted an assassination and have their own wikipage, such as Squeaky Fromme of Gerald Ford. This event is very notable, considering in light of the present political environment. Dinkytown talk 03:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies WP:SIGCOV. starship .paint (exalt) 03:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Unspectrogram (talk) 05:37, 29 October 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. Star Mississippi 15:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of bicycle route planning websites[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination)/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of power management software suites/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of DNA melting prediction software. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and Software. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and WP:LISTN WP:NOTLINKFARM. There is nothing of encyclopedic value here. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above plus WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTCATALOG. Essentially it is OR. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:14, 2 November 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. Star Mississippi 15:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of PDF presentation software[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has the same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination)/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of power management software suites/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of DNA melting prediction software/etc. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but one entry appear to have no claimed reason for notability, so there's no way to establish a useful WP:LSC. Lists (and by extension to an extent, comparisons) of mostly non-notable things are generally non-notable unless there's a clear argument that the broader topic is notable, and I can't think of one here. See also my vote at the XMPP comparisons AfD for a general argument against including these styles of comparison at all: WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the very construction of the page constitutes WP:SYNTH, but these articles have enough prevalence on the wiki that I feel like a broader discussion is merited, so I'm voting here on the more stringent criteria of notability that this seems to fail. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and Lists. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:05, 28 October 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. Star Mississippi 15:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Piket[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I took this to AFD as PROD is contested. In my opinion, being an ambassador does not confer notability per WP:NPOL, and outside his work as an ambassador, I don't see any notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Indonesia, and Europe. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I totally agree with @User:SunDawn being an ambassador does not confer notability per WP:NPOL, and outside his work as an ambassador, I don't see any notability . 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consensus is that ambassadors don't qualify under WP:NPOL, and he does not appear to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:As per above. Contributor008 (talk) 05:47, 4 November 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. We do not need to give more air to a sock's nomination. If an editor in good standing feels it merits deletion, a new discussion can happen. Star Mississippi 14:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shujaat Ali Quadri[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Shujaat Ali Quadri not a notable person This page has 19 news references I have reviewed all the news references none of these news references are written for Shujaat Ali but most of the news references are written by Shujaat own write but this proves it not that he is a notable person, Earlier this page had pr The article also does not meet any criteria from WP:GNG

~~PROD Tag which was removed by the creator of this page himself, no discussion was allowed on it.~~

All these are news lins posted on this page whose editor is Shujaat Ali Quadri himself. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [[49] There are two news links of ANI on this page, which have no editor Name, this clearly shows this is promotion news. [50] [51] 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nominator said. Contributor008 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have expanded the article with RS. The person is indeed notable which is established by the sources available and the organisations he heads. The article passes WP:GNG as coverage about him in mainstream Indian media as well as in International news websites is present. Editonlineforpassion (talk) 18:26, 29 October 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 Pittenweem witches. History is under the redirect if anything needs to be added. Star Mississippi 14:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrix Lang[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Good faith creation; however, subject fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Merge relevant info into Pittenweem witches. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 14:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Scotland. Skynxnex (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the witches article, for the whole two sentences of text. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pittenweem witches, and Create redirects (or hatnotes or dab page entries) from the many variations of her name which are listed in the lead (3x3=9, so 8 extra entries needed), and Add bolded names to lead for Janet Cornfoot (merge already proposed) and the other three women if named, who all need the same treatment. Compare Pendle witches, which has many incoming redirects from their names. PamD 07:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At present there isn't even a redirect from the spelling Beatrix Layng which is used in the lead of Pittenweem witches. Please, people, remember to make redirects from names of significant people in articles. PamD 07:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pittenweem witches. There is nothing in the Beatrix Lang article that is not already comprehensively covered in the main article. Perhaps someone should also check the Lang article for plagiarism/copyright problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:1531:28B4:4DD0:83FB:C35D:2BDA (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pittenweem witches which already has more information about Beatrix Layng than the Beatrix Lang article, and implement the fixes to the Pittenweem witches article recommended by PamD (including bolding and other redirects). Cielquiparle (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I would agree that the place for information on the subject is the Pittenweem witches article rather than a separate one and would support the proposal for the other redirects suggested. Dunarc (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into the Pittenweem witches article. Coldupnorth (talk) 22:46, 3 November 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 acknowleding that the nom also withdrew it. Star Mississippi 14:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Touch the Sun (TV series)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A bit ago I came across this page and found the sourcing on it potentially questionable. Between the Sources and External links sections, I see three different databases (MemorableTV, Australian Screen Online, and Oz Movies), an interview with one of the actors, a wikilink to the series' executive producer, and a couple other items, none of which I would considered reliable. There's also a long list of pages from the Australian Children's Television Foundation whose reliability I was unsure about, and since there's over a dozen of those I decided against touching the page due to my unfamiliarity. But just now I come back here and notice that the ACTF produced the series which I think makes all of those annual reports primary sources. If I've understood correctly, that means there's zero reliable sources on this page currently.

Now as I said, I am very unfamiliar with Australian television (let alone Australian anything; I am an American after all) and so I'm not entirely confident in the results of my BEFORE search, so please don't assume I've ruled out additional coverage here. This could easily be a case of "Sources exist but nobody's gathered them yet", and I just can't find them myself for whatever reason. But without that, the only thing I see for notability here is an International Emmy win in 1988. QuietHere (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Australia. QuietHere (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Winning such a major award should be sufficient to demonstrate notability even on its own, but the nominator User:QuietHere seems to have completely missed the Reviews section of the article, which demonstrates notability beyond any reasonable doubt. Modernponderer (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, for how deep into the article it is and with the complete lack of footnotes, it's very missable. But you do make a fair point and I do feel a bit silly. I'm not familiar with any of those publications besides the Daily Telegraph so I'll leave it to other editors to tell just how reliable they are, but this may lead to a withdrawal soon enough. QuietHere (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the article needs considerable improvement, but the reviews section very clearly shows that sufficient sources exist. Whether or not they are yet incorporated into the article properly is irrelevant per NEXIST. matt91486 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources referenced in the reviews section that include a number of Australian newspapers, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, with this many keep votes I feel silly leaving this about. Officially withdrawn. Thanks all. QuietHere (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though I will leave off by requesting that some proper citations get added to that review section and/or it gets moved up in the page so it's not lost all the way at the bottom where anyone could miss it like I did. QuietHere (talk) 20:06, 2 November 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. Star Mississippi 14:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Silesian-language books in standard orthography[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear why we need two lists of books in a minor language written with one or the other system of orthography. We wouldn't allow lists of all books written in other languages, even though individual books are easily referenced of course: but the group is not a notable subject.

Also nominated: List of Silesian-language books in Steuer's orthography Fram (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Literature, Europe, and Poland. Fram (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:CSC. All the links I followed were to, notable books that had been translated, to their authors, or to external links. Not a single article of the ones I looked at bothered to note a Silesian edition. This article may have been inspired by Tomasz Kamusella's list of the same name [52]. Kamusella's list and his other works on the Silesian language may be notable, but I don't think this article is that. SpinningSpark 13:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leave both. Silesian language is on the process of codification and emancipation. This list is important for people who learn the language, try to decribe it or want to write about standarization processes. Ozi (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wp:IMPORTANT and wp:USEFUL are not legitimate arguments. Dronebogus (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as hyper-specialized listcruft that is not useful or interesting to general readers of a given topic area, which is the target audience of Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 23:30, 29 October 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. Because of confusion surrounding the nomination rational, there does not appear to be any policy-based consensus one way or the other. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of open-source wireless drivers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally proposed this article for deletion Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination)/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of power management software suites/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of DNA melting prediction software. The creator has requested that a proper discussion take place on my talk page, so here we go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what are the reasons for deletion? The article pointed to have several reasons, and I assume that not all of them apply. For instance:

Does the notability apply?
I assume that Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE doesn't apply here.
If Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE applies, which part? Does the "Simple listings" part applies? Does other part apply?

Once we start having the reasons that applies to this article specifically, we could start discussing it and see if something can be fixed, or if the article needs to be moved somewhere else (like in another wiki or project), and why it makes sense to have it (re)moved. Here I assume that the information in it is useful for people but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's in the right form or in the right place for that information.

GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 11:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for deletion are those presented in the linked other AfDs, almost all of which apply here. Those don't involve notability, but involve WP:NOTDIR (specifically "A resource for conducting business"), WP:NOTGUIDE (although the person who presented that reason for deletion did not elaborate on which part of NOTGUIDE they meant), the selection of what to compare on is WP:SYNTH (and selecting things to make a specific product look good is easy, companies do it all the time in marketing material; neutral subject matter experts would be needed to ensure things don't fall into WP:PROMO), and above all else a lack of good sourcing (most of these things don't have good sources besides marketing material from the developers (and company claims about a product are not a good source for something like this).. (These quotes come from Dylnuge 's delete !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of XMPP server software).

More fundamentally than any above, the reason for deletion is that the community has made clear in various past discussions that it doesn't want this type of article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is good information here and quite a lot of sourcing. There are no obvious reasons why this article should not exist. The nom says above More fundamentally than any above, the reason for deletion is that the community has made clear in various past discussions that it doesn't want this type of article. but actually there are many articles of this type, some of which have been deleted and many more thus far retained. What is needed is a reason this does not meet WP:N. Looking at other AfDs may be instructive, but arguments from those do not necessarily apply here. It is not just a directory, so WP:NOTDIR doesn't seem to apply. Neither is it a guide, and the arguments are vague as to why WP:NOTGUIDE might apply. I don't see WP:SYNTH here. What to compare on, like list inclusion ciriteria, are not examples of Synthesis in and of themselves. There may well be arguments for not having articles like this, full of technical information, but at this point no policy argument is given. Considering the amount of effort that went into this page, and the existence of information that some readers would find useful, my default position is keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OP has not provided a valid reason for deletion. I also think that this is a fine article for an online encyclopedia. Does it need cleanup and attention? Yes, but not to the point where it needs deletion. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I certainly don't like the current state of the article, but I don't see a need for deletion, and this article does not have the same issue as something like this AfD. If the issue is that "Comparison of..." articles themselves should not exist, that's something I think a wider consensus should determine, but here and now for this article in particular, I can't agree with the nom's rationale of "Per (those other AfDs)" because of those AfDs that closed delete, they closed for issues that this article does not appear to have. - Aoidh (talk) 04:11, 5 November 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 source analysis is convincing that the article subject is currently non-notable. Legoktm (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Maloo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite appearances, there is nothing to show notability here. All the references bar one [53] are either passing mentions, or don't mention the subject, or are not independent. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can find no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as required by WP:BIO or WP:N. It's a mix of obvious paid puff pieces, press releases, churnalism, passing mentions, and doesn't-even-mention-hims. Enso Group and HFCL might be notable, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED on Wikipedia. Conflict of interest is evident by the promotional tone and heavy use of press releases and paid content. It's basically a WP:CFORK of Enso Group, and there's very little useful, verifiable information here for a merge to that article.

See also WP:Articles for deletion/Vaibhav Vinay Maloo, which was deleted on the same grounds, even after an almighty refbombing by a strike team of sockpuppets. Storchy (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Storchy (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sock puppetry and refbombs are bad signs. They only tend to happen when something isn't notable, otherwise the wiki article would have sources that are acceptable. I agree with the one source as above, but we don't have anything else that can be used for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, agree there's a lack of notability here. Sources in article seem to be puff pieces.Moresdi (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Keep’’’ You guys don’t have anything else to do but delete pages on Wikipedia. I wish I could explain the irony of the moment. Do whatever you want. I find this a bit intriguing so feel like reporting your handles but can’t be bothered to learn Wikipedia so in depth. Moderators note, there are rivalries and pages under attack should make this page protected from now onwards. I don;t agree with edits and I am a part time editor, not someone who sits on this site and makes it his job. Is this to do with Russia? (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admins, please note that Nuttyprofessor2016's edits to date have been almost exclusively on Draft:Vaibhav Maloo, requests for unprotection of salted Vaibhav Maloo, Vaibhav Vinay Maloo, WP:Articles for deletion/Vaibhav Vinay Maloo Vinay Maloo, Enso Group, and other directly connected articles. Storchy (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This wikipedia article seems live before 2014 and for over 8 years no one seems having issue with this article. Vinay Maloo, out of my research is a notable Indian Billionare. He was ranked 32nd in the Innovators top India's billionaire chart by Business Standard in 1991. He was instrumental for Amitabh Bachchan's business recovery by being his business partner in AB Corp - which was widely covered by various medias ^[1] . I have found couple of featured and secondary news references which are independent and it definetly seems pass notability. Article 1 - from The Economic Times - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/maloos-back-with-oil-core-focus/articleshow/3805672.cms, Article 2 - from Times of India - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/hfcls-maloo-may-invest-in-zicom/articleshow/1986419.cms, Article 3 - from Russian Newspaper Russia Beyond launched by Rossiyskaya Gazeta - https://www.rbth.com/economics/2015/06/08/indias_enso_group_to_take_up_projects_in_russias_far_east_43561 (This article clearly states the importance of the Indian Billionare Vinay Maloo as it says "Alexander Galushka, Minister for Russian Far East Development and Alexey Chekunkov, CEO of the Far East Development Fund, met with Vinay Maloo, Chairman of the Enso Group, one of India's largest industrial conglomerates, to discuss possibilities for the Indian group to invest in projects in the Far East" . These 3 articles are well enough to prove his notability. Jehowahyereh (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Bollywood megastar arises from bankruptcy". Screen International.

Please see WP:LONGTIME: how long an article has been around has nothing to do with notability. Regarding the sources cited and notability, I'll add a source analysis below. Storchy (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is a source analysis.
- "HFCL's Maloo may invest in Zicom". Times of India. short news bulletin speculating that Maloo, head of HFCL, might invest in a company. See WP:TOI for reliability of source.
- "India's Enso Group to take up projects in Russia's Far East". Russia Beyond. government promo piece from Kremlin propaganda sheet Russia Beyond, unreliable source, and interestingly the photo credit is for User:Businessworld2013, one of the sockpuppets of User:Kryptonite1234, another Maloo-only account that tried to ballot-stuff WP:Articles for deletion/Vaibhav Maloo (2nd nomination).
- "Enso Group, Omada Capital partner to launch a $600M fund in South Asia". www.vccircle.com. 14 November 2013., paywalled, but apparently about the company rather than the man
- Unnikrishnan, Rajesh (8 December 2008). "Maloo's back with oil, core focus". The Economic Times. Retrieved 17 December 2011. the one solid reference for the article, as noted in the nomination
- "Vinay Maloo, Enso Group: Profile and Biography". Bloomberg News., bare-bones profile data, any businessperson can submit these to Bloomberg
- "Shri Vinay Maloo". Jain Samaj. user-generated profile on a religious group's member directory. There's that photo from our friend User:Businessworld2013 again.
- "Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd". NDTV Profit., HFCL company profile, doesn't mention Maloo
- September 30, PRANJAL SHARMA. "HFCL's over-confidence queers pitch for other private operators, puts telecom Ministry in spot". www.indiatoday.in.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) article about HFCL, doesn't mention Maloo
- Zarabi, Siddharth (March 8, 2000). "The $238m deal -- Kerry Packer picks 10% in HFCL". Financial Express. Archived from the original on 2019-01-05., article about HFCL and Kerry Packer, doesn't mention Maloo
- Ghosh, Partha (March 8, 2000). "Kerry Packer co acquires 10 pc stake in HFCL -- Two new ventures set up". Hindu Business Line. permanent dead link, headline suggests article about Packer and HFCL again
- "Innovators top India's billionaire chart". Indian Express. September 1, 1999. Archived from the original on 2014-10-18., article about the list of Indian billionaires, Maloo only mentioned once in passing
- Reporter, B. S. (2007-05-13). "HFCL promoters part ways". Business Standard India. Retrieved 2020-08-11., brief news item about HFCL promoters Nahata and Maloo resigning from HFCL
- Seema Singh (16 September 2013). "Medtech Giants Philips and GE Fight Over India". Forbes India Magazine. Retrieved 19 May 2014., article about Phillips and GE, Enso Group is briefly mentioned, but not Vinay Maloo.
- "GE Technology powers Govt of Maharashtra's PPP initiative in Healthcare". India Infoline News. 17 May 2013. Retrieved 19 May 2014., press release about GE, Enso is mentioned, but not Vinay Maloo.
- "Vinay Maloo Enso Chairman and Former RCF Chairman R.G. Rajan Join the Board of Encanto Potash Corp". Newswire Canada. December 21, 2017., company press release that Maloo joined a board, WP:SPS, not a reliable source
- "Encanto could export 3.4 million tpy". www.worldfertilizer.com. 14 June 2017., article about Encanto, Maloo only mentioned in passing.
- Bhaskar, Utpal (4 October 2011). "Sahara enters oil and gas sector with EnSearch buy". www.livemint.com., article about Sahara Group, Maloo only mentioned in passing
- Newswires, Dow Jones (4 October 2011). "Sahara Group Buys EnSearch Petroleum". www.wsj.com., another article about Sahara and Enso, paywalled so can't tell if he's even mentioned
- "Enso Group - Board of Directors". Ensogroup. 17 May 2013. Archived from the original on 2016-12-29., Enso company page, which says he chairs their board
- "GE, Ensocare partner with Maharashtra Government for diagnostic facilities". The Times of India. 17 May 2013., another press release about GE and Enso, doesn't mention Vinay Maloo
- "Inian investor vinay maloo invests in healthcare business". eHealth. 17 May 2013., another press release about GE and Enso, doesn't mention Vinay Maloo
- Market, Capital (19 March 2021). "Strides' biopharma arm partners RDIF to supply COVID-19 vaccine". Business Standard India., article about Strides, mentions Enso, doesn't mention Maloo
- Staff Writer (19 March 2021). "COVID-19 vaccine: Strides Pharma to produce 200 million doses of Sputnik V". www.livemint.com. churnalism about Strides, mentions Enso, doesn't mention Maloo
- "Enso Green Energy". Enso Group Website. Archived from the original on 2019-03-31. Enso "who we are" page about their energy business, doesn't mention Maloo
- Panda, Aneesh Phadnis & Subrata (18 February 2020). "Beleaguered Jet gets another EoI; CoC extends deadline for resolution plan". Business Standard India., article about an airline that Enso tried to invest in, paywalled but doesn't appear to be about Maloo
- Bureau, Our. "Jet lenders extend deadline till March 9 for bid submission". www.thehindubusinessline.com., article about the same airline, Maloo only mentioned in passing
- Maloo, Vinay. "Chairman's Profile". Enso Group., Enso company bio page
- "Vinay Maloo: Demonstrating the Fundamental Qualities of a Great Leader". "BRAND CONNECT - PAID POST", it says at the top of a gushing paid puff piece, useless as a source
- "Be Risk-Averse Yet Bold Enough To Dream Big – Journey Magazine"., a "journey success story" from journeysuccessstories.com, which claims he won two awards, neither of which appear to be notable or selective

To summarise that list, we've got one solid article about him which appears to be from an independent, reliable source. Two others are routine coverage of the companies he works for. The rest are either passing mentions, junk, or don't even mention him. No indication of WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. Storchy (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Storchy you seem to have a vendetta. Your analysis is JUNK. 2402:E280:3DB6:F8:D039:83B:6DFC:356D (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You remind me of a guy called Sunil, Storchy, in my office, he is always grumpy even if someone yells at him and tells him the truth. Also, he got paid for espionage, tsk tsk. Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had to chuck him out, called the cops on him too. Just saying, your attitude reminds me of him. Moderators please note. Here is a self made billionaire with two multi billion dollar enterprises. Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment : He definetly passes GNG. Other than the 3 reliable source I mentioned above, found another reliable secondary news source : https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/telecom/hfcls-nahata-and-maloo-may-part-ways/articleshow/1914140.cms Jehowahyereh (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment : User storchy's source analysis is funny and seems intentional for deleting the page. His first source analysis says that its a short news bulletin, where as its an 8 paragraph long article written by staff journalist Reeba Zachariah which is over 500 words. By telling so it can be seen as his intention is to delete the page on false claims. Also he is saying Russia Beyond launched by Rossiyskaya Gazeta is not reliable ??? on what grounds ??? It seems his only intention is the delte pages related to Maloo's . I am quoting 4 news references which are reliable and secondary sources which are vital for proving his notability

Article 1 - (10 paragraph - 500+ words article ) from The Economic Times - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/maloos-back-with-oil-core-focus/articleshow/3805672.cms
Article 2 (8 paragraph - 500+ words article )- from Times of India - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/hfcls-maloo-may-invest-in-zicom/articleshow/1986419.cms
Article 3 - (8 paragraph - 500+ words article ) Reliable news from Russian Newspaper Russia Beyond launched by Rossiyskaya Gazeta - https://www.rbth.com/economics/2015/06/08/indias_enso_group_to_take_up_projects_in_russias_far_east_43561 (This article clearly states the importance of the Indian Billionare Vinay Maloo as it says "Alexander Galushka, Minister for Russian Far East Development and Alexey Chekunkov, CEO of the Far East Development Fund, met with Vinay Maloo, Chairman of the Enso Group, one of India's largest industrial conglomerates, to discuss possibilities for the Indian group to invest in projects in the Far East" .
Article 4 - (13 Paragraph - 500+ words article )from The Economic Times - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/telecom/hfcls-nahata-and-maloo-may-part-ways/articleshow/1914140.cms

These articles itself clearly proves his notability Jehowahyereh (talk) 06:13, 3 November 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!} 05:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rémy Raisner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

French American businessman, realtor. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Coverage is regarding parents, passing mentions, catalogue entries and driven by membership of business associations. Search reveals very little out there beyond owned media and mentions of involvements in WEF events/Forbes Circles which are by no means independent, significant coverage by secondary sources. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, France, United States of America, and New York. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator's assessment of the sources is accurate. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the newly added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of articles penned by him as a Forbes contributor, I don't see much about him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 28 October 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. ✗plicit 12:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brenden Adams[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sole claim to notability is height. Article includes a largely unsourced comparison table listing various individuals by age and height, including both very tall and very short persons. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very limited coverage, it looks like he got a car for his birthday. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Medicine, and Washington. Skynxnex (talk) 19:26, 28 October 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 per WP:DENY – Joe (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican municipal flags[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Category-masquerading-as-an-article. Fails WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Save a few exceptions, most of these flags are not even important enough to get mentioned on the page of their respective city. Thus, there is no reasonable ground on which to expect the presence of significant coverage for this topic, either, on top of the NOT issue. Alverado (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Mexico. Alverado (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Orientls (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user who listed this AFD has been indeffed and globally locked as a sockpuppet of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BFDIFan707. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:10, 28 October 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!} 05:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a list of WP:Partial title matches. Disambiguation pages that consist solely of partial title matches are effectively a (suboptimal) search index, and a disambiguation page is not a search index. This page actively inhibits Search for uses of "temporary", which is a general-purpose adjective. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are obviously hundreds of things that can begin with the word "Temporary..." This page does more harm than good in a search. --Suitskvarts (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There was an earlier AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporary, not listed here so Soft Deletion is not possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - improper/unhelpful DAB. Just listing all articles beginning with a term is unhelpful, and none of these things are typically called just 'temporary', meaning people searching for the term are unlikely to be assisted. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:NOUN and WP:PARTIAL. There are no valid dab entries on the page. SpinningSpark 12:37, 29 October 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!} 05:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeon Mountain Industries[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail NCORP (notability tag on the article since 2011), written like an advertisement. The very few sources are either primary or behind a paywall. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). AllyD (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Did a quick Google search and found nothing substantial. A single article in a local newspaper does not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:58, 28 October 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!} 05:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderly[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to pass NCORP, and it was seemingly written by a close connection to the subject. Sources are a bit iffy. I would've G11'd, but I'm not sure if it would qualify for that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a start-up brand of Bigframe [54] which was active around 9 years ago and appears to have ended sometime before 2015, judging from the mention here. Searches find various similarly-named ventures but are not finding evidence that this one ever attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's been defunct for almost 10 yrs (per above, I can't confirm), still uses the present text in the article and appears to be a COI contribution. Delete. No sources found and what's used in the article isn't sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 28 October 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!} 08:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sumi Hakim[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, Indonesian model. Page created by sock, mostly edited by socks. Sourced to passing mentions, dubious notability of being Queen of Vespa Indonesia (the MURI link is broken) and general sockiness. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G5; or delete for failing WP:SIGCOV. None of the source provide in-depth independent significant coverage of the subject.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure yet but might be fixable. Will have a look. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Added sources including this 2008 article in The Jakarta Post covering Sumi Hakim's fashion designs during a charity fashion show, and this June 1974 issue of Vista magazine which includes two pages dedicated to Sumi Hakim (although half of it is interview-driven, it does contain some useful factual information). There are also a couple of other articles with useful sections conferring notability, such as the 2016 Queen of Vespa throwback article on the Liputan6 TV site and the 2022 VOI article memorializing her business partner and friend, Rima Melati. I agree that socks are generally suspicious and often annoying, but after interrogating each of the existing sources, I believe this article was created and edited in good faith, and have fixed several minor issues in the references (e.g. updating dead URLs; one URL was linking to page 1 of a magazine article, but Sumi Hakim wasn't mentioned until page 2, etc.). Have also expanded and fixed some of the English. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing I found is a large number of hits via Google Books, but I'm happy for someone else to sift through that, and in any case I don't think we need it to establish (basic) notability. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist or this will be closed as No consensus. Nice improvements to the article, by the way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Jakarta Post ref seems good, I've translated a few of the other sources, they seem to talk about her. Unsure about RS for Indonesian media, will assume they are. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources have been provided that satisfy notability. Jakarta Post and Liputan 6 are reliable sources. I can't comment about the Vista magazine source as it is not available today, but from the look of the magazine, I do think it is pretty reliable. Being honored by MURI also confers some notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:45, 29 October 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!} 05:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Johnson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One good source in in The Lily, rest are simply announcements of her changing jobs or confirmation that she works at a company. Nothing found for BEFORE that we can use for GNG, She's a member of various professional associations, which don't confer notability (being a member doesn't, if she was one of the higher up functionaries, perhaps...). Simply a person doing their job. Oaktree b (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question would be whether being named a fellow of the American Meteorological Society confers notability. I'm not convinced it is the kind of WP:NPROF #3 "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association ... which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor" but am happy to be shown otherwise. The Emmy Award originally included is actually a far less prestigious honor of "Silver circle inductee" of the National Capital Chesapeake Bay Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. This is a good example of why it might be helpful Jesswade88 to include a brief note in the edit summary upon article creation of which notability criteria is met. Thanks Melcous (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everywhere I read yesterday implied AMS Fellowship was a highly selective honour. There are not many (https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-organization-and-administration/list-of-fellows/) in the history of the society. Admittedly, the rest of the coverage is insufficient.Jesswade88 (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For academics, I consider a fellow of the American Meteorological Society notable, and I have written some pages on that group. For Johnson, this is an interesting question because she's not really an academic, so the use of fellow as a criteria for notability is not as clear cut. In terms of the numbers, as of 2021, AMS has 11,161 members (annual reports are available here [55]), and 1296 fellows [56]. so about 10% are fellows. However, the fellows' also includes people who are deceased so my percent calculation is a little off. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My impression would be that for fellowship in an association to qualify for C3 it would need to be strictly reserved for academics, otherwise it's not an endorsement of the subject's scholarly impact/impact as a scholar. It seems AMS draws membership from "public, private, and academic sectors" and recognizes many non-academic factors when awarding fellowship, including "Service to the AMS", "Participation in the CCM/CBM program", "Significant efforts in promoting diversity, equity and inclusion across the enterprise", and "Outstanding citizenry: Public outreach; contributions to science and public policy". Many other selective academic societies also consider these aspects important or even critical to fellowship, but they are also restricted to academic researchers/professor-level educators rather than people involved in the field in more administrative or outreach positions that don't require doctoral degrees. Now, whether the recognition could also qualify for ANYBIO is another question. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain whether or not the American Meteorological Society is the kind of society covered by WP:NPROF C3. However, the IEEE certainly is such a society. And doesn't the IEEE also recognize people working in industry? OTOH, the contributions to practice/theory are usually a bit more apparent from IEEE fellows than what I can see from the subject here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think someone in industry can have academic notability, but as you note, with IEEE fellows the scholarly impact is more direct--I wouldn't be surprised if all of them have multiple publications. Looking at the first 28 fellows [Aa–Ab] on IEEEXplore, all have PhDs, including one with an MD/PhD and one with two PhDs; all of them also have 15+ papers. In my opinion, being a fellow in a major academic society, even a selective one, shouldn't be a C3 pass if the criteria for fellowship do not require academic contributions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What, not even the National Academy of Engineering?? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a membership path that does not emphasize academic impact should warrant its recipients an automatic wikipedia article premised on academic impact. Maybe an ANYBIO pass, if the honor is truly esteemed, but I thought the whole point of NPROF was to recognize people with exemplary scholarly contributions. If that's not the case then how is meeting a non-academic membership criterion any different from someone in a non-academic field being honored within their industry? JoelleJay (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would describe part of our process of evaluating claims of WP:NPROF C5 (named professorship) as being to evaluate whether the subject has a credible-if-tenuous chance at C1 (or possibly in some cases C4/C7). Often, but not always, the case is clear, and in these cases the evaluation may be rather quick. While I think that we should give academic societies considerably more deference than we do university departments, I think that a similar process might apply in certain cases to WP:NPROF C3. In the current case, I'm concerned that I'm not seeing any sign at all of C1 or C4, while the claim to C7 looks very weak at best. Now, I did not succeed in finding a citation statement ("Johnson was inducted as an Amer. Met. Soc. fellow because of her contributions to ___") -- while not strictly necessary, such a statement might help us gain clarity in a case such as this one. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is a fascinating discussion about membership in academic societies. But how does that influence your opinion on whether or not this article should be Kept or Deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 4 of WP:NJOURNALIST and criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO for being inducted into the Silver Circle of the National Capital Emmys which is a significant career achievement award given to television journalists by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Silver Circle of the National Capital Emmys" isn't even close to being a well-known and significant award or honor. Even the "Gold Circle" wouldn't be sufficient for ANYBIO, as these are non-notable honors from a non-notable NATAS regional chapter. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. After thinking it over, I don't believe this person passes any of our NPROF criteria, and certainly not GNG/ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Weak keep per finding two BASIC sources, with the same caveats mentioned by Russ. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The conversation about notability and academic societies has been interesting to follow. In the interim, I have added multiple source to the article and I think the top two sources are a three-page article on her from a 1998 article in the Baltimore Sun,^[1] and the 2017 article in the Washington Post about women and news casting.^[2] When you combine this with the American Meteorological Society fellow honor, and the sustained coverage of her over the years, this add up to keep in my mind. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gray, Jacqueline (1998-04-26). "Weather Mom". The Baltimore Sun. pp. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Retrieved 2022-10-29.
^ Fritz, Angela. "Analysis | Women are being passed over for 'chief meteorologist' jobs at an alarming rate". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-10-29.

Keep per DaffodilOcean Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 09:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. We've got a meet of WP:BASIC identified by DaffodilOcean, although partly by human interest stories of the sort that WP:RSEDITORIAL warns against. This is shored up by the Amer Met Soc fellowship (although I do not take that as a pass of WP:NPROF, at least not by itself) and (less) by the mid-career awards identified by 4meter4. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:53, 29 October 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 Draft:Graz derby. There is weak consensus for a merger. Merging does not require draftification, it can be done from mainspace. If this title is a reasonable search term (I don't think it is, but it wasn't discussed here, and a unilateral decision would be inappropriate) it should be kept as a redirect; otherwise, a histmerge is needed before this is deleted. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grazer AK 1902 0–1 SK Sturm Graz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Individual match not clearly more notable than any other rivalry matchup in football or any matchup between two major clubs. Most of the coverage looks routine and the content could easily be redirected and merged into the 2022–23 Austrian Cup. Not clear why this individual matchup merits an article outside of the cup article. Jay eyem (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable enough match for its own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not delete this articel because this match was a special football game for Austrian football fans and it is very good that a user (according to his own profile page he is not Austrian but a Polish user) created an article of this match on English Wikipedia. There is a bunch of uninteresting articles from English football matches that will not be deleted, but one particular and important Austrian match article should be deleted. I do not understand that. The English Wikipedia still seems too focused on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland + the United States of America from my understanding. (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2022 (CEST)
Delete - this individual match is not notable. Giant Snowman 18:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep:

This AfD really is patent nonsense, and I sincerely doubt anyone has actually looked at the article and come up with this, but even so, the rationale is just so out of touch with the actual article I wonder whether this part of en masse nomination that frequently happens at AfD. Furthermore I cannot believe there are two "deletes" without a shred of justification in either, I can only assume it's again due to AfD hopping. Also I note this is AfD was done via twinkle, so I wonder whether this is just a mistake altogether.

Firstly it sure does not in any way fail WP:GNG. There are 13 references from 4 countries in 3 languages with plenty WP:RS; including Kicker, one of the biggest sports magazines in the world, Die Presse and ORF.

Secondly lack of significant coverage & Most of the coverage looks routine and the content could easily be redirected and merged : there a wide range of dates and articles with various topics surrounding the match, from build-up to aftermath, whole sections and interviews with club legends, importance of the match, the historical background, the preparation on and off-field.

Most of the coverage looks routine really so heavy police preparation, pigs being hung from motorway bridges, and one in a generation match-up is routine now? Because that is what the articles are about.

Individual match not clearly more notable Clearly it is, it's even within the lead as to why, but if in doubt, there's a background and build-up section just in case.

I am not sure what could possibly be done to make this anymore clear. Furthermore there are many more articles on this particular match and hopefully someone will expand it in the future when the impact of this game will be even clearer. The supposed lack of notability seems to be personal subjective opinion rather than actually based on the article content itself. To me this seems like "I don't like it" and systemic bias because this happens to be two Austrian teams; I sincerely doubt this would be even nominated if the Merseyside derby or similar happened in the 1/8 FA Cup after a sudden 15 year gap with so much happening prior and during the match. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On what possible grounds do you justify a speedy keep for this? Let's take a look at the sourcing in the article then:

sport.orf.at this is clearly routine coverage of a sporting event. It details highlights of the match and gives post-match quotes. Everything about this piece is routine sports coverage.
die Presse This one is unfortunately behind a paywall, but judging by the first couple of paragraphs it appears to be detailing the circumstances leading up to the match which is very common with any major sporting event. Looks routine.
derbyderbyderby.it detailing the circumstances leading up to the match. Like the previous source, routine.
Kronen Zeitung 1 a four paragraph piece by a local paper doing a feature on the derby by interviewing a former player. Pretty routine.
Kronen Zeitung 2 Details increased police presence due to a rivalry match. But this is true of any contentious derby match in any league in the world and does nothing to establish the notability of this particular match. Routine.
graz.at This is the website for the city of Graz providing a history lesson and important information about the match, including quotes from local politicians. An unusual source to establish the notability for such a match, and probably the next closest to significant coverage, but not clear why this merits an individual article rather than inclusion within the cup article.
Kronen Zeitung 3 rival fans hang a pig from a highway. Have absolutely no idea why this is supposed to make this matchup more notable, and antics like this are common in all rivalry matches. Routine.
Kicker post-match report details, this is absolutely routine coverage even though it is from Kicker.
ultras-tifo.net have absolutely no idea how this is supposed to contribute to notability for this article.
laola1-at fairly lengthy details on fan activities leading up to and during the match, including discussion on the use of pyrotechnics and discussion on future matches. Definitely the best source thus far.
Kleine Zeitung another piece that is behind a paywall. Appears to be an opinion piece questioning the actions of some of the supporters. Not clear how this supports the notability of the match.
Wiener Zeitung post-match details and summary. Routine.
steiermark.orf.at More post-match details and summary. Routine.

So ultimately the vast majority of sources used in the article consist of routine coverage of the match or details leading up to the match, with some in-depth focus on fan activities. What the sources DON'T show is why this merits its own individual article rather than detailed inclusion in the cup article or in the article for the parent clubs. It's not a cup final, which would absolutely be presumed notable as far as I am concerned, and there doesn't appear to be any lasting impact beyond local coverage of the event, which was one of the main arguments in the Real Madrid - Sheriff discussion that I think holds true here. One of the reasons we don't detail out every match between major clubs (or countries), even though there are many more notable matchups than this one (e.g. every World Cup match) is because not every match merits an article even though they may all receive a high volume of coverage, as is typical in sports. Consider the 2014 FIFA World Cup, where the only match other than the final to have an article is the 7-1 drubbing Germany gave Brazil, and that's because it has had a lasting impact on the sport. The notion that every rivalry matchup that receives a high volume of coverage (number of countries and languages of sources frankly being a bit irrelevant), as every rivalry does, merits its own article is absolutely absurd. If there is evidence that this match will have a lasting impact on the sport, it is sorely missing from the article and this discussion. Jay eyem (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response

What you have done here is reduced every source that describes the match as "routine coverage". Well its not, of course some the sources describe the match, how can they not. But if you read each of the what you call so called "routine" it is not routine at all. Because all them mention the build-up, the fact that it is the first in 15 years, that Austrian football needs these kind of matches are needed and that they receive an unprecedented interest from Austrian football fans. One the sources label the match as "historic".

Kleine Zeitung is not behind a paywall, just need to accept cookies. But you are accepting that these are credible sources, and there are even references that even you can fault or picky holes in, yet none of this rationale was mentioned in your initial deletion proposal. You're now backtracking on a hastilly done AfD.

lasting impact beyond local coverage well the sources aren't actually local, bar one. They're all national or international so that is just not true. Most of these wouldn't even report on Austrian football.

The notion that every rivalry (...) deserves an article is absolutely absurd. No-one is saying that here at all. This particular match is relevant because it signifies a return of GAK "back from the dead" and the restoration of Austria's fiercest city derby after a 15 year gap, having beeen previously a longstanding frequent event. It is one a few rivalries that still generate interest. The only other match in Austrian football that generates any kind of international response is the Vienna derby Rapid-Austia, and that is somewhat stale as hapoens twice a year every year and Rapid are have been dominant for a while, both on and off the pitch; the LASK-BW Linz derby is also not very frequent for even longer. And you can't compare this to the World Cup, apples and oranges.

that's because it has had a lasting impact on the sport so does this, albeit on Austrian football.

Abcmaxx (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to access Kleine Zeitung but for me also it puts up a paywall, even with cookies. Tried to register for free temporary subscription (requires cancellation) but that requires an Austrian street address. Anyway I'm not sure yet if it is possible to save this, but my main advice would be to try to make a stronger argument within the article about the historical significance and (lasting) notability, because the way it reads right now, it's not convincing to people who aren't familiar with Austrian football. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, your rationale to keep is completely ridiculous. Talking about buildup and a history of a rivalry is absolutely part of routine coverage of any rivalry. And this was not hastily done, I looked through the sourcing and considered the circumstance and am of the belief that what is present here does not merit an individual article, and we have precedent for other such matches gaining significant media attention, often much more than the sourcing provided here, being merged into a parent article, such as the Real Madrid-Sheriff match that I mentioned. The reason I didn't detail that all out initially is because that would have been a completely inappropriate way to start an AFD. I would expect many more major international sources outside of the German Sprachraum discussing the significance of this match to the sport as a whole, not just Austria, which has not yet been provided. Again, the Kicker source is definitely routine coverage. Maybe this belongs on a rivalry page between the two clubs, I notice that such an article doesn't exist as of yet, but the very localized nature of this article without a clear lasting impact on the sport AS A WHOLE doesn't merit an entire article. Jay eyem (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would happily commit to work on it but the prospect of putting all that hard work in for someone only to delete because they reduce it all to "I don't like it because never heard of it" makes it a daunting prospect. The build-up and aftermath sections are ripe for expansion as is the whole article in general, and it is in the srticle i hasten to add already. Nowhere does it say a new article has to be FA quality from the get-go, besides its too much to do for just one editor, the while purpose of this was that other people, preferably germanophones, will expand it. This really is much better quality than a lot of existing match articles already, why are we holding Austrian football to a higher standard than let's say, Scottish football? Abcmaxx (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole lot of WP:OSE in that argument. Just because there are other articles of poorer quality doesn't mean anything for this one. The issue is that this article doesn't clearly have a lasting impact on the sport as a whole. At this point I think we have reached an impasse, but if you can prove lasting notability of the match as a whole then be bold and add it. Jay eyem (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you're comparing a Champions League match to a city derby, and this AfD is ridiculous, and you know fully well you cited WP:GNG which you now backtrack on. The requirement for an article is not that it has to affect the whole world and the entire sport, it just has to to be suitably covered in independent sources which it is, and your initial AfD suggested it wasn't. By citing such a rationale initially youre gaming the system and manipulating in order to force through your own point of view. Now you're clinging onto this "routine" argument except it is clearly shown its not a routine match. Anyway local would be Graz district or the state news, not the entire country. Why are you holding this to a higher standard than Scottish or English match articles? None of them have German or Spanish sources 13:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Except I didn't backtrack on WP:GNG at all. WP:GNG discusses significant coverage, as opposed to routine coverage. WP:ROUTINE discusses that routine coverage of an event, which seems to be the case here, does not mean an event merits its own individual article. You are now making this entire AFD WAY too personal and have started attacking me individually. I notice that you were recently blocked for edit warring related to this match, so you are clearly very involved in the existence of this match, but there is no need to respond to my arguments with such personal attacks. Jay eyem (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

none of what I said is personal, I am merely criticising your AfD rationale, decision to create one in the first place, and high inconsistency and logical fallacy thereafter. They are points I am perfectly entitled to make, none of what I said is about you as a person nor have I been uncivil. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of WP:GAMING without evidence and multiple times accused me of forcing my own view rather than address my policy-based arguments. That is 100% uncivil And yet it is worth noting that I have not been recently involved in any edit wars on this matter, whereas you have. Do we need to take this to WP:ANI? Jay eyem (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ content and references to SK Sturm Graz and Grazer AK, as an alternative to deletion per WP:ATD. Appreciate that a lot of effort went into creating the match-specific content for this article, including citations; meanwhile, each of the actual club pages are sorely lacking in references. Therefore, it could only benefit the encyclopedia *and* improve WP coverage of Austrian football if the key highlights of this match were incorporated into the individual club articles, including citations. Even if it were only one sentence plus one reference added to each article, it would be a net gain for Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this amount of information about 1 match was merged anywhere it would de labelled WP:UNDUE and deleted. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I've qualified by saying only the highlights or even just one sentence per club page. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an article detailing the rivalry itself would be a more appropriate place to merge? I'd be ok with the creation of such a rivalry page and seeing this information merged. There's surely more history to the rivalry as a whole that can be detailed out on such a page. Plus it's really strange that you would have so much prose on an ostensibly historic single match between two historic clubs without even an article on the rivalry itself. Jay eyem (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the existence of this article is no way relevant to poor sourcing elsewhere or lack content. If anything it shows how much better this article is than nearly all the articles on Austrian football, not sure why this is held to an absurd standard when even top team articles in Austria are lacking. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are the chances of someone AfD-ing Graz derby straight after its creation? I'm not going to keep creating articles if they're just going to cause grief and held to impossible standards not set elsewhere. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the impossible standard is here. I could create an article on any major rivalry match with similar level of sourcing. It doesn't mean each match would merit an individual article. I think a newly created article on the rivalry would absolutely be an appropriate target, it just doesn't exist yet. Plus it is really strange to have such an extensive article to an ostensibly historic match without even an article on the rivalry itself. Jay eyem (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have ridiculous "rivalry" articles like Cavalry FC–Forge FC rivalry, which has way more routine coverage and no background on two teams with no history, except for one coach inexcusably being racist one time. Apparently that merits an article. There's 2022–23 SV Elversberg season, a lower league team season with 2 references. There's the 1950–51 DDR-Oberliga championship play-off with 1 reference. You haven't nominated any of these, you picked an article with so much in it instead. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

have you actually read the article why this particular match is different? I will happily creat Graz derby article if this article is kept. I'll even commit to expanding this one. Otherwise I see no point as I will spend more time explaining WP:GNG and why in an article about a German speaking country the sources tend to be in German. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, your personal opinion on other articles, as well as your opinion that said teams have "no history", is entirely irrelevant here. This an entirely an WP:OSE argument. I am absolutely a proponent of tighter restrictions on notability, but that doesn't mean I am going to nominate every single article for deletion because it is a long and exhausting process. And none of that is relevant to the argument for notability here. And for the love of god, PLEASE make all of your posts at once. It is a pain to have to re-type my post because of edit conflicts. Jay eyem (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

two teams which are 3 years old, these two have over 150 years each; I am aware of "other stuff exists" I'm just highlighting the imbalance, besides the argument that other Austrian football articles are poor and so this should be merged is the same argument. You chose to nominate this one, which is one of the better cited match articles on Wikipedia it seems, and your reasoning is entirely inconsistent. Either hold all articles to the same standard or if you must keep going to AfD I suggest starting with something with a lot less going for it. Yes it is a long and exhausting process, especially for someone who put in a lot of work in creating an article, so either stop going to AfD and help improve the articles or take time and care when nominating. You said you'd accept accept this article if it was called "Graz derby", which not only shows that this does in fact pass WP:GNG, but if I renamed this article then it would only be about one match, and I bet you someone will AfD it "not notable, only describes one meeting." Lose-lose either way. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename asMerge with Draft:Graz derby. ~~Changing from previous "merge" vote, as this seems like a great solution and you wouldn't even have to add/change that much, IMO.~~ If the event itself meets WP:GNG but a single match doesn't merit its own article per the WikiProject, then the derby page does seem like the next best thing, plus it provides much-needed context for why the match was so significant. (Also, quite frankly, not that many people will be searching for "Grazer AK 1902 0–1 SK Sturm Graz" as an exact search term.) Anyway from the discussion this is sounding increasingly like it's a naming/reframing/writing issue rather than a notability problem, and in that case let's keep it and try to make it the best "Graz derby" page it could possibly be. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A move works for me. There is already an article in German that can be used as a basis for expansion, you can just stick a Template:Expand German template and start from there. Jay eyem (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but this article does not talk about the rivalry, other than briefly in the background section does it, it describes the specific match and aftermath. I repeat that the absence of other articles does not justify a reason for getting rid of this. This is a strange development for an AfD that claimed this did not pass WP:GNG and was a non-notable event that should be merged into a cup article. Clearly now the consensus is that it does pass WP:GNG but needs to be somehow got rid of anyway. It really tiring having new articles questioned by meritless AfDs, which almost never pass. If wanted a merger, then the correct process would be a move template, or create a Graz derby page and propose a merger then. This has become tantamount to throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I maintain that the individual match fails GNG and shouldn't have its own article, I don't know where you arrived to the conclusion that the consensus was otherwise. I was just agreeing with the proposal that the content could be merged into a newly created article about the derby as a whole. And there is a pretty extensive list of AFDs in the archives of individual matches that have either been redirected or outright deleted, so it's not like this AFD was without precedent. Jay eyem (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of starting the draft for the article at Draft:Graz derby. There is plenty of room for using the corresponding article in German, so I will probably look into expanding it further over the course of the coming week. Once it is in a manageable state, it can be moved into the main article space. Jay eyem (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've read through this entire AFD and opinions are all over the map. Before creating new articles and talking about Merging this article into a Draft article, should this article be Kept? Mergers can be decided afterwards through talk page discussions. For the closer's sake, please do not make overly complicated proposals that may, or may not, be carried out later.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why would someone creating Draft:Graz derby be an actual reason to keep this? The derby could be notable, but this article, which is about one match, is not. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair...but I hadn't been expecting such a dramatic fork of the two (!). The way I see it, the nominated article has sources and sections worth keeping; the new draft derby article provides more context but lacks citations at the moment. Ideally they should be merged into one comprehensive article. I have changed my vote above, yet again, to !merge to Draft:Graz derby. I am also potentially available to help with the article if needed (but trying to tie up other loose ends at the moment). Cheers, Cielquiparle (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with a merge to Graz derby IF sources can be found about the Derby itself... Giant Snowman 21:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of Liz's request above for a yes/no. Obviously there are interesting and unique factors to this individual match, but these are factors around the two clubs; generally WP articles on individual matches have exceptional circumstances in the scoreline or other on-field events. To me, this match and the events and coverage surrounding it falls around the larger rivalry between the clubs, so should be added to the nascent article on that. As per GS, of course sources should be used to demonstrate the notability of said rivalry, but I'm confident there will be plenty, particularly with the German article on the subject. A large section of that article could be devoted to this match while giving readers more information on its wider context. The current title would be an appropriate redirect, so hopefully the rivalry article could be fleshed out and populated with the match details by the time of this being closed to facilitate that. Crowsus (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick update, I think I have translated as much of the prose as I can or thought was important to the article (there's an entire section on some tradition involving local butchers that didn't seem relevant). Part of the issue is that, like much of the German Wikipedia in my experience, the article doesn't have a lot of sources, and that has been an issue when finding match results prior to the 1950s. Maybe the resources exist in German and offline, I just wasn't able to find them on a first pass. I figure the article here at AfD would slot in towards the end of the "Notable Matches" section where it could be expanded on as needed. I could see about doing that tomorrow, I just have no idea if this AfD will get relisted again. Jay eyem (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another update, I have merged what I thought was the most significant details of this article into Draft:Graz derby. I think draftifying is fine, but I'm not sure what else needs to be merged at this point. Additional input is always welcome, of course! Jay eyem (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify so we can merge with Draft:Graz derby, also per comment from Crowsus. If we straight delete it, one of us will need to get it refunded and host it in User space, which seems less than ideal. At least if it lives in Draft, multiple people can access it and start merging parts of it with Graz derby. And then if nothing else happens, it will get deleted after six months. I understand it's just a subset that will get merged, but that is still a lot of work to have to recreate. This one has sources! (And in the course of merging, we may also end up using some of those sources in other ways.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Graz derby article seems like the right idea, I don't think you can straight up delete. Merge the right content and have a derby article. Govvy (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify so that the merge with Draft:Graz derby can take place. I agree that this match isn't notable but the rivalry, as a whole, is. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. – Joe (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sindel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One more Mortal Kombat character afflicted with no longer meeting WP:GNG requirements. Like the other redirects, her article content is trivial with the usual generic reception, most of which were nonviable VG sources and recently removed. Third-party coverage overall is scant (Google searches of her name have less than ten pages of results) and while she has received attention for her infamous movie dialogue and awful MK11 retcon, even that is sparse and can easily be covered in the main MK character article, to where this should be merged/redirected. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Wikipedia is not FANDOM, there is too much fan-relevant information but no indication of standalone notability. This character is, like most Mortal Kombat characters, better off as part of a character list due to a lack of standalone significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to character list. Andre🚐 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per all. Best practice has been to listify some of the less notable characters. Fails the WP:GNG without more coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unlike Sheeva, I find that Sindel has enough here. As you said, she gained notoriety for her MK11 retcon. This is noted by Comicbook.com, Den of Geek and The Mary Sue. She was also notorious for killing a large chunk of MK9's roster while apparently under a spell before the retcon. Like Nightwolf and unlike Sheeva, she also has received a DLC review from IGN, which also notes the MK11 retcon. DualShockers and Schacknews have hands-on previews for her in MK11. While it's a in a different language, this document does some analyses on the character. MoonJet (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but once again, MJ, you're just blindly chucking out links without seeing the forest for the trees. I searched for any notable material on the character beforehand and found nothing, hence the nomination, while a load of useless content was removed from the article itself. All the sites provided merely report on a DLC trailer released by NRS with the usual generic coverage about her story and gameplay. As previously discussed in the Rain AfD, these previews do not automatically establish notability. Hell, Mavado or Jarek could be put into MK11 tomorrow and the gaming press would go gaga all the same. For all the fan outrage about her retcon, it seems the press could care less as the only site you've linked (Comicbook.com) devotes one whole paragraph to it with no insight or commentary. Lastly, as also covered in the Nightwolf AfD, college theses are not acceptable sources. Long story short, nothing here justifies keeping the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"As previously discussed in the Rain AfD, these previews do not automatically establish notability."

True, but I feel it does in this case. Story and gameplay are also good things to have verified. After all, the main reason notability exists is to have enough verifiable information to write an article. Look, let's just agree to disagree.

"Hell, Mavado or Jarek could be put into MK11 tomorrow and the gaming press would go gaga all the same"

Not necessarily. Sheeva was added to MK11 as DLC, and she got barely anything outside the Valnet sites. Sindel and Nightwolf has gotten much more in comparison.

As for the document source, there's nothing indicating it's a master's thesis. MoonJet (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after request from an editor for one more week of discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nariska, Arizona[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be nothing more than a railroad siding and possible section house. Newspaper coverage mentions a few railroad-related happenings here, but nothing that would rise to the level of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nevada. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete Here we have a complete train wreck in GNIS, because there is also a "Naviska, Arizona", and when you look at older topos, both spots are labelled "Naviska" and there's no "Nariska". In any case they are both points on the railroad: one appears to be the south end of the long passing siding, and the other appears to be the very short siding off this siding. It's anyone's guess who hasn't talked to the railroad which names are correct, but in any case there's no notability here for either name. Mangoe (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find almost nothing for Nariska and conclude it is probably a typo - a handwritten "v" can look a lot like a "r". Searching on Naviska turns up things like this which calls it a railroad siding and this which does say there was a telegraph office there once. No evidence it was any kind of community or otherwise notable. MB 03:14, 31 October 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 23:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Kirchheimer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR -- if they are important, widely cited, etc. the article creator should show this. Right now I see pretty light coverage, most of which is two mentions from the same columnist published about a dozen days apart in 2006. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(NOT~~AUTHOR~~) feedback: NYTimes' Claudia H. Deutsch is cited in 59 other places on Wikipedia. Kirchheimer's book came out in 2006. One Deutsch item tells of "and his sister grew up in Philadelphia, the children of Holocaust survivors. His father, ..." whereas nothing about these personal details are in the other, which talks of how identity thieves can use one's info to get a driver's license in the victim's name, but with the thief's photo. The articles are not housing "mentions" of the subject: He's front, center, and the heavyweight. Nuts240 (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep - in addition to the NYT I have found articles which significantly feature him in the Washington Post, NBC, etc where he is named as an anti-scam expert. Pretty clear notability as per WP:BASIC in my view. JMWt (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AARP articles out the wazoo, one piece in the Washington Post, but he's basically an expert on whatever he's writing about. Nothing about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different person altogether, I don't see how that helps us here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"re different person altogether"?? Saturday Evening Post, not the old weekly but a resurrection by other people, is published six times per year, so actually, since the topic fits, it can be added to the article, although I agree with Oaktree re his "don't see how that helps us here" sentiment Nuts240 (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(NOT~~AUTHOR~~) feedback2: The above NYTimes not only has "and his sister grew up in Philadelphia, the children of Holocaust survivors. His father, ..." (Early life section) and "married a local school teacher; together they have three children" but mentions his internet company going under, which is how his friend's advice led him to AARP. Personal! Nuts240 (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete regardless of the rather borderline notability . We are not a place for authors to advertise their books. The subjects of our articles should not be engaged in determining their own notability. Personally I regard it as a clear G11, a blatant violation of NOT.`` DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Important CLARIFICATION My use of the word AUTHOR is not meant to say I'm this guy SID, but rather the "author" (or should I simply say initial article/stub editor). DGG: If you still think DELETE, then at least it should be for a better reason than thinking that Kirchherimer is writing on Wiki. I doubt he'd have the range of

interest to contribute about Citbank,Orthodox Judaism,Computer-related matters (see today's contribution re COGNOS). I'm ~~removing~~strikingOut AUTHOR to make it a bit more clear that it's not G11, and, for that matter, I'm NOT "NOT". I have a computer background, I'm Orthodox, and certainly not the only contributor/editor with that combo. Nuts240 (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has, and I think nobody every will, be quaified to write an objective encyclopedia article about themselves or their organization--st least if its more than a directory entry. . But it can be quite difficult to tell the difference between coi and enthusiasm--I;ve worked on these problems here for 16 years, and I do not always get it right. (I suspect we miss a great many more than we incorrectly think coi, but that dooesn't help decide for any one particular article.) For 6 years if being checkuser and 5 an arb, I have learned thar except in rare cases, evidence from checkuser tends to be ambiguous, and secondary evidence tends to be unhelpful . Nor is it possible to judge the sincerity of words writen by an anonymous or semi-autonomous figure of wikipedia or any other part of the internet.

The (partial) solution) I;ve found is to analyze the actual text and references presented: experience with hundreds of thousands of coi articles lets humans at least determine patterns. (I know of no automated method capabel of detecting more than the utterly obvious). Computers can detect verbal patterns; they cannot detect tone, because tone implies a responsiveness from the human reader.

Lets look at this one:

The beiography contains no details, in particular about his college career. It instead contains a statement of his faimilies hard work ethics, which is unproven and unprovable -- and irrelevant/

It omits a sequential description of his professional positions, which is basic information to an objective biology. . It is of course normal for journalists to have irregular work histories, which is all teh more reason for specifying them,

to be continued tomorrow--please wait beofre closing — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

once again: I'm not Sid Kirchheimer. My mistaken use of the word AUTHOR is my mistake, and my real violation is WP:OWN, treating this article the wrong way - being perhaps overly protective. @DGG: Nuts240 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

found term "creator" - is this what I should have used? Nuts240 (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't like relisting a third time, but am doings so because DGG requested more time, and while there is not clear consensus I believe such consensus can still be achieved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, lacks in-depth coverage to meet notability thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little applied to the page which directly details the subject. I'm clear the page creator says they are not the subject, and I accept that assertion in good faith. That said, the sources I'm seeing seem to detail the single book, and not the author. Not enough material upon which to base a biography of a living person. BusterD (talk) 15:26, 31 October 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. ✗plicit 23:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radium, Arizona[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I expected this one to be some mining town remnant, but it in fact was a rail spot in an area which was as industrial back then as it is now. There is/was a "Radium Mine" some miles off to the north, and other mines NE of this spot, but again some miles off. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything on this one. It's along the Arizona Eastern Railway just outside Globe, AZ. With absolutely nothing to go on except the GNIS entry, no justification to keep or redirect anywhere. MB 19:47, 28 October 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. ✗plicit 03:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natches, Arizona[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of anything here other than an old railroad siding. –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete I found only two definite references to this beside clickbait, and while one of them confirmed it as a rail stop, neither indicated it was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 28 October 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. ✗plicit 03:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Montedio Yamagata season[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Strongly lacking in notability, no references at all. Does not fit as an article. Sakiv (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 04:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Cannot speak Japanese so struggling to find anything. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:41, 30 October 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 Avenged Sevenfold (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Acclaim[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NSONG, no independent notability for the song compared to the album. The only stats and information is how often it was performed on tour and who sings and performs in each section. No independent critic reception. No charting. Was sent to draft but then was copied back to mainspace without any notable improvement. Recommend redirect to album. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The song is one of the most popular by the band, and one of the band's favorites. Other, less notable A7X songs with less sources have pages.--BoxxyBoy (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not even apply here. If there's ever a concern about the other pages in question, they should be brought up in a separate AfD discussion, not here. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Avenged Sevenfold (album). The song is mentioned by critics and journalists somewhat often, but always in relation to its parent album. This includes discussions about the politicized lyrics, which are also common for the album as a whole. Additional points like popularity with fans and number of live performances are fan trivia with little encyclopedic value. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Political themes ARE NOT constant in the band's music. In fact, this is the only song in their ENTIRE discography that brings politics to the forefront this much. The only one that is a fraction as political is Blinded In Chains. BoxxyBoy (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even close to relevant for the discussion of whether this song qualifies for its own Wikipedia article. Explore the blue-linked WP policies that the voters have referenced. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Avenged Sevenfold (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Avenged Sevenfold (album) per nomination. None of the actually reliable sources (excluding USERG like Discogs, Genius, and SongFacts) are exclusively about the song, many only make passing mentions, and a few don't even name it. I would suggest merging but the only material really worth keeping is the controvery section and that needs a severe rewrite anyway. QuietHere (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above Gamertrash14 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the self-titled album once again, sadly. Although it's a fact that it's a fan favorite, it never has met the GNG very well, and likely will hover right below the threshold forever. dannymusiceditor ^oops 05:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avenged Sevenfold (album) per nom. This fails WP:NSONG or WP:GNG, the current refs are unreliable databases, short listicle reviews, or routine announcements that IMO fail the WP:SIGCOV requirements per GNG or the non-trivial requirements of NSONG. My WP:BEFORE search found this mentioned frequently in articles covering the album, but they appear to be trivial and does not discuss this song in sufficient detail. VickKiang (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Owl, Arizona[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we have another enigma, for old topos show this as "Mohawk Inn", about which I could find nothing. I'm not quite clear on when it switched to "Owl", but my guess is that this was a RR name; that is also suggested by the entry at ghosttowns.com, the veracity of which I find a bit doubtful given that it came from the fellow trying to sell the site. Aerials do suggest that the "town" was a single property which was wiped away and replaced around 1990 by a archetypal junkyard; it's worth it to drive by on Streetview just to see it. Searching is fairly heinous given all the people who want to talk about the owls inhabiting the state, but I have to say I don[t think a gas station with tourist cabins really cuts it for notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 04:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to have been anything more than a few buildings, with no significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 19:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable, lacking any significant coverage. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:05, 4 November 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 Camp Hyder. ✗plicit 03:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyder, Arizona[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article in this case is a train wreck of unsourced claims, and those that I can check are at best misleading. To begin with, many of the things listed as being or occurring there actually were or happened at some distance. The school in question is thirteen miles to the southeast; there actually is a Hyder School District, but it is even farther away, at Dateland. Patton's training site was, from what I can tell, about five miles SSE; the Amtrak accident happened over 25 miles away. The building shown is/was there; I cannot verify the bar, though Streeview shows the wreckage of several other buildings along the road. All of this is consistent with the topos and aerials. So was this a town? Well, maybe, but not that I can easily verify, and virtually all the verbiage of the present article could be summarily deleted for lacking sourcing. This is another reason why having these stubs lying around is a problem: they aren't being watched, and people just put things in them based on who knows what sources. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 04:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Camp Hyder. This WWII army camp is only 1 mile from the coords given in the Hyder article. This site calls Hyder a ghost town, but it is discussing the army base. The article claim the Gila River flows through Hyder, and the river is even farther south. This website, probably not a RS, calls it a small farming community, and the train derailment was reported to be "near Hyder". There is enough usage of the name that there should be a redirect, and the army camp is probably the best place.
Weak keep. This employee claim against the railroad confirms that there was at least a train station and a telegraph office at the location. Hyder gets a lot of mentions as the nearest settlement to a terrorist attack on a train in 1995, for instance [57]. This book identifies Hyder as the hiding place of Gary Tison while he was on the run in 1978. The book calls it a "small desert town", but further describes it as "little more than a squatter's camp, where migrant workers slept in the harvest season." In the summer it was "hardly habitable". In conclusion, existence seems not to be in doubt, but legal recognition per WP:GEOLAND may be, hence weak keep. Against that, Tison's hideout confers a small amount of notability. SpinningSpark 10:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This book confirms the existence of the Whispering Sands bar. Although an SPS, it is good enough (IMO) for the purpose of verifying this fact as it is a first-hand account. SpinningSpark 11:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Camp Hyder. Not a legally-recognized place under WP:GEOLAND, and none of the sources discuss the location in depth as required by GNG. When you clear out the coatrack stuff about things that happened nearby there's nothing left that could be used to write an article about the place. –dlthewave ☎ 18:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Since it's not legally recognised per WP:GEOLAND it has to pass the GNG and it clearly doesn't. Coverage of things which happened nearby is not significant coverage of the place itself. Hut 8.5 09:21, 30 October 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. While I can see there is some disagreement, I see a consensus to Delete based on Dylnuge's argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of XMPP server software[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Masses of primary-sourced tech cruft and original research * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete as blatant transgression of WP:NOTGUIDE. PC Magazine and its ilk exist for a reason. Mangoe (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and Lists. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 04:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly original research. Agletarang (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I think it's a bit more complex than some of the other nominations like the Excel add-ons AfD. In those cases we had comparisons of fully non-notable software. Here we're getting into comparisons of software that have their own articles, so they may be notable (I think notability is questionable for some of these, to say the least, but examining the notability of every list item seems a bit out of the scope of the discussion, and I don't need to do it for my deletion argument). Per WP:LISTCRIT, when a list can't be exhaustive it should have selection criteria, and a common one is Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. My previous argument used entry notability as a criteria because: 1) these comparisons are, in part, a list of software (some are even categorized as such) 2) the lists cannot be exhaustive and 3) none of the entries are notable, and there's not another good WP:CSC. Comparisons of non-notable software are a trivial delete vote, and we don't have that here.
I do think there's a broader argument against having these kinds of software comparison matrices at all, which I brought up in my reasoning on the DNA melting prediction software AfD. However, this argument feels a bit more complex; we have 300 total pages in Category:Software comparisons and its subcategories (as of my counting; several are in AfD right now but this should stay order-of-magnitude correct). WP:OSE, I know, but I think it merits some notice that the wide variety and presence of these suggests that there may be prior existing consensus around having them. I disagree, but it'd be a bit disingenuous for me to say WP:NOTDIRECTORY and call it a day when these pages are so prevalent.
My main problem with these articles is that they seem essentially impossible to maintain, in the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I can see an argument for the value in general of having community sourced Consumer Reports like comparisons for notable products, but given the maintenance and review that would be required to make them trustworthy, they feel like a bad fit for Wikipedia. I'm not a fan of any page where someone who visits it is unlikely to trust that it is accurate, neutral, and useful. I see a lot of problems here: the selection of what to compare on is WP:SYNTH (and selecting things to make a specific product look good is easy, companies do it all the time in marketing material; neutral subject matter experts would be needed to ensure things don't fall into WP:PROMO), keeping things complete and accurate would require regular review as well (most edits to these pages update information for a specific product, and not the entire chart at once), and most of these things don't have good sources besides marketing material from the developers (and company claims about a product are not a good source for something like this). Overall there are plenty of ways for me to construct a policy-based "this is a bad page" vote, but I want to be clear that my main reason for deleting is that I think a page like this is unmaintainable and we shouldn't have pages that can't generally be trusted.
@Pppery: As a procedural note, have you considered making a broader WP:MULTIAFD (or for that matter, even a more general "Software comparisons on the wiki" RfC) instead of nominating these individually? It seems like you've got several of these up for nomination right now and while my reasoning applies to all of them, a more all-encompassing discussion might be merited. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:MULTIAFD of two articles already. While I would probably support deleting most of Category:Software comparisons and its subcategories for the same reasons, I've generally been nominating comparisons of only non-notable entries. What happened here was I noticed while reviewing the entire tree for other non-notable comparisons that this article was so ridiculously laden with fancruft that I ended up removing 5/6 of it, and then noticed the rest was all primary-sourced and warranted a AfD. IMO each of these is different enough for a separate discussion, although I intend to stop working on this task for a week to allow for these AfDs to close and confirm I'm not overstepping. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, by "broader" I meant encompassing more/most of these; didn't mean to imply this one wasn't already covering two articles. FWIW I don't think you're overstepping by nominating these (I guess obviously I agree with the nominations, so that's not an un-biased opinion or anything). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before I started editing the article about XMPP servers, there was fully funcraft, there was no criterion for selecting XEP - in the end, I didn't know what to do with it, so I just left it, although I also thought about removing it. In any case, it was a significant improvement. Article about XMPP clients it does not contain it, although the whole structure of the article is basically based on one source (XMPP compilance), so it will probably be removed precisely because of the difficulty of finding secondary sources - unfortunately, this is no longer a popular technology and finding links to media references is almost a miracle, despite my best efforts. About W:OR, the easiest way would be to simply remove clients that do not have their own wikipedia articles. Twomithe (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify a bit, I don't think the OR issue here is selection criteria; I entirely agree that "notable XMPP clients/servers only" (i.e. those that merit their own Wikipedia article; technically whether or not they have one but generally determined by the existence of an article) is a totally fine criteria (and a pretty standard one, per WP:CSC). The WP:SYNTH comes with what things are compared on, and how those criteria are established and maintained. Are most readers going to care whether XEP-0401 (Ad-hoc Account Invitation Generation) or XEP-0455 (Service Outage Status) are implemented in these clients? Probably not—I picked two that, per the article, aren't known to be implemented anywhere—but how do we decide what matters? If we list every single RFC (or in this case, XEP) for an open protocol, the table becomes disorganized and hard to use. If we list only some, deciding which matter and don't is almost certainly a form of synthesis. There's also likely some OR involved in filling it out for each program—and where sources do exist, they're still likely non-independent sources like marketing copy which might be misleading. This isn't just something that applies to XMPP, either; even the collection at Comparison of programming languages suffers from this.
Honestly I think looking at Comparison of XMPP clients makes this point pretty clearly. The "?" character appears 1549 times on this page; that is far more than the word "Yes" (608 times) or "No" (pretty much confined to the Operating system support table; exact count was trickier since it's a substring of "not," "note," and "notable"). I can't see how these pages would be useful for people who actually need a comparison of these programs. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a non-SYNTH (and not ridiculously crufty) inclusion criteria possible for the server list if you blank the entire "List of other RFCs/XEPs Supported" section (and the "Summary" section which summarizes it). The result is that the bases to compare are those specified by XEP 0459, which seems to be a reasonably standard feature set. I originally did that, but realized the result was still reliant exclusively on original research and primary sources (There's also likely some OR involved in filling it out for each program—and where sources do exist, they're still likely non-independent sources like marketing copy which might be misleading) so the entire thing needed to go.
I have no plans to systematically nominate other comparisons of bluelinks; this one caught my attention because of its ridiculous overdetail, and the only other ones I seem to have nominated are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SQL compliance (again overdetailled in the same way) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of layout engines (Scalable Vector Graphics) (the problems are different). Finally, I suggest you write up the argument you are making here as an essay at Wikipedia:Software comparisons * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So summarized, does exists the following options:

Insert all RFC/XEP - aside from the aforementioned clutter, which would require a logical arrangement to avoid it, it would make little sense since there are tons of unused, discontinued XEPs out there. Are you sure we would like to have them in the article? If not, you can't avoid OR 100% probably. For example, in the current shape of the article about XMPP clients, you have 2 XEPs that are marked as deprecated.
"If we list only some, deciding which matter and don't is almost certainly a form of synthesis."
1. many software comparison articles are often based on completely arbitrarily selected functions for no reason at all so it's 100% OR.
2. Other option, it use selection of a criterion based on the source. This is what the article about XMPP clients says. The choice is then not arbitrary and you avoid redundancy. This option seems to be the most optimal in this case, although not everyone likes it (digression) - For example, this edition has been classified as spam, even though I did exactly what is shown in this article, that is, I based the criterion on the original source. So what does matter?
3. Option, which represent article about XMPP servers it's synthesis 1 option and 2.2. which I guess it would be the closest to consensus. An article that selects criteria based on the sources is always better than without them. And that's probably the best thing than can be achieved. Any other option will be arbitrary.
"they're still likely non-independent sources like marketing copy which might be misleading."
1. the main problem of the current state of the article is the fact that it is based on primary sources - they are of better quality, but it also breaks WP:N. Although I have added some media sources, mostly from non-English language sources, I don't know if this is enough. Twomithe (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Please see my previous comment on this visigothic attempt to a delete a notable article. XMPP has massive and active community and one of the core messaging protocols of the last 20 years. This is reflected in the article getting an average of 50 people a day looking it over the last 10 years, yet you want to delete. Those number indicate that its actively used for comparison and useful as valid encyclopeadic article. scope_creep^Talk 16:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not clearly WP:OR. Each entry has been added by the expert, so you don't know what your talking about. scope_creep^Talk 16:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what exactly you mean by that? OR doesn't mean that the person adding the content is wrong; plenty of OR is, in fact, correct. The people writing the article might be experts! I have no reason personally to suspect the information is wrong (mostly, the information is missing, but where it isn't, I suspect it was at least accurate at the time it was added—though it's not clear to me if it's dated or not). Wikipedia pages need to be verifiable and maintainable by any editor—clear sources (mostly secondary) allow for this. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as with essentially all of these "comparison" articles, this is a mess of original research that violates WP:NOTGUIDE and does not pass GNG in any case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:45, 4 November 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.

[1] Lifschultz, Lawrence (1977). "Abu Taher's Last Testament: Bangladesh: The Unfinished Revolution". Economic and Political Weekly. 12 (33/34): 1303–1354. ISSN 0012-9976.

[2] Franda, Marcus F. (1982). Bangladesh, the first decade. New Delhi: South Asian Publishers. pp. 240–241. ISBN 9780883330067.

[3] ইশতিয়াক, আহমাদ (31 January 2022). "খেতাবপ্রাপ্ত বীর মুক্তিযোদ্ধা: মোহাম্মদ জিয়াউদ্দিন, বীর উত্তম". The Daily Star Bangla (in Bengali).

[4] The Hindustan, Times. "The Hindustan Times". The Hindustan Times.

[5] The, Hindu. "The Hindu".

[6] "Executive Record Sheet".

[7] "Posts Held".

[8] "Bollywood megastar arises from bankruptcy". Screen International.

[:3-9] Gray, Jacqueline (1998-04-26). "Weather Mom". The Baltimore Sun. pp. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Retrieved 2022-10-29.

[10] Fritz, Angela. "Analysis | Women are being passed over for 'chief meteorologist' jobs at an alarming rate". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-10-29.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]