Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 22 March 24 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. LFaraone 23:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Cecil Anderson

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Aoidh (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Clark (animator)

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

Contested PROD that was restored form WP:RFUD. Original rationale was "Non-notable, most of the sources I find are for an unrelated Alex Clark since many people have had that name throughout history." proposed by me ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What changes would you like to see done to the page to address your concerns? Alex Clark is a Youtuber with 4 million subscribers and is currently active. 76.91.157.0 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely irrelevant to his notability. Read WP:N. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He appears to be a notable figure based on what is currently written on his wikipedia page and there are links to several notable sources including Huffington post and deadline. Can you please explain what you're considering when deciding on notability. 76.91.157.0 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not based solely on the fact that there are reliable sources in the article. It's based on whether those sources are independent from the subject and that those sources are in depth in their coverage on the subject. I'll create a source assessment table based on these criteria to make it easier to see what source do and don't contribute to notability. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Based on the link you provided all the linked articles appear to be independent from the subject and a few are in-depth as you discussed. Im just not sure what you are looking to be established in the article thats not already present. 76.91.157.0 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Nothing found that meets IS RS with SIGCOV.
Source table:
Comments Source
Short review of a single appearance. 1. Murray, Tom (August 19, 2017). "Fringe review: Alex Clark". Edmonton Journal. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
Promo 2. ^ Jump up to:a b c "YouTube Millionaires: ItsAlexClark Finds It "Really Fun To Figure Out How To Tell A Story"". Tubefilter. December 14, 2017. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
Promo 3. ^ Jump up to:a b "Comedian Alex Clark featured at MSSU". Joplin Globe. April 15, 2016. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
Mention, promo for awards show 4. ^ Ramos, Dino-Ray (August 22, 2017). "7th Annual Streamy Awards: Casey Neistat, Lilly Singh, 'Mr. Student Body President' Among Nominees". Deadline. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
Promo 5. ^ "Alex Clark. Comedy". itsalexclark.com. Archived from the original on April 5, 2018. Retrieved April 4, 2018.
Promo 6. ^ "Comedian-juggler to perform Oct. 8 in W.P." West Plains Daily Quill. September 29, 2015. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
Promo 7. ^ "Confused about the US gun debate? This video uses cats to show one side of the argument". Irish News. March 13, 2018. Retrieved September 13, 2018.
Promo 8. ^ McDonald, Andy (March 9, 2018). "Animator Brilliantly Explains The Gun Control Debate Using Cats". Huffington Post. Retrieved September 13, 2018.
Promo 9. ^ Gibson, Donte (March 10, 2018). "This Animator's Hilarious New Video Uses Cats To Make An Important Point About Gun Control". A Plus. Retrieved September 13, 2018.
Promo 10. ^ Gutelle, Sam (June 14, 2018). "ItsAlexClark, Bart Baker Among YouTube Stars Featured In New Mobile Game". Tubefilter. Retrieved September 13, 2018.
BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.  // Timothy :: talk  07:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting this together.
I agree that 3, 6, 10 are promo... the others dont appear to be promo to me. Is there a definition we are basing this decision off of? Also, the original comment " non-notable, most of the sources I find are for an unrelated Alex Clark... what was the search term used.... when I google search Alex Clark Youtuber in a private search window it populates the entire first page with only results for this specific Alex Clark. maybe we need to change the title of the article from Alex Clark (animator) to Alex Clark (Youtuber)? 76.91.157.0 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The search term I used was Alex Clark +animator -wiki. Also, I don't know what you were searching but searching "Alex Clark +youtuber -wiki" returns 0 results. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a video screen capture of the search and its results on a private window in google:https://www.veed.io/view/57936523-2e8b-40b8-9a48-71732c4b1710?sharingWidget=true&panel=share 76.91.157.0 (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand Wikipedia guidelines and review the sources in this table, source 1 is independent, and reliable enough, but doesn't offer much coverage beyond one performance. Guidelines suggest significant coverage of the subject versus covering a single aspect. Source 3 appears like a public relations hand out, which is not completely independent. Source 4 is a list that only mentions this article's subject. Source 5 is self-published (i.e. not independent). Sources 7, 8, and 9 appear sufficiently independent to me but are not in-depth coverage of anything more than a short-term "burst of news coverage" (i.e. gun control video). The notability guidelines prefer "sustained coverage". Yammie2009 (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Moneyreagh. Consensus is that this subject is not an appropriate one for a full article. History will be left intact as several editors have expressed interest in a merge. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyrea Primary School

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

Not notable with only primary sources as references. No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Moneyrea. The subject title here is Monyrea Primary School which was formed in 1961 according to the school's prospectus. Primary schools do not generally qualify for separate Wikipedia articles. The exception put forward by Necrothesp is based on the buildings extant for Moneyrea National School, located along the road, from which the current school relocated and was renamed in 1961.
If an article is justified it should be under the title Moneyrea National School and concentrate on the buildings architectural merit. Whether the old school buildings are notable enough for a Wikipedia article is debatable as both sources highlighted by Necrothesp state in the evaluation and comment sections that the buildings are not listed architecturally or historically, but do have local interest.
I haven't found anything further to suggest the notability requirements are satisfied. Therefore, unless additional sources are put forward to support notability, my interpretation is that neither WP:N, WP:ORG nor WP:GEOFEAT is satisfied for a separate article and both the current school and the historic buildings can be adequately covered in the Moneyrea village article as suggested in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Rupples (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Completely fails GNG, ORG. Sources are primary and BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The keep vote is nonsense, if something which might have been located in the same spot is possibly notable write that article, notability is not inherited from buildings that used to be in about the same spot.  // Timothy :: talk  07:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is not "nonsense". It's the same school. It has just moved up the road and changed its name slightly. The two historic buildings are still there. The history of the school is noted in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Nonsense. Orgs are not notable because of locations they formerly occupied.  // Timothy :: talk  13:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      <sigh> I'm afraid you're completely missing the point. It's not an organisation. It's a school that is a direct descendant of the schools that occupied nearby historic buildings. I'm not arguing that the school itself is notable. I'm arguing that the buildings are notable. And it is perfectly normal on Wikipedia to have an article on an institution which includes details of historic buildings occupied by the predecessors of that institution on or near the current site. Even if the current institution is not particularly notable, its buildings may be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge given the fact that the school itself doesn't seem to be notable. Having articles on primary schools in general is uncommon unless they've received exceptional coverage, which this one hasn't. Fails GNG and ORG as explained above. An anonymous username, not my real name 14:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Leir

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Stewart (musician)

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

There is a lack of in-depth coverage in independent, reliable, sources.

  • The book Divine Orchestration: The Story of the Millennial Choirs & Orchestras written by Greg Trimble who says on his website: "I serve on ... the Board of Directors for The Millennial Choirs & Orchestras"; so it's a book from within the organization that Stewart is a co-founder of, about the organization, making this a non-independent source.
  • Another source, that is the most used, is the Millennial Choirs & Orchestras website.
  • There's some mention of Stewart's name in a single local (sub-regional) newspaper article.

I was unable to find anything else. This means that the subject fails the relevant notability guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST (and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON to the extent that it would apply to a non-profit). —Alalch E. 23:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. There is an independent interview with Brandon Stewart from the Daily Herald newspaper in Provo, UT, that is being released in about a week. CEvansMCO (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Trimble was not appointed to MCO's board of directors until many months after his book was published, so he was an independent source at the time the book was written.
Additionally, this article seems to fall in line with other composer/conductors, such as John Rutter and Mack Wilberg. If approved, I am happy to add compositions and arrangements to the article. CEvansMCO (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to work on the article while this discussion is ongoing. Certainly the most relevant improvement during this period would be to add references containing significant coverage from reliable, independent, sources which demonstrate the subject's notability (according to what this term means on Wikipedia: a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article). Greg Trimble's book can not be considered an independent source because he was, relatively recently, significantly involved with MCO, which Brandon Stewart is a co-founder of; this is not sufficiently WP:INDEPENDENT as it still denotes a close affiliation with the subject. Interviews are also not considered sufficiently independent, most of the time. Interviews are often used as sources on Wikipedia but they are not the type of source that an assessment of notability can rest on.—Alalch E. 23:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 4 sources are primary, that leaves 2 sources. The first is a book source, which is not available for viewing so its content cannot be verified or to see even if there is in depth coverage or just a mention. The last citation is just a mention.Pershkoviski (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Comoros at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mhadjou Youssouf

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Kingsman (franchise)#Main cast and characters. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kingsman characters

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

Article has but a single source, and google search doesn't yield any coverage of the characters as a whole. Per WP:LISTN - a list needs to show significant coverage as a whole to establish notability.

Here's some other discussions of lists of characters:

Thanks for reading! SpookyTwenty (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are valid opinions to Merge, Redirect and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Aoidh (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Savyo

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Existing sources are nothing but some passing mentions. Search on google shows up list of some of his works. Thesixserra (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a more thorough consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Between [4] and [5], you just took a minute. This implies that you haven't even gone through the sources properly. 42.108.124.19 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MicroVision, Inc.

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

Company does not and has never met notability guidelines. After a search - including Lexis Nexis - there are not multiple sources to pass the guidelines for notability. Only two reliable sources can be found in the last 10 years (Wall Street Journal and 9to5Mac). These sources do not meet independence and/or significance guidelines. In addition:

  • Article is a recreation of an article deleted after deletion review for promotional tone/advertising, which has not been improved in 13 years.
  • Article was created by a currently banned user from a subreddit dedicated to promoting this company's stock. (See next item. Article was created before ban, so this information is offered for context only).
  • Company is a penny stock and meme stock that is subject to manipulation. A subreddit dedicated to this company frequently requests positive edits, such as these examples: [6] [7]. The subreddit may use meatpuppets to influence edits.
  • Company has reported zero product revenue in approximately two years, zero revenue in six months, low revenue for years, and zero profit in 30 years. Company is less notable than thousands of small parts suppliers around the world.

Here is a source assess table that shows sources are dependent on company's press releases, reviews, trade publications, blogs, and self-published sources. First nine sources from article and Wall Street Journal included as last available reliable source. Notability depends on multiple reliable secondary sources, which this article lacks.


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Yammie2009
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"The New York Times". ~ Old NYT article seemingly relies heavily on company marketing. Yes NYT is a major newspaper. Yes Defunct products discussed in detail. ~ Partial
Trade Journal Article at the Wayback Machine (archived 2017-02-02) No Article written by three MicroVision employees. ~ Optical Society of America is a trade association. Yes ✘ No
"SPIE Article". No Article relies on press release of 10 Nov 2016. ~ Source is a trade publication. ~ Not much detail. ✘ No
"Patent". No Patent from company. ~ A patent is a primary source; not considered a reliable secondary source. No Limited specific coverage. ✘ No
"Pico Film Fest". No Company sponsored public relations event. Yes No Limited coverage of one defunct product. ✘ No
"Review: Sony Projector Review". ~ Accepts sponsored reviews. Yes Source appears reliable. No Limited mention of MicroVision as part supplier. ✘ No
"RoBoHoN". ? May have linked to past Sharp press release. ~ Sharp may not pass as secondary source. No May have mentioned MicroVision as part supplier. ✘ No
"Pioneer HUD". Yes Yes Website is well-known. No MicroVision mentioned only as a part supplier. ✘ No
"Pioneer Cyber Navi". Yes Yes Website is well-established. No No mention of MicroVision. ✘ No
"MicroVision WallStreetBets". Yes Yes Wall Street Journal is highly-regarded. No Limited coverage of MicroVision as one of several "meme stocks". ✘ 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}}.
Yammie2009 (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've followed this zero sales, zero revenue, meme stock for several years. MicroVision is a quasi-company, IMO. 71.9.233.226 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I'd like to know why this article was taken down in its entirety. The reasoning provided above is very opiniated and incomplete.
For instance, you state that the company has no notability. This is directly contradicted by previous Source Assessments made by Yammie2009, which detail multiple reputable sources mentioning the company in various respects. The most offensive one of which is the article created by "Pioneer HUD" mentioning Microvision as being a part provider. The source was checked out as reliable, with news of Microvision providing parts. But the resolution to this source is marked as an unreliable source, stating that Microvision only supplies them parts... Which is what the company does: engineer hardware for various vendors.
Other Source Assessments don't make sense given the rest of the landscape within which Microvision operates. For instance, its stated that Microvision has not posted product revenue, which is not true given their last earnings call. Interesting to note that Luminar Technologies has their page up despite have -$450 million dollar revenues for 2023 so far. Another complaint is that the company is often listed under meme stocks, which makes zero sense given that other meme stocks, like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Healthcare, are allowed to have an article discussing their products just fine. The last complaint being that Microvision is a penny stock, which is interesting, seeing as the company's stock has been trading in the $2-$3 range for the entirety of this year. Objectively not a penny stock in that case.
The final complaint being that "meatpuppets" influence edits to the Wikipedia page. This is both insulting to new users of the Wikipedia platform, and flies in the face of what the website is supposed to be about: a neutral website where internet users can post and edit pages after review from other internet users.
Given these contradictions, I'd like to request that the Microvision page be restored. Any edits that need to be made can be done, but removing the page in its entirety is ridiculous given the flimsy reasoning. Frymando (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witches reel

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

Uncited since creation in 2014, I can find no evidence of the claimed traditional dance called the Witches Reel in reliable sources. There are various cribs for dances called "witches reel" online, but they are not all the same dance and none of them seem to have the reliable source coverage to meet GNG. There's also a supposedly traditional song of the same name, which some sites claim was sung to accompany the dance, but at least one site claims that it is mostly a modern fabrication rather than a genuinely traditional song.

In summary:

  • I do not believe that the traditional ceilidh dance (the supposed subject of this article) is real
  • I cannot find any evidence that any of the real dances or songs under this name are notable

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think it probably isn't notable, however I don't think it is true that the concept was very recently invented. I see references to the four 'traditional' verses of the song in books from the early 1970s. I wouldn't be surprised if there are not RS which confirm that this is a thing from further back, the problem may be finding them. JMWt (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further - fwiw, Burns wrote about a witches reel in 1790 in a poem called Tam o' Shanter (full poem text here). Not sure if this changes anything or not.. but it is interesting.. JMWt (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This journal article (which I accessed via the WP Library function) gives some more detail. It says that Reels were associated with witchcraft in the 16 century after some (perhaps scurrilous) reporting of the North Berwick witch trial where the accused was said to have used the dance.
I apologise for perhaps going a bit OTT on this topic, but I would like to suggest now that there are sufficient RS to indicate that the 'Witches Reel' is an encyclopedic topic. An improved page could include pointing to the academic study of the link between witchcraft and reels, Burns and the four verses of the song - noting that it might be unclear how old the latter are. That's not exactly how the wording on the page is at present, but I'm now going to argue the topic is notable and therefore worth keeping. JMWt (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it probably isn't notable, however I don't think it is true that the concept was very recently invented: I'm not suggesting the connection between witches and dancing is a recent invention – there certainly are references going back to the North Berwick witch trials. What I doubt is that there is a "traditional Ceilidh dance from Scotland" called the Witches Reel; I can find texts for at least three Witches Reels online and no evidence that any of those dances are traditional.
Possibly the concept of witches' dances is notable and an article could be written, but if so (a) I am unconvinced that "Witches reel" is the best location for it (Witches' dance maybe?) and (b) that's not what the current article is about, so we still need to decide whether the current topic is notable. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current page is one line long. If I went and added the references that I've found and edited the copy to reflect that, are you still going to argue it isn't notable? JMWt (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tam O Shanter refers to "Warlocks and witches in a dance...hornpipes, jigs, strathspeys" as well as "reels", otherwise that "They reel'd". There is no other mention and no reference to the term "witches reel". Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is at the moment. I don't see why it has to be exclusively about the Ceilidh or why we can't consider other aspects with regard to notability. JMWt (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re-scope? Merge? Something else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Evans

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Search throws up nothing and as nom correctly points out, ambassadors are not inherently notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because many ambassador articles were deleted in the past means they were valid deletions. I have seen articles saved from deletion where the content amounts to little more than 19 year old Michel Henderson plays goalie for the Strikers FC. AND Henderson is considered notable yet a former ambassador with 30+ years of diplomacy is not. As far as I am concerned, some people have their priorities upside down.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMensa (talk • contribs)
Ya got to give sources, doesn't matter what the subject is. She is notable, but we need sources that can be used for wikipedia's notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Venture Capital

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

Restored PROD. Reason for PROD was "WP:NCORP and COI issues (unresponsive SPA author)" UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a notable venture capital firm. The article puffs up their investments; it lead a $200 million funding round for Tradeshift alongside IDC Ventures and LUN Partners means that it didn't lead the round (which is clearer in the TechCrunch ref). Also, the references are press releases or otherwise about the companies they invested in (rather than about Fuel VC). Walt Yoder (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/NCORP criteria applies. None of the references meet the criteria as they're mostly regurgitated PR and company announcements with the remainder not about this company but some of their investments. HighKing++ 14:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mujhe Pyar Hua Tha

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

Nothing has changed since the AfD w/r/t sourcing and this was moved back after an AfC decline. If this closes again as draftify, suggest SALT to enforce AfC. Star Mississippi 15:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Aoidh (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Crewe

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

Afaict, fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. They exist, and had a little media coverage for a witty thing they did, but WP:TOOSOON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have been here for 1 day, trying to learn how this website works. Trying really hard to learn and it feels like it is a closed club where any error and we are chucked off. All we ask for is a bit of help. We have managed to obtain 1300 members from across the globe, signed a high level manager etc, this seems easy compared to just trying to get a wikipedia page. I have asked so many times for help. CreweNufan (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:N, for a start. That the club exists is not enough. If you can't provide the sources demanded at WP:N, there will be no WP-article. www.nufan.co.uk doesn't help, or other WP:ABOUTSELF sources. YES, it's quite difficult to make a WP-article without any previous WP-experience, and sometimes impossible because WP:N. So it is better to get some WP-experience first, then maybe try to make an article.
Wikipedia is not interested in what the club wants to say about itself, that is what their websites and social media are for. WP wants to now what, say, The Guardian says about it.
This discussion will be open for several days (probably at least a week or so), and consensus will be what it will be. What can save the article are good, independent WP:RS. If there are no more to be found atm, no article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CreweNufan - I've had a lot of articles deleted here, so I've had my share of issues with the website as well. I don't agree with many of the rules and there's a lot of rules here that I'd like to see change. Basically to have an article here, the subject has to have a couple of independent sources where they are the main topic to prove notability.The football section also has some other guidelines that can help determine notability - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability, which unfortunately, Crewe doesn't meet right now due to not being in the FA Cup for example. The Ronaldo thing was kind of clever, but there's also another rule that prevents articles where the subject is only famous for one thing (and the Ronaldo thing would be that) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event. Additionally, the website also has rules against self-promotion, which you have to be careful of in this situation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. I'm sure you don't mean any harm by it, but this situation happens multiple times a day here with people using the site as a way to advertise themselves or do other things. The website really does have a lot of rules these days and the bar for entry is much higher than it used to be. That may eventually change and it may not. Crewe is probably not going to meet the notability guidelines at the moment, thought if you guys get can get some regular coverage by various newspapers, websites and so forth or happen to win like the FA Cup, you could probably get on here. You can feel free to ask me anything you'd like, and I'll be happy to assist you if I can.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:BIO1E applies to people, not organizations. However WP:SUSTAINED applies, so a brief bursts of news coverage, such as after the Ronaldo bid, is not enough to demonstrate notability. Also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability is an essay (basically an advice) and not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and as such has no bearing on football related notability. In this case, WP:ORG is the ruling guideline but it has pretty much the same critera as GNG, that the organization is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A really good rule of thumb is to have WP:THREE significant sources in any articles you create. Alvaldi (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping you? Sorry are you who decides what is put online? Why not give people a chance to actually grow something. There are multiple sources on there. We were on a national TV channel today for a live interview but if it isn't a link, it didn't happen. What do we do there? CreweNufan (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    CreweNufan - I believe you could cite that interview. I don't know if people will challenge it, but it would be worth a shot.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a non league club. Are you expecting hundreds of column inches? It isn't a professional club. It is a club trying to grow and everyone on this community seems determined to undermine anyone progressing. Do you want the link for the interview on Sky Sports?! What about the hundreds of non league teams in the UK? Are they not allowed a wiki page? The negativity on this website is something I have never ever seen. CreweNufan (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CreweNufan Wikipedia is a place for articles about subjects who have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject over a sufficiently significant period of time. It sounds like the club has yet to gain that kind of notability. Note that Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion, so you can't start a Wikipedia article about a non-notable club in an attempt to make it notable. Also note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so unless those non-league teams you mentioned have received significant coverage to pass WP:GNG then they neither have a place on Wikipedia. I highly recommend that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not to gain a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Alvaldi (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will happily send you links to a podcast hosted on Apple with thousands of listeners and an interview with Sky Sports. We were even on German TV! Plus all the newspaper links. What more does everyone need? 217.38.78.254 (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject over a sufficiently significant period of time. Interviews, such as the one on The Price of Football are not independent of the club as the information in them about the club comes from an individual (the one being interviewed) who is affiliated with the club. Alvaldi (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s all a complete hypocrisy. If that is the case then a lot of clubs and articles need deleting then. I will start marking these then shall we? How do people get information? They ask it from the club or the person about the article. There are thousands of articles where an interview with a celebrity is quoted. That’s from a person saying it. It is clear there is an agenda here and we are never going to win. We will continue to grow and flourish. Unlike a lot of the people with the agenda. If you can’t win, don’t let anyone else progress seems to be a mantra. Very sad to see. 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are more than welcome to nominate for deletion articles of subjects, sport clubs or others, that fail their relevant inclusion criteria. Here is the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion that can aid you in that quest.
    The only agenda here is to make sure that articles follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.
    Honestly, I hope your club does well and one day will be notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Alvaldi (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I will be doing that, I think personally all parties deserve the right to have their information on the site. I have more things in life to show passion for rather than taking people down. I prefer to support people. Whilst I appreciate your positive words, and thank you for them, I personally don't think I will be bringing the club back to here unless someone else wants to write it. I have never met a community like this in my whole life. You only have to read the entry for Wikipedian on here to know what we all know. Unfortunately stopping others in making progression in life will not push you on in yours. We will continue and unfortunately just because we aren't able to reference us being on the number 1 sports news channel, doesn't mean it didn't happen. CreweNufan (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and comments above seem to indicate this is more about self-promotion that encyclopedic value. This club is currently well below the level we should be covering. Nigej (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please send me the citation reference for a Sky Sports interview and I will gladly put it up. We have at least 3 sources for reference. 2A02:C7F:5865:8C00:4465:1C8A:3EB8:89CB (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, doesn’t all information get put on could have self promotion element. In the nature of publishing information? There hasn’t been any sales type language used. What has been put has been all facts. Like we were on sky sports, pro sieben did send a film crew, we are top of the league. All facts but these were deleted. So we can’t win. Evidence can be provided but everyone seems to only want clubs of a certain size. Please advise. 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My advice is as above: the article ought to be deleted. Coverage about a gimmicky bid for Ronaldo or an interview or on a fan website are not the sort of significant coverage we're looking for here. Nigej (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case why are there pages for every other club other than football league? Can you answer that? I think there is no chance of us making any headway. Why don’t people just leave it as it is and we grow. The power has got to all of your heads unfortunately. Shame really. People just trying to get on life and progress a club. 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a club without a significant coverage has an article on Wikipedia, then that article should be deleted. Alvaldi (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is live on sky sports news not deemed as decent coverage? It’s the premier sports news channel in the UK. What more do you want? 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you please explain why a link to a podcast is now being deleted? You are asking for links and sources. We provide them and Seasider is deleting. Who are they to decide that it just isn’t notable enough in their view. Shall we all sit around and pass judgement on everyone who’s an administrator? Please help and explain. 217.38.78.254 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer the exact question. but we're looking for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The words "significant", "reliable sources" and "independent" are important. Weekly coverage in a quality national newspaper over an extended period would probably count. Stuff like podcasts is not really what we're about. Nigej (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can every item on here have to have weekly column inches? There’s not enough writers and papers to do that. How will that be plausible? It is a starting club. Just getting coverage is significant. It is the notion of we’re that you’re on here passing judgement about what is significant in the world. Is there even a point in us trying? 217.38.78.254 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to make your club notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia were anyone can write an article about your club after it becomes notable. Alvaldi (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be like anything. It grows with us and grows as we do. We aren’t looking to use it. We use social media and football related info for that. This is a place which we can add to and grow as we grow. We aren’t looking to use it grow. Who does that? We are using it a record of our story. Simple as that. 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a web host, see WP:NOTWEBHOST. Nigej (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of this "Articles for deletion" process is for people to pass judgement, based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The WP:notabilty of the article has been challenged and there is now a debate. After a week or so, someone will review the points made in the discussion and decide whether it should be kept or not, again based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's the process. Nigej (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear what is going to happen based on the negativity above. No one is looking at anything positive about the community and the efforts being made. Very poor and sad to see. But it is what it is. We will continue to grow 217.38.78.254 (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Court cases are rarely won by the person who moans the most. Generally they are won (or at least they ought to be) based on points of law. Nigej (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is moaning if it’s a fair offer to make progress. Unfortunately all evidence is not allowed. We have multiple evidences such as tv interviews, German tv crews flying to us, podcasts etc, but unless this is written by the guardian then unfortunately for you guys on here, it never happened. I put a record being an 11-0 win, the opponent and a date and a reference with a link to the FA website showing this clearly happened and this was still deleted. How can we win? We can’t. I doubt I will an answer to this. It will be some link. Please advise. 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that you are correct and that there's nothing positive about Wikipedia or any of the people who has it as a hobby. However, it's also possible that you are seen as someone who entered McDonalds, ordered pizza, and then got pissed off when people told you they didn't serve it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I assumed that this was a site whereby we could establish a base knowledge. Use the information that has happened, and then grow it as we grow. Had we made a claim that we were hosting the World Cup then yeah fair enough it’s clear it’s BS. But I have been putting in actual things that have happened and it’s a case of unless it fits the agenda and very specific thing you guys want it can’t happen. I was assigned you as a tutor but help hasn’t been forthcoming. It’s a very closed and non welcoming community IMO which I would be appalled at if we had this in our community. I was shocked. I would have thought that you would be keen to grow the site with knowledge and information and would guide new members through the process to help everyone grow in tandem. But this reception is something I have been shocked at if I’m honest 2A00:23EE:12C8:E933:7DE2:4792:8A10:4EF1 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just ask, what is the issue of leaving the page as it is with the links we have and grow it as we grow? Can someone please explain it, the information is there as per what has been deemed fine by the oracle that is Seasider? CreweNufan (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I understand where the deletionists are coming from, there does seem to be an issue regarding the substance of notability. There is some degree there, but the club age is against it. Sources are built over time and it seems to me it needs more than what is on offer. I'd have to say, it does look like a possible article to send to draft space if it can be built up better. Govvy (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, which isn't surprising given how comparatively new this club is. In a couple of years time, if there is more sustained coverage, then maybe the club could have an article then and only then. The fact that every comment on this debate is being harassed by two people with a clear WP:COI also makes it seems like the intent of this article is promotion of the club, which is not the purpose of this encyclopedia. I do not require any negative responses from the COI editors to this comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I dont think harassed is a fair word but apologies if this is how you feel it was received. I personally felt I was backed into a corner with absolutely no positivity coming forward and felt we were fighting a losing battle. I think I will just get this page deleted. It is clear that there is no win. On the COI bit, who better to write the article is the people in there. Didn't realise it had to be a 3rd party. I wouldn't have thought writing an article on us would be of interest to a 3rd party. Promotion is done through all other mediums and this is a place I felt was a timeline of knowledge to centralise this. I won't personally be writing another article on here. Thank you all. CreweNufan (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am all for greater coverage of non-league football on Wikipedia, but this team plays at too low a step in the league system and has not received the amount of independent, significant coverage that I would consider necessary to pass WP:GNG. Even their league doesn't have an article. There is some uniqueness here due to the fan-owned online model, but even this is a rehash of something that has already been done (MyFootballClub). This is WP:TOOSOON and the WP:BLUDGEON being wielded by the COI editor is not going to change this. Flip Format (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no decent coverage outside of the one publicity stunt Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seal of Dartmouth College

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

Although this is a GA, I can't find anything that makes this article notable. Essentially all the sources in the article are primary sources and I can't find any other source else that covers the seal in depth. Though I could be wrong. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Echo (Leona Lewis album). Aoidh (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Hands

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

Although the article is a GA but I can't find anything that determines the song's notability. The sources don't provide much (nor are accessible) and I can't find any other sources. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just because a source is locked doesn't mean its not reliable or not present. Go to a Library and you can check print copies of periodicals. I'm sure that a search of the wayback machine and webcite archive could easily recover some of the dead sites. Furthermore, charting is indicative of notability per WP:NMUSIC. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lil-unique1: Charting isn't guaranteed notability as per that same article WP:NSONG "(Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" Especially since it only got spot 145 at its peak. Plus, we still need to look WP:SIGCOV as even the sources in the article are reviews about the album Echo and not about the song specifically (even the more unaccessible sources I checked on the wayback machine). Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onegreatjoke I never said it was guaranteed notability, just indicative. Now your rationale has changed I can see why you might consider it mergeable to to the album instead of outright deletion - it is a viable search term given it was used in a notable video game. It is very lazy to say that it's not sourced just because something is behind a paywall. Why did you not start a merge discussion as there is a suitable target page, the parent album: Echo (Leona Lewis album)? AFD is not the forum for merging content. What's done is done now, lets's see if we can restore the dead sources and see if any more information is available as well as the outcome of the discussion. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Echo (Leona Lewis album): reliable coverage on page is all album reviews which only briefly mention the song as part of the larger release, and I found no additional reliable coverage that is specifically about this song. There's really not much worth merging here; most information is either unreliable or already present at the album article. The handful of review quotes could be moved over, but that article is already massive and doesn't need more overstuffing so I'd recommend against it. Charting is of little significance, especially compared to the album's two singles. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Echo (Leona Lewis album). I tried looking for further sources, and I could not find that much. This Billboard article has a section about it in a larger list on video game songs, but most of the sources I could find are very superficial, like MTV and Digital Spy. I could not find evidence of significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources outside of album reviews, which is rather surprising given the Final Fantasy connection. That being said, I still think this is a viable search term, and I believe a redirect is more beneficial to readers than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy (Judge Dredd storyline)

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

Though this article is a GA, i'm not convinced that this article is notable. I can't find any sources proving the article's notability while the article's sources themselves are either unreliable/questionable sources or just the comics themselves. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 21:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abbeydale miniature railway

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

Faiils GNG and NPLACE. A minature railroad is not notable enoguh for its own article, if the shellfield district model article ever gets created, merge it there. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Aoidh (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nabongo

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

Many editors speculate that this article is a promotional stunt. Nabongo reportedly doesn't hold the title of "first black woman to travel the world" and therefore the article does not meet the notability guidelines. K.Nevelsteen (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • support per nom. Also such a term is subjective and until more is written about this person they fail basic notability guidelines.
LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly tried to alter the text, but all my edits are being reverted by Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Destructive_editing_by_User:Universalsunset. So, if reporting on Nabongo is wanted from the perspective of a writer, then a good start would be dealing with that situation. --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources disputing her claim, that probably increases her notability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find Nabongo's travel really relevant and inspiring. She is a frequent contributor to Conde Nast Traveler's Women Who Travel podcast and serves as a role model to many female solo travelers, especially those of minority identities. I am of the belief that those who believe her travels are insignificant probably do not recognize the fears and/or worries associated with traveling as a young woman and even further, as a young black woman (intersectionality, go look up that Wikipedia page!!). There are so many niche pages on Wikipedia that I personally may not recognize why they exist but am not asking for their removal, so feel free to keep that in mind when considering to remove this page. 2600:8805:3E31:9D00:8096:D3C9:14F0:8070 (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable points with respect to Nabongo that I am aware of:

  • Formerly employed by the UN
  • Entrepreneur: travel agency called Jet Black (now defunct), and "The Catch" (see Merchandising)
  • Author: "The Catch Me If You Can: One Woman's Journey to Every Country in the World"
  • Public Speaking: spoke against climate change (forgot which convention off the top of my head), TEDx, ...
  • Merchandising: "The Catch" https://thisisthecatch.com
  • Blogger: Instagram and YouTube

However, I can't add any of this to the article, because of: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Destructive_editing_by_User:Universalsunset. That all being said. A reason why many editors might find this to be a publicity stunt is because of the massive wave of media attention (perhaps pushed by NGS), perhaps crushing the facts. In the words of Spotts herself, “I don’t want the spotlight. Jessica is a very visible face of black female travel. That’s fine. I don’t want to be that.”[9]. --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional - After lots online searching and thought. My personal conclusion is that _if_ this article on Nabongo is kept, then the article on Spotts (which is quite substantial for a stub) should be recreate/reinstated. Media coverage on Spotts is available (although the credibility of some sources might able to be brought into question; idem for Nabongo). I can't find it, but there is supposed to be a movie about Spotts and she is also an author on Amazon. The wording on both articles will have to be well chosen so as to remain neutral. Otherwise, delete Nabongo on the same grounds that Spotts was deleted. --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on Woni Spotts resulted in death threats. She would probably not want that again. Universalsunset (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Woni Spotts said in an interview that a Ugandan woman is not a true representation of Black American travel because her experiences are that of Africans. Black Americans are welcomed as tourists. Africans are treated as asylum seekers. According to her book, Nabongo had bad experiences in nearly every county, Spotts did not. That's why she can't represent Black American women. She should rebrand as an African traveler. Universalsunset (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Many editors speculate..." — these are WP:weasel words and the nominator's speculation about the truth of the claims in an article is essentially WP:original research. Notability isn't about being first (or not); it's about significant coverage in reliable sources. The nominator has not presented a valid deletion rationale, so the page should be kept by default. pburka (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the whole point of this discussion was to verify if "many editors speculate". I wasn't requesting a delete, I was requesting a discussion on whether to delete, hence why I also have a section here with my own conclusions.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Aoidh (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Derr

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

WP:NN aurthor of self-published books Plutonium27 (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typoed signature so re-pinging Plutonium27. Skynxnex (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Bùi Quang Huy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bui Quoc Huy

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

Article is about a non-notable musician. Any reliable source (non-self-published, non-wiki) provided in the article is about a different artist. ... discospinster talk 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The delete !votes are not only SNOW but compelling arguments. Whether or not this could ever be encyclopedic, I will create a copy at User:Jaredscribe/Tesla Master Plan per the creator's request. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla master plan

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

I can't see how a corporate business plan fits into an encyclopedia (WP:SOAP or WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Sure, lots of RS but such business publications continuously report on business plans of all major corporations, just nothing but routine reporting for investors (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE). P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article, such as it is (which doesn't amount to much) seems to be built entirely around the premise that a 'business plan' can have notability independent of the business that created it. Any evidence supporting such a radical proposal is entirely lacking however, along with independent sourcing for anything of consequence. The article appears to have been created as a POV-fork of Tesla, Inc., which discusses the Tesla company's business strategy etc in the proper context, citing analysis from independent sources, rather than treating it as some sort of philosophical abstraction or message from the gods. Accordingly, while I could possibly concede that Wikipedia might at some point in time construct a legitimate article about a 'business plan', if the plan itself (rather than the entity creating it) were the subject of significant in-depth critical analysis, this regurgitation of self-promotional hyperbolae in no shape or form resembles such content, or even hints that there is even the slightest prospect that it might do so in the future. If there was anything in it which merited merging to the article it is an unambiguous fork of, that possibly deserve consideration, but I can't for the life of me see any. Delete it as the vacuous primary-sourced fluff it clearly is. If people want to read Tesla's self-promotional material, we provide a link in the company article infobox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per AndyTheGrump's excellent arguments. QRep2020 (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As of today, over a dozen independent sources have now been given for the 'radical proposal', and for much that is of consequence. See my reply to my own post below.
    Objection to the vote for deletion The original nominator failed to do what is required according to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion § Considerations, and you also, the primary cheerleader for deletion, have failed to do it. I will quote our policy here:
    First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. See WP:Before.
    The closing admin should ignore this users vote, and all the others who echo him. His ignorance is his own fault, not my fault for having failed to provide the citations in a more timely manner. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite sure that the closer will be capable of deciding for themselves what should or shouldn't be ignored, taking into account all relevant Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or redirect to Tesla, Inc.) Sure, it is easily sourced, but I am not seeing support for independent notability that would get it past the Wikipedia:SOAPBOX and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not issues here, and notability isn’t inherited simply because it’s about notable Tesla. It’s not unique information compared with Tesla, Inc., just unique formatting. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed the discussion of Fordism and The Toyota Way below, but it didn’t change my view that this is a delete. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the key reason, but even if we consider those two articles, they’re not supporting precedent for the nominated article. Both Fordism and The Toyota Way are far broader topics than the nominated article, encompassing a set of management principles and philosophy, while the article nominated here is a product roadmap. Both topics are also relevant to other topics, Fordism is key to various topics surrounding consumerism, and The Toyota Way is relevant in part to topics like lean manufacturing. A product roadmap is a weak comparison, and even if Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS didn’t…pardon the inadvertent pun, exist…wouldn’t support this article to change my view,
    Plus…Both Fordism and The Toyota Way (despite that article’s flaws) as TOPICS, not articles, have been the topics of books and/or numerous scholarly articles discussing business, economics, industrial, and historical topics, while (with few exceptions) most sources pertaining to the nominated topic are not in-depth, are routine coverage, are promotional in nature, are speculative, or otherwise fail to support this product roadmap as a separate notable topic.
    If the article was about a detailed, overarching management philosophy and was supported by numerous in-depth sources, the situation might be different, but in my view that support simply isn’t there at this time. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for considering the issue, and I agree with your analysis. Being somewhat new to AfDs, I wasn't aware of arguments to avoid - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The comparison with these, I hope will prove that the article is neither PROMO or SOAPBOXing. It doesn't prove independent notability, though, as you mention.
    Please consider my reply below, and the many more independent sources I've recently added, to establish notability. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed the sources you’ve added. You did a good job of finding sources, but the only article that really hints at anything of an overarching worldview is the NPR article, but it’s more of Elon Musk’s worldview, and would belong in his article or the Tesla article. The material I’m seeing is largely speculative and doesn’t get into DETAIL about how this is a philosophy of management or a plan that goes beyond their basic business roadmap. Tesla the company is doing notable, revolutionary things, but that notability is not inherited by their business roadmap. I would need something more to support this topic having its own article, and at this time the support for that independent notability just isn’t out there, it’s not a matter of you not adding it, it’s a matter of it simply not being out there. The roadmap may someday be notable, if books and scholarly articles end up being written about it in depth as a management philosophy, but as of right now this isn’t material that has *independent* notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fordism has also been studied in business journals for decades now, this Tesla "thing" isn't at that level yet. Perhaps can revisit in a few years if this is proven to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP for all the reasons stated here:
Talk:Tesla master plan § Broad social, cultural, scientific, and technological interest
However, if editors on Tesla, Inc. will permit me to rewrite that article to remove its bias toward presentism, consumerism, and product marketing, I may concede to have it deleted. Perhaps I can merge this content in, which is related toward larger issues of widespread social and environmentalist concern. In short, the article I propose here would more or less ignore the "business" and consumer marketing to focus more on industrial design and materials science, and environmental ethics. By comparison, we have articles on Fordism and and The_Toyota_Way, apart from that on the Ford motor company or Toyota motors.
Although we as editors not permitted to soapbox, the subject of the article is. If Tesla Inc. and Mr. Musk are engaging in ADVOCACY, it is the duty of the encyclopedia to report that and adequately cover it. We should not suppress that advocacy under a mainstream bias toward consumer capitalist business-as-usual. This environmentalist advocacy is what makes Tesla Inc. qualitatively different from other automakers, in addition to quickly having become the world's most valuable one. These are two highly NOTABLE facts, that others appear to be deliberately ignoring.
See discussion here: Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Business_Strategy_=>_Sustainable_energy_economy
I'm the one who wrote the article. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comparisons with Fordism and 'The Toyota Way' are, needless to say, absurd. And would remain so even if WP:OTHERSTUFF wasn't a core subtopic of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Fordism, as a term, encompasses a whole lot more than a 'business plan' for a specific company - it is (or was) central to a Marxist critique (began by Antonio Gramsci) of production-line-based manufacture that simultaniously specialised and deskilled the workforce to an extent previously unencountered. As can be readily ascertained from our article, there are a great many academic sources discussing the topic in detail, noting the influence Fordism had on Stalin, and placing it within broader discourse over 'consumerism', manufacturing technology and the social effects of globalised production methods.
As for Toyota, I will merely note that a recent AfD discussion closed as 'no consensus', and I'd suggest that if that topic is indeed independently Wikipedia-'notable', the article as it stands does a desperately poor job of explaining why in any coherent manner. The article is a mess, with uncritical regurgitation of Toyota 'principles' followed by a token 'results' section that fails to actually elucidate to any meaningful extent on what independent sources have to say about the consequences of the 'principles', either to Toyota or to the broader manufacturing world. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, I would like to suggest that Jaredscribe's hand-waving at talk-page discussions elsewhere is contrary to the process laid out in WP:DISCUSSAFD. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a closer to read though material elsewhere in the hope of figuring out exactly what the 'reasons stated' are. Policy-based arguments for a 'keep' are generally simple to make (e.g. through demonstrating that sufficient third-party sources exist etc), and should be stated directly in the AfD discussion, where they can be assessed by all, and responded to if appropriate. If Jaredscribe wants his arguments for keeping the article to be taken into consideration, he should state them explicitly here. And if he isn't prepared to do that, the closer will, in my opinion, be entirely justified in simply ignoring them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This section Tesla, Inc. § Business strategy which references the Tesla master plan, is inadequate for several reasons.
Biased toward a consumerist perspective, it gives WP:UNDUE weight to marketing and WP:PROMO, while ignoring the broader social, cultural, scientific, and technological issues, which were explictly stated by Mr. Musk the the opening sentence of his master business plan, 2006 "part one", to wit:
The overarching purpose of Tesla Motors (and the reason I am funding the company) is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy, which I believe to be the primary, but not exclusive, sustainable solution.
For my attempts to include this in the alleged POV-fork article, I have been perversely accused of "promotional marketing bullsh--t" by some WP:Illustrious Looshpah "master editors", who I dare say are ignoramuses.
Jaredscribe (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like your promotional marketing bullshit being described as promotional marketing bullshit I suggest you stop posting promotional marketing bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And incidentally, It needs to be noted that JaredScribe made absolutely no effort to remedy any supposed deficiencies in the Tesla Inc. article prior to creating this fork. Not a single post on the talk page making raising any issues. No effort whatsoever. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was new to editing this entire subject-matter area.
But now I've made substantial post on the talk page making and raising the issue.
Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Business_Strategy_=>_Sustainable_energy_economy
Instead of responding, he and @QRep2020 have decided to edit-war, reverting my contribution there, with dishonest and demonstrably untrue arguments given in their edit summaries. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added over a dozen citations to establish independent notability of this topic, from Reuters, Wired magazine, New York Times, Ars Technica, Techcrunch, Washington Post, Austin Statesman, and others. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it appears that the consensus will be to delete,
I ask the closing admin to DRAFTIFY the article, or move it to my userspace so I can continue to research it.
I am an amateur engineer, an environmentalist, a futurist, and I find this topic intellectually interesting even if no one else does, and even if no one else is able to conceive of anything except its tangential value to the marketing department. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Drafts, I'd like to make my objection to draftification clear - we don't need drafts of POV-forks, and the appropriate place for content regarding Tesla's plans is in the main Tesla Inc article. There is clearly no prospect of this draft ever becoming an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote the lede paragraph today. Its not merely a business plan in the ordinary consumer capitalist sense:
The Tesla master plan is the mission statement of American electric vehicle and clean energy company Tesla Inc. to "accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy."[1][2][3] For a $10 trillion investment, Musk claims the entire world can move wholesale to a renewable energy grid to power electric cars, planes, and ships.[4] It presents the business model of Tesla, Inc. as part of a strategic plan for a fossil-fuel phase-out leading to a renewable energy transition, in order to prevent civilizational collapse. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you have added does anything whatsoever to indicate that this is not a POV fork of the Tesla, Inc. article. Sources discussing publicity material from a company are not evidence that the publicity material is somehow an independent topic. That is an utterly absurd proposition, and entirely at odds with even a basic understanding of Wikipedia notability criteria. And I note that you yourself seem to have acknowledged that discussion of Tesla's statements regarding their objectives belong in the main Tesla article, where you offered to "concede" to the deletion of this article provided the main article was modified to suit your perspective (itself a proposal entirely at odds with how Wikipedia works, since an AfD discussion cannot mandate changes to content elsewhere). Given the total absence of any support here for your arguments it seems self-evident that this article is going to be deleted, and I suggest you stop wasting your time on this fools errand and find something more productive to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 5:08, 28 March 2023‎ (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ Desjardins, Jeff. "Here's what the future of Tesla could look like". Business Insider. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  2. ^ Domonske, Camila (1 March 2023). "Tesla has a new master plan. It's not a new car — just big thoughts on planet Earth". NPR.
  3. ^ "What's in Elon Musk's Master Plan 3 for Tesla investors? Here's what we know". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  4. ^ Marshall, Aarian. "The Mystery Vehicle at the Heart of Tesla's New Master Plan". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
The article isn't based on any substantive 'business plan' as such. It merely cherry-picks (and sometimes misrepresents) aspects of three promotional documents, written by Elon Musk, from 2006, 2016, and 2023. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Salvio giuliano 21:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Fakes

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

I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. The best source cited is a local newspaper which I don't think is much use for determining notability. Beyond that, there is just a brief mention in the NYT and the other sources cited are either not reliable or not of use for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Discounting the rationales provided by sockpuppets, consensus seems to be that WP:BLP1E applies here. Aoidh (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hartzler

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

Seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E with all the coverage relating to a court case. SmartSE (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject qualifies for the clause 3 of article (WP:BLP1E). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twineforce (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As it's said above, it passes the clause 3 of (WP:BLP1E), it's a significant event and the individual's role is substantial and it is very well documented. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topboy101 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 21:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Sarkis

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

Profile of obscure businessman, mostly inserted (apparently) as an "About the author" to promote his book (about which we do not have an article) Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

youngest associate in Goldman Sachs history[citation needed], son of OPEC founder and trustee of largest humanitarian organisation in the world combatting hunger - hardly an "obscure businessman". There is actually a link to his book and the article reads a lot more than pure book promotion. 2A00:23EE:15A0:E998:8087:745:118F:B220 (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC) — 2A00:23EE:15A0:E998:8087:745:118F:B220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 2A00:23EE:15A0:E998:8087:745:118F:B220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There is no article in Wikipedia about this book. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Aoidh (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highways in England and Wales

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

This comes off as an essay/original research that would be more appropriate for Wikiversity. There are other articles on highways in England and Wales, see Roads in the United Kingdom. Rschen7754 06:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very odd reference to point to as it arguably shows the opposite; an argument about Right of Way also being a Highway. Anyway, random links aside, the point is that in 2023 under English law, Rights of Way in E&W are regulated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and Highways are regulated under the Highways Act 1980. So it makes zero sense to suggest that someone looking for information about Highways in E&W would find it at a page about RoW in E&W. Because they are different things with different laws. JMWt (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. The relevant part of that link is the paragraph that says A highway (that is to say, a way over which there exists a public right of passage for all Her Majesty’s subjects at all seasons of the year freely to pass and repass without let or hindrance)...; that's what a highway is. Not all Rights of Way are regulated under the CROW 2000, although I think that all public rights of way are. The CROW 2000 does affect highways where it modifies the Highways Act 1980 (at sections 57-59). But I think from what you say that your position is that highways and rights of way are distinct, if related, concepts? If so then our positions are very similar.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, but being a pedant, your para in green proves my point. A highway is a way.. with a public right of passage. Which is a relevant distinction historically when many ways in E&W were not public. That's not the same as a Right of Way. It may sound similar but the words are literally different and refer to different things. JMWt (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Satisfies GNG easily and by a exceptionally wide margin. There are many books, and many periodical articles, that are entirely about highways in England and Wales. There is far too much coverage of highways in England and Wales, and far too much coverage of other rights of way in England and Wales, to merge both topics into a single article. Highways and rights of way are not the same thing. (An easement can be a right of way, but that certainly does not necessarily make it a highway. Some easements are private rights of way: [11] [12] [13][14]. Highways are always public rights of way: [15].). An article on highways is capable of being expanded beyond a definition, because there is a large body of law and literature relating to the consequences of being a highway (eg there is an offence of obstructing highways; a person can have a duty to maintain a highway; etc etc etc). This article does not violate WP:NOT. James500 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't doubt that the topic of highways in England and Wales is a notable one; what I question is whether the question of a legal definition of a highway in those countries is notable enough for its own article, and covered appropriately here (as opposed to some of the law articles linked to) in a way that doesn't violate WP:SYNTH. --Rschen7754 03:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTDICTIONARY says "articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content" (emphasis added). This article does not consist entirely of a definition. Even if it did, it could easily be expanded beyond a definition without violating WP:SYNTH or any other policy or guideline. Either way, this article should be expanded. James500 (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reference to Highways are always public rights of way is a Scottish Government document about the situation in Scotland.
    I don't know about Scotland, but in E&W highways are not always Rights of Way in the sense that the law defines it in E&W. JMWt (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I refocus you, JMWt? What's at issue here is whether this title should be an article, a redirect or a redlink, and you've yet to express a clear view.—S Marshall T/C 11:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is going to be quite hard, and quite dull, to write a meaningful page about this topic to be honest. I'm sure there are lots of books about the highways of E&W just like there are likely books about the towns and villages of England. I think that's way too vague a concept to have a WP page.
    If we are sticking to literal definitions of legal terms, the overlap with Highways Act 1980 would necessarily be large. If we are just going to waffle on vaguely about roads the overlap is going to be almost entirely with Roads in the United Kingdom.
    I don't think there is any real need for this page. I'm not sure it hurts en.wiki for it to exist so I'm not (strongly) !voting delete.
    Redirects are a problem as there is no obvious target. Tbh I highly doubt many would be directly typing Highways in England and Wales so the only question is how the wikilink is being used on existing pages. Others have strongly objected other possibilities and my only strong !vote here is against the motion that the best target is Rights of way in England and Wales for the pedantic reasons I've outlined above. JMWt (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes: it's definitely going to be a slog to write. That's likely why there have been so few edits since I started the article a dozen years ago. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be written, but in the meantime one option is to add pointers to the various Highways Acts that are currently in force, so the article becomes a stub with a disambiguation function.—S Marshall T/C 12:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Paragraph 1.73 of the joint report by the Law Commission (of England and Wales) and the Scottish Law Commission specifically says "In England and Wales". Therefore it is describing the situation in England and Wales, not the situation in Scotland. Highways are always public rights of way in England and Wales. (2) The overlap with the Highways Act 1980 is minimal. There are many other statutes relating to highways. There is a large body of case law relating to highways. [In particular, the concept of a highway already existed under pre-statutory common law and and still exists at common law. If you read volume 55 (Highways, streets and bridges) of the Fifth Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England, you will see that the very first topic it discusses is the (non-statutory) common law of highways, which still exists for purposes not covered by the legislation. Like much legislation, the Highways Act 1980 merely supplements the existing common law and does not abolish or replace it altogether for every purpose.] The article on the Highways Act 1980 cannot cover the pre-1980 history of highways law. Writing about a particular branch of the law is fundamentally different from writing about a particular statute. That is why you will find separate publications about highways law and separate publications about the Highways Act. There are separate publications because those publications fufill different purposes and provide different information in a different format etc. James500 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ok then I'm wrong. Good luck to anyone trying to write a WP page about all of that. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horror icon

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

Despite the common use of this term, there is no clear definition of what it means and the article showcases this. It's a mish-mash of poor unsourced overview of Horror fiction that's a lesser History of horror films and comes off as WP:FANCRUFT to make sure things ranging from Dracula, to Freddy Kruger to Zombies to Stephen King get a highlight. On researching the History of horror films article, I find no real use for this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. LFaraone 00:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Dinco

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

Was sent to draft, but returned without improvement. They get lots of mentions, but nothing in-depth enough from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2023-03 move to → Draft:Dino Dinco
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parity Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International

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

No refs on the page and I can't find anything which would be sufficient for basic verification of the facts on the page JMWt (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JMWt: per WP:NEXIST and the discussion at the 2011 nomination; what justifies a change in consensus? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Previous AfD seemed to focus more on factors other than sourcing. However, the issue here seems to be a lack of available sourcing. The ultimate issue is the organization/group fails Wikipedia:GNG, and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) due to a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Article contains no references and my own search turned up nothing of significance including in Google Scholar and in Wikipedia Library. Plain Google mostly turned up Wikipedia clones and one or two non-RS sites. At the end of the day, if we can’t establish notability, we can’t establish it. Unless somebody turns up some in depth reliable sources I’ve missed, I’m for deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Editors already questioned whether this met GNG in the 2011 deletion discussion, and none of the keep voters seem to have provided any evidence it did. I can't find anything on google scholar. WP:NEXIST is all well and good, but it's been twelve years since the last deletion discussion and in all that time nobody seems to have found any reason to believe that GNG-meeting sources do exist. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not know, but nothing much would be lost if it were deleted - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parity Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International did suggest where scholars could go to research this organisation. If someone wanted they could use the sources mentioned to write an article on this topic based on reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. On a pure nose count, this might be a "no consensus". However, the argument that sources about this individual are extremely thin at best went unrefuted. The arguments, not refuted, of this being a BLP with insufficient source material for an actual biography tip this into "delete". Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Kumar Tongchangya

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

Local politician fails to meet WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC, nothing at all in reliable sources except brief mention of his chairmanship, need in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources, elected chairman of local council wouldn't make him notable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 theprint.in One sentence. (The source is a stub.) Yes No Yes Probably
2 dailynews360.patrika.com 200 words. Yes Yes Yes Probably

Move this article to draft space, and the subject may have significant coverage in the medium future. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per LordVoldemort728 and Goldsztajn. Satisfies WP:NSUBPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to respond to Extraordinary Writ's !vote. There are all sorts of limits to state/provincial powers in federal states, all sorts of means by which federal authorities may intervene in the decision-making of subnational legislatures, that similar patterns exist with the ADCs and their relationships to the state governments is not by iself an indication that the ADCs lack autonomous legislative power (which to my interpreation is the sine qua non determining NPOL notability at the subnational level). That there are ADC powers that the state (as opposed to national government) has no jurisdiction over, is enough to make the ADCs clearly have legislative power, as distinct from local councils which only possess administrative power. I also disagree that this is a floodgates issue; members of an ADC not found to have more than the most basic information available could be redirected to lists of members of the particlar session of the relevant ADC. For example, in this particular case, I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of current members of Chakma Autonomous District Council. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I tend to lean more towards Extraordinary Writ's comments about the notability of ADCs than Goldsztajn. I do agree with Goldsztajn that lists of members of an ADC are very appropriate. However, the core of Wikipedia is an expectation that there are high-quality reliable sources written about living people. I think the case is clear that nearly all federal and state legislators meet this standard, and for those that may not, there is enough visibility of the government to verify service (as well as being able to track how an individual votes on particular issues). If we were to move beyond national and state/provincial officeholders, we would want more confidence that nearly all office holders for a type of government are likely to have coverage that meets WP:GNG. To that end, I think the standard we judge this AFD is WP:GNG as the community has not decided that ADCs fit under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ADCs are national political authorities of sort, chairman clearly notable by default. --Soman (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Extraordinary Writ's analysis. Robert McClenon makes a reasonable case for drafitication, and I could accept that outcome. My concern is that this is BLP and I can't accept presumed notability when the sources are so incredibly spare and constitute routine political coverage. No SIGCOV to be found so far on such a minor functionary and presented sources are quite local. IMHO the case for presumption is not met. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. LFaraone 00:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rishab Jain

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

Though relatively accomplished for a high school student, I believe this article does not pass the notability test for people. Much of the sources do seem self-cited as noted in the talk page, and many IP edits originate from or near Portland, Oregon so it is likely it's written by someone close to this individual. The awards mentioned here are not "well-known and significant" enough to warrant the creation of a page. I believe this article fails WP:GNG guidelines. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I previously supported a Draftify action, I now oppose deletion. I have rehauled this page completely, removing primary sources and adding the subject's recent, note-worthy accomplishments. There was a significant amount of sockpuppetry as well as what appear to be advertisements that were included on this page. Un-notable references to the subject's "Discord" and "YouTube" were non-notable.
I have added more recent, notable achievements. These include a feature by the National Cancer Institute, winning the International Science and Engineering Fair, being named a TIME Magazine 25 Most Influential Teen, and more. The subject meets notability.
As per WP:GNG, notability guidelines are failed for pages that do not have "significant coverage." I would agree if the subject had no media appearance since the page was initially created in 2018. However, it seems since 2021 onwards, the subject has been featured in media quite frequently, by reputed sources like TIME Magazine, Teen Vogue, Insider, Yahoo News, uspto.gov, The Hindu, NPR's Science Friday, PBS, etc. Another common issue is with sources and independent of the subject works. I have removed the primary sources and added more objective secondary sources that establish notability. There were also some press releases that were used as references — again, that tied into what seemed to be an advertising/promotional tone. These have been removed and replaced with reputed sources. CraigSut (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just based on a quick search in the news using the 'find sources' feature above, the subject Rishab Jain seems to have been featured in/by the National Cancer Institute [18], Good News Network [19], The Times [20], PhysicsWorld [21][22], Pancreatic Cancer Action Network [23], Pioneer Press [24], TIME's Most Influential Teens List [25], Deccan Chronicle [26], USPTO [27], Indian Express [28], Business Insider [29], TIME Magazine [30], NPR's Science Friday [31], American Kahani [32], The Oregonian [33], PBS [34], Pamplin Media [35].
These are just some of the first ones that popped up. There seem to be plenty more. Not all of these are solid sources, obviously, and so only the secondary, credible ones should be included in the page. Take a look at PhysicsWorld, TIME Magazine, and the Insider ones above. I think the page could use some work, but the subject is clearly notable. It's a keep. Side-note: It looks like you're also trying to delete Avi Schiffmann, another notable young person. Little bit confused how some of the most famous activists of Gen Z don't quality for notability. Gitanjali Rao (scientist) is even more notable, pretty much included in every media publication possible, having received numerous humanitarian, United Nations, etc. awards. Deleting on the basis of the 3M Young Scientist Challenge makes no sense here or there. CraigSut (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although when searching for his name you may find his YouTube channel regarding Discord content, he has become notable in multiple different occasions (see article). ImperialMajority (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems quite outdated, and there have been numerous primary sources and non-encyclopedic terminology added. It's clearly in need of an overhaul. I believe that the IP edits originated from Portland, Oregon, may not be an issue, however. I myself am from Portland, Oregon, yet have no connection to the subject — rather, I heard about their work from a local congresswoman, and decided to cover some of their news on this page about a year ago. With respect to the awards issue — I believe that Rishab Jain's 'TIME Magazine's 25 Most Influential Teens' is a well-known award. I did a quick check and it seems like almost all of the people on that list meet notability criteria. Furthermore, the 'Regeneron Young Scientist Award' and 'America's Top Young Scientist' award seem quite significant (see Jack Andraka and Gitanjali Rao). As per WP:GNG there seems to be significant coverage. In the past, I have noticed some articles failing WP:GNG due to most sources being primary in nature, as well as dependent on the subject (i.e. advertising, press releases, etc.). I think the page does pass notability, however, needs significant edits to remove the promotional tone, excessive primary sources, and to be quite frank, an 'ugly' page, that does not read cohesively. I recommend Draftify or a significant rewrite from an experienced/the original editor.

I have just taken a look at all the sources on the page, as well as some new sources online. It seems like the subject was recognized by the NIH and/or National Cancer Institute. This meets notability guidelines. Based on this additional info, I am in favor of Draftify and will begin a rewrite myself. If another editor wishes to draft this article, I would recommend them doing so. —CraigSut (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor changed their !vote in a separate comment locate further up the page dated after this one. —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi CraigSut! Thank you for your thoughtful response and efforts to rewrite.
In regards to the IP, one of the edits came from an IP address in Beaverton where the individual is from. I haven't looked too deep into this. You mention that a local congresswoman mentioned this individual's work which prompted your involvement, but there's a lot here that doesn't necessarily merit the creation of a page. For Gitanjali Rao (scientist) (see Talk:Gitanjali Rao (scientist)) and Jack Andraka (less so), the awards in question are not as significant as you might think. They may be relatively significant for younger audiences, perhaps, but the recipients of the 3M Young Scientist award are students in grades 5 through 8. With no disrespect towards their work, the work done by a student at age 14 will most likely not make an impact in the field the world was done in, if at all recognized. I cannot find any mention of "PCDLS Net" in scientific journals or reviews. If we consider the 3M Young Scientist notable, every 11-14 year old who wins could have their own Wikipedia page containing their aspirations of going to some prestigious higher education institution. In regards to the TIME's list, it could be considered somewhat significant on its own, but the notability of the work that warranted the award seems rather weak.
There is also the Coca-Cola Scholars award now listed on the page, which on its own is not notable. In the selection process, much of it is done on an algorithmic basis where you must have some amount of volunteering and some academic threshold. Research Science Institute is a summer program for high school students to conduct research at MIT, this doesn't warrant a page either as countless students go through the program. Much of the research made in that program also does not leave a mark in their respective fields either. There is also a mention of a TEDxGateway event that Rishab spoke at. TEDx speakers can be anyone, so this also not convey any significance or notability.
The recognition by the National Cancer Institute is a quick spotlight mention on one of their news/press releases. This spotlight also again brings up the 3M Young Scientist award. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Qx.est (Suufi)!
Based on the page itself, the individual is from Portland — not the same as Beaverton. Nonetheless, this is not really important as I'm sure numerous individuals in the community/town could have made edits to the page, as I am. I just looked through the edits, and there have been vandalism edits from Portland IPs as well.
You point out the 3M Young Scientist Award work as not being notable, with your main argument being that: then every 11-14 year old "who wins would have their own page." I don't think this is the case. The only past winners from this program who have their page are Rishab Jain, Gitanjali Rao (scientist), and Deepika Kurup. The program has been going on for what seems like 16 years. The very fact that the others did not have pages created indicates that the award by itself is not enough for notability. As such, only the most notable alumni (like Rishab Jain, Gitanjali Rao, and Deepika Kurup) have had Wikipedia pages written about them. Gitanjali Rao (scientist) had the 3M award along with a major recognition as TIME's Kid of the Year. Deepika Kurup had the 3M award alongside being named Forbes 30 Under 30. Rishab Jain has had the 3M award along with a major recognition on the TIME Magazine list, Regeneron Young Scientist Award, featured by the National Cancer Institute, etc.
As Wikipedians, it is a little presumptuous for you to assume that the TIME list is only 'somewhat significant' and the work is not notable. After all, TIME is one of the most reputed news magazines that we could possible include as a source on Wikipedia. There are also news articles about the subject in Teen Vogue, Insider, NPR's Science Friday, The Hindu, Times of India, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and more. There are mentions in Forbes, The Times, PBS, etc. -- however, we must consider that there are actual articles solely written about the subject's work. Your other evidence behind this is that the subject is not making an impact on the field yet. By that logic, pretty much every youth inventor (Gitanjali Rao (scientist), Jack Andraka, Shree Bose, and countless others) would have to have their pages deleted? Further, Jain actually does seem to have some work in review (see [36]) which the other youth inventors do not. Jain seems to have the 3M Award, TIME Magazine Award, some reviews in Nature Scientific Data etc. etc. along with the Regeneron Young Scientist Award in the International Science and Engineering Fair, inclusion in The Times as well as Insider's lists, and further recognition. Even if we exclude all of the older TIME Magazine, Business Insider, Yahoo News, etc. mentions, the subject does still meet notability for the more recent awards. The recent Regeneron Young Scientist Award is very similar in class to the one for Jack Andraka. There is also an induction into the National Museum of Education's National Gallery for America's Young Inventors. Even by News [37] and Scholar [] there are several mentions to the subject (several within the last year).
Furthermore, it is not our ability as Wikipedians, and yourself as a student (as per talk page), to adjudicate whether or not a subject's work/accomplishments are not going to have an impact on science. Unless an editor here on Wikipedia is an established scientist/researcher in the field, and can provide critique, it does not make sense for us to argue on whether or not this subject's work is going to do anything. Instead, the only thing we can do, is look at secondary sources. Jain's work was literally featured by TIME Magazine and the National Cancer Institute. It was also recognized by the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and interviewed by Allison Rosenzweig, PhD, who writes frequently about pancreatic cancer. This is already far more coverage than is needed to establish notability. Although a less reliable source, the challenge has had their own PhD scientists review Jain's work. His other cancer work seems to have been published in Frontiers in Oncology, Nature Scientific Data, and the International Journal of Radiology. He was also invited as a course teacher, where he spoke about his 'PCDLS Net' work at the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology — one of the world's leading conferences in this area. Jain has plenty of backing on his work in the media — we can safely assume the subject achieves notability this way. Some of the above is not included in the page. As such, the page does need to be revised. However, deletion is completely unnecessary. We just need to add more sources and more information, while maintaining a non-biased tone.
The Coca-Cola Scholars and Research Science Institute are clearly listed in the personal life section of the page. I agree with you that these are not notable on their own. I am not claiming that Jain deserves notability for these awards, and you debunking notability for these does not prove anything. These awards are only mentioned in the personal life category for a reason. Many notable figures have went to the Research Science Institute, and so it makes perfect sense to include this in the personal life section as it is clearly a central experience for these scientists.
I remain with an oppose-ing viewpoint on this matter. I would like to mention that I have already spent a significant amount of time rehauling this page and would appreciate others editing it further.
I am happy to edit the page a little more to add more of these details and backing, however, it would be great if you/other editors could suggest/contribute some revisions as well :) CraigSut (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for the response. A quick Google search of the keywords "Rishab Jain" and "Beaverton" yield a result showing that the individual is indeed from Beaverton, Oregon. I do recognize that there are some vandalism edits from these IPs, likely from someone who knows Jain. Some other edits by IPs from the same geographic region are done in good-faith.
The articles you mention are an example of WP:WAX. Anyone can write an article on Wikipedia, but that doesn't necessarily mean the article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. In fact, Gitanjali Rao (scientist) also has the same notice this article had in regards to sources. This isn't marked on Deepika Kurup, but the Personal Life section indicates self-promotion/conflict of interest and bears the same issues as the other articles. Same goes for Jack Andraka (see Talk Page). These three articles can be proposed for deletion under the same points made under these one. These aren't very popular articles (relatively speaking) on Wikipedia, so they've been overlooked for some time. My argument is not to discredit these young inventors. They are accomplished for their age, but they are not notable enough now to have a Wikipedia page focused on their work which isn't considered significant in realm of academia.
The reason I mentioned TIME as "somewhat significant" is because the TIME article that seems to have resulted in Jain's listing refers to his 3M award, not his work. In regards to the work Jain is doing now, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Specifically, "having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." The Museum entry is an interesting one, but the induction into the museum involves submitting an application of your work and being voted on by fellow high school students. The entire museum is dedicated to young students in grades K-12.
The link of the Google search you have provided lists 10 results, 8 of which refer to his 3M award in 2018. My argument is not that his work will not make an impact on science, but that rather, as of right now, has not made an impact in the field. We cannot create articles on the future/potential notability of an individual. The featuring of Jain on National Cancer Institute also references the 2018 3M award. The backing of Jain in media primarily revolves around Jain's awards, not his work which is the issue at hand here.
Going back to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), criteria 2 mentions that

Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1.

<meta />
Jain is currently tagged with Category:American medical researchers and Category:Scientists from Portland, Oregon and based on the above, he does not bear academic notability either so that point cannot be made either.
I do want to thank you for your extensive work on this page. Your work is not unrecognized, and it is appreciated. However, respectfully, I would like to point out that this article has been your only source of contributions on Wikipedia, so I would understand the reluctancy of having your work deleted. Jain does have a lot of potential, but as of right now, I do not believe his accomplishments at this time warrant the creation of a Wikipedia page hence why I am still in favor of delete. If Jain does reach a level of notability in the future, this page can be reintroduced, but as of right now, I don't think what we have here is enough. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've only shown that Jain does not meet Notability for academics and completely dodge the extensive sourcing that I provided, focusing solely on the 3M Award. You're also showing initiative to delete Gitanjali Rao (scientist) who is a very notable figure. I'd like to defer to the community on this to see what people think — if these Gen Z changemakers are indeed notable. CraigSut (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Gen Z subjects in question are actually quote a good argument for inclusionism. I'm keen to see how this plays out. CraigSut (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to respond to the great point you brought up about categories. Jain is definitely not notable for academics, and so feel free to remove the categories of American researcher and scientists, etc.
Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people): he still meets the general Notability criteria for people, and so it's a keep for me.
-----
Context from the notability criteria:
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." — hence the multiple independent sources utilized in the context.
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." CraigSut (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry about that. I did not see the sourcings you provided as these were introduced via edit after I had replied. The multiple "secondary" sources you seem to describe largely consist of quotes from Jain with little to no analysis from the authors. Secondary sources should contain "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" as per WP:SECONDARY. The articles you have sent above seem to mostly lack the synthesis/analysis aspect needed in secondary sources. This seems to largely be the issue with the sources.
It's a bit late for me where I am right now, but here's a quick list of issues I found with having these as sources:
<meta />
  • National Cancer Institute [1], just largely mentioning of facts, no analysis
  • Good News Network [2], no analysis or interpretation by the author, primarily quotes Jain and describes the award.
  • The Times [3], 3 sentence long reference, only 1 of which briefly mentions his work.
  • PhysicsWorld [4][5], podcast interview with Jain (primary) and mostly quotes from Jain
  • Pancreatic Cancer Action Network [6], largely quotes from Jain, no analysis
  • Pioneer Press [7], possibly secondary? but very little content here
  • TIME's Most Influential Teens List [8], not much content here other than a listing for the award and a brief discussion of Jain's work
  • Deccan Chronicle [9], two sentences on Jain, no analysis
  • USPTO [10], could possibly argue secondary, but this seems like a biography about the speaker for the event (which tends to involve input from the individual)
  • Indian Express [11], brief listing of Jain and his work, just lists the facts known about Jain
  • Business Insider [12], a short video documentary of Jain (primary)
  • TIME Magazine [13], mostly quotes and indirect quotes from Jain, no analysis
  • NPR's Science Friday [14], largely a video presentation from Jain, very little content
  • American Kahani [15], mentioning of facts (who Jain is and winning ISEF), no analysis/synthesis
  • The Oregonian [16], largely direct and indirect quotes about Jain, little to no analysis/synthesis
  • PBS [17], listing of Jain largely consisting of direct quotes
  • Pamplin Media [18], largely just mentioning facts about Jain and his work with some quotes from him and his parent
I hope this helps to explain where I am coming from. I do believe it's best for the community to decide on these articles, and I appreciate your thoughtful responses. It is true I am showing initiative to delete some other articles, but this is not because of their status as members of generation Z or their activism. There are articles on Wikipedia of generation Z activists that are perfectly fine given that they adhere to WP:GNG. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 08:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a conceptual issue here in what you believe are primary/secondary sources.
You state that PhysicsWorld, TIME Magazine, and many more are just "mostly quotes" and thereby secondary sources yet very conveniently ignore MULTIPLE analytic/contextualizing paragraphs, i.e.:
  • An inherent challenge of radiation treatment for pancreatic cancer is accurately targeting the pancreas, which is often obscured by the stomach or other nearby organs, making it difficult to locate. In addition, breathing and other anatomical changes may cause the pancreas to move around in the abdominal area. As a result, radiotherapy can inadvertently target healthy tissue.
  • Doing so can be difficult, since the pancreas is often obscured by other organs, and since breathing and other bodily processes can cause it to move around the abdominal area. As a result, doctors sometimes need to deploy radiation treatment with an “error circle” that ensures they’ll hit the pancreas, but that may kill some healthy cells as collateral damage.
Just because an article includes quotes does not make it primary! As per WP:SECONDARY, secondary sources "...rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." I think the table on Woodbury.edu [38] does a good job of illustrating this.
"News article quoting excerpts from the interview" are considered secondary sources
This is precisely what the TIME list, etc. are doing. They rely on primary source interviews with the subject, and interpret this information in context. The main "issue" (which is not actually an issue) you have with most of these sources is that they include quotes from the subject. That doesn't disqualify them from being a secondary source... primary sources will typically be the interviews themselves. Secondary sources may include some quotes, which is what many of the sources you cite above do.
  • The U.S. has some of the highest prescription drug prices in the world, which can push patients into bankruptcy over medications they cannot afford. More than three in four American adults think the prices of prescription drugs are unaffordable, prompting the Senate to recently pass a bill intended to help lower prescription drug costs for seniors. One young innovator set out to find his own solution. 17 year-old Rishab Jain developed ICOR, a tool to improve the rapid production of drugs like COVID-19 vaccines.
Another excerpt from a source:
  • What makes Rishab’s algorithm so important is that pancreas are difficult to spot as they move around. Currently doctors target radiation in the area they believe pancreas are, in the process also killing other healthy cells. Pancreatic cancer is the 13th most common cancer worldwide, according to a Lancet study from October 2015. With an unusually high mortality rate, it is the eight most common cause of death from cancer. Over a quarter million people worldwide have lost their lives to it. What makes pancreatic cancer so deadly is the lack of symptoms during early stages when it is most treatable, reports CNN. Experts say, there are no screening tools specific to this kind of cancer. As a result, in many cases, the discovery of the disease gets delayed. The detection is often confined to distinct symptoms like abdominal pain and jaundice. Dr Shubham Pant, Associate Professor of Medical Oncology at Houston, Texas, explains the disease in the video below.
Take for instance, this source about Jain (RadiologyToday Magazine). This source is by Pamela Q. Fernandes, MD, is a doctor, author, and medical writer who specializes in new breakthroughs in medicine.
  • Machine Learning: Fresh Perspective \ By Pamela Q. Fernandes, MD \ Radiology Today \ Vol. 20 No. 7 P. 8
  • A major concern when it comes to AI in the medical field is replicability. Jain believes the best way to address that concern is to share the research.
  • Although AI does show much promise, there are challenges in creating a tool like his.
Are these not contextualizing statements? Do these not provide some level of analysis? This is clearly not a primary source. These secondary sources should be added to the article, which I can do, but the issue about notability is clear — there are secondary sources that exist about Jain. Your interpretation of what a secondary source is muddled. If each source is doing 'a little analysis' that adds up to quite a bit of analysis about Jain.
There are quite frankly so many secondary sources, that I am finding it a bit unbelievable that you are trying to pin it on this point. Let's keep in mind that Jain also qualifies for notability through the honor criteria on WP:GNG for people. CraigSut (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is a conceptual issue of what I believe to be primary/secondary sources. I am following the guidelines listed on Wikipedia and precedence you can find it other articles flagged for deletion.
In much of these cases, these are entirely interviews, not excerpts of the interview interwoven with the author's thoughts. From Wikipedia:Interviews, "[t]he general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material." You argue that secondary sources may include some quotes, and that is true. But the keyword is some, and these sources are largely indirect and direct quotes of Jain.
In many of these articles, that is the case. I did not say the articles are primary simply because they quote Jain, but because they do not offer enough analysis by the author to be considered secondary. For example, the journal article by Dr. Pamela Fernandes is pretty much an interview with Jain. Every paragraph starts with some sentence or question that segues into Jain's own words. There is no synthesis here. The quote that you provided contextualized looks like this:

A major concern when it comes to AI in the medical field is replicability. Jain believes the best way to address that concern is to share the research. “I can write a research paper, display how the architecture works—how it takes an input and the various layers I used in between—and how I fine-tuned it,” he says. “AI is having a huge boom in medicine, but there’s not a lot of documentation and research right now. More research papers would be helpful for those replicating and improving the results.” [...] Although AI does show much promise, there are challenges in creating a tool like his. “It does take a lot of time, resources, and effort,” Jain says. “After three years of research, I’ve come this far. I’ve created a five-year plan to continue working on the clinical technology and bring it to application in a clinical study but, in the end, it will take a decade to perfect it and bring this technology to the market. A lot of these problems require research, and that takes a lot of time and resources. It’s frightening for those who want to conduct new research. Everything comes with such a cost and possible implications.”

The synthesis is not done by the author, it is done by Jain. These sources are not intellectually independent of the source.
That one sentence at the start could be considered secondary, yes, but in the context of the entire piece, the source is not a secondary article and the line likely isn't either. Some possible questions Fernandes could've asked during this interview are "what do you think the biggest concern is to AI in the medical field?" or "what are challenges in making a tool like this?" After all, this is an interview and these are very typical questions. If Fernandes did contextualize what the issues to AI in medicine were in her own words and thoughts, that would be secondary. I unfortunately do not see any interpretation done here. In regards to your other quotes, they could be said to be secondary, but to a large extent, these sources lack Wikipedia:Notability (events). If anything, these are descriptions of facts about pancreatic cancer, not the role Jain's work plays in combatting pancreatic cancer. Again, that explanation comes from Jain in following paragraphs.
These articles mostly coincide with the occurrence of the event where Jain won the award, they are too close to the individual and the award so their independence on the matter is questionable. As per Wikipedia:Primary sources, "[p]rimary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Furthemore, "The TIME magazine article is one of the articles that occur right after Jain won the award. From what I have seen, there is little to no depth in the reporting of how Jain's work affects the field by any of the authors I have seen.
The ICOR excerpt comes from an interview with Jain and does not describe Jain's connection to the work, just simply that he has developed a tool to combat skyrocketing prices. The only possible secondary source I see is fourth quote you have provided which comes from [39]. However, at the very bottom of this article, it says that the "[t]his story was auto-published from a syndicated feed. No part of the story has been edited by The Quint." This falls under non-independent sources in Wikipedia:SYNDICATED.
I have refreshed the page as I wrote this and I will now address your second comment. It is unfair to compare this article to that of athletes. We cannot compare apples to oranges. Athletes tend to follow Wikipedia:NSPORTS, and Jain is not an athlete. Jain is very accomplished young man, but Jain's status a "young scientist" is not enough to warrant the creation of a Wikipedia article as per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Additionally, please take another look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Having an honor alone does confer notablility and not having one doesn't make you not notable. Additionally, the academic awards (3M and ISEF, in particular) won by Jain aren't considered notable or significant as per my previous statement.
I again do believe this is best left for other Wikipedians to decide. I believe I have made my point extensively here, and my goal is not to persuade you. You do have a vested interest in keeping the article you have worked extensively on, and that is perfectly understand. I am looking to solely state the facts as to why I do not believe Jain's article meets Wikipedia:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). This AfD article has gotten very long and major apologies to anyone who stumbles here. If you would like to continue this debate, the Talk Page might be the best place. Thank you. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 06:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position and the arguments you have made, however, my position is still a keep — I think this article should not be deleted.
In my view, a lot of the sources are indeed synthesizing and analyzing. Comparisons to existing research and other figures are essentially synthesis and analysis. Your definition of a secondary source is clearly different than what most people view it as.
You continue to intentionally make hasty generalizations so I don't see any point in continuing to argue here. After this comment, I will not engage on this page anymore unless other Wikipedians contribute. You intentionally ignore the TIME 25 Most Influential list, National Cancer Institute feature, being added to the National Museum of Education's gallery, Insider List, Giuseppe Sciacca International Award, and much much more, and instead default to the (3m) "America's Top Young Scientist" and (ISEF) "Regeneron Young Scientist" awards, since you can attack those easily as being simple academic awards. Just because two awards Jain has received do not give notability by themselves, it does not automatically disprove the others???
The continued, intentional generalizations you make on this page (and at Avi Schiffmann makes me think that you have some external motive/bias here. It is interesting that your deletion flag also was created DURING the timeframe of extensive vandalism attacks on the article. I see that this is the same date that Jain posted a YouTube video about Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (Redacted). It is interesting that you also then proposed/encouraged deletion for Gitanjali Rao, another Gen Z activist who is a researcher at MIT. Since Rao and Jain will be students at MIT, I see a clear COI here.
I agree that The Quint article is syndicated, however, I am unable to find the original source of the article. It is possible that The Quint accidentally labeled its article as auto-syndicated, as:
  • Dr Shubham Pant, Associate Professor of Medical Oncology at Houston, Texas, explains the disease in the video below.
This type of external analysis/context that The Quint provides is not seen elsewhere online (at least indexed by Google) which leads me to think that the article was labeled as syndicated, when it may not have actually been.
You also go in-depth to label Fernandes as a primary source. Even if it is, there are still PLENTY of secondary sources. See what I wrote in my previous response:
  • "You state that PhysicsWorld, TIME Magazine, and many more are just "mostly quotes" and thereby secondary sources yet very conveniently ignore MULTIPLE analytic/contextualizing paragraphs"
You are doing this once again. I don't see any point of debating with someone who clearly wishes to strawman this argument to discredit others' positions. Instead of going extensively to disprove this article, we could have instead improved the article & added more secondary sources.
Even for sports/athletes, you still need secondary sources. Yes, there are different notability criteria, but my point about secondary sourcing still stands. The majority of the articles we see do not have any secondary sources by your logic, and therefore none should exist on Wikipedia. This would result in a huge number of articles being deleted.
In my eyes, this is a clear meta issue of inclusion.
My extensive defense of this page should warrant at least a community discussion as I believe this (and Gitanjali Rao & Avi Schiffmann, two others that you wish to have deleted) are important articles for Gen Z activism. Even on Avi Schiffmann's page, you completely ignore the sources that have pages and pages of independent analysis and synthesis, so it's clear you are intent on deletion even after additional evidence has been brought up. For example, you labelled these multiple CNN articles not conveying notability as well??? [40] [41]
If NONE of these articles for Schiffmann, and now Jain, convey notability in your eyes, I am at a loss of words for what does? If these articles are primary sources then every article that is not a critique or review of a person will be primary, in your eyes. It is a definition debate here: what is primary and what is secondary? As per the Woodbury.edu page I gave above, along with Wikipedia's own tables, many of Jain's sources do indeed qualify as secondary sources.
keep. I'll keep any future discussions on this article's talk page, or the main article's talk page. If any other Wikipedians want to weigh in, it would be much appreciated as well. CraigSut (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we look at any article, i.e. Orlando Brown Jr., you will see that nearly all of the 'secondary sources' utilized are majority quotes: [42]. By your logic, nearly every source on nearly NFL player's Wikipedia page is not a secondary source, because it is quotes?
I find it interesting that we are debating on the notability of someone who has been interviewed and written about extensively and is far more notable than hundreds of current and historical NFL players. Wikipedia already lacks pages about scientists, especially those of color and in minority groups (which youth/young scientists are a part of!)
This page is also a matter of meta:Inclusionism. The article is factual and retains merit and usefulness. With my recent improvements, I think it deserves a keep.
Furthermore, the iterative nature of Wikipedia will help us add more secondary sources, solving your concerns. I will take a look at this once more tomorrow, and add additional secondary sources that contain significant analysis and synthesis. CraigSut (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have pretty much finished rehauling this page -- no longer in favor of Draftify. I have removed all primary sources from the page, including references to the subject's LinkedIn and Twitter. This page seems to receive occasional low-quality edits, in which such primary sources keep getting added. I first removed any of these primary sources, then attempted to find additional sourcing for the information. If no sources were available, the edits were removed. With the subject's more recent recognition, such as the international awards and feature by the National Cancer Institute, I think it is clear that they meet notability guidelines. The page also previously had issues with promotional content, and biased points of views. I have attempted to bring in neutral language and an encyclopedic tone. I now OPPOSE the deletion as the page and subject meet WP:GNG guidelines. —CraigSut (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON as he does not yet pass WP:NPROF. He has an impressive GS citation profile for his age, but not something that is currently sufficient to pass NPROF. --hroest 17:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep
    Kindly retain this page as it contains erroneous allegations about a deserving researcher. I reside in Portland where the Rishab is well known researcher in the community, and it wouldn't be astonishing if the town's residents contribute to his cause. Rishab's achievements have been corroborated by independent third parties, while on the other hand, there have been several instances in the past where jealous parents and negative elements in society have questioned his integrity. Nevertheless, every time, his accomplishments have been verified by independent third parties. Rishab has inspired so many kids younger and older to get excited about science and research. 134.134.139.78 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to inquire about the individuals who are requesting deletion. Are they from Portland or are they possibly relatives of students who may be envious of Rishab's success and are now attempting to undermine it?
    Every year Rishab is delivering new research results to the world. Let us support this deserving researcher to continue on his mission! 134.134.139.78 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure of what errgenous allegations are being made here. In your argument, you are suggesting we retain this page about a "deserving researcher", but the matter of fact is that this article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as mentioned by hroest. This point is also supported by CraigSut who has contributed heavily to this article. Being a well-known research within a community isn't enough to meet the guidelines listed there, and the achievements you're mentioning are explicitly said to not count towards meeting those guidelines. While it is unfortunate that his accomplishments and integrity have been questioned by jealous parents and negative elements in society, it doesn't change the issue at hand here. In regards to your inquiry, I am neither from Portland nor related to Rishab Jain in any way. I am not a relative of any student who knows Rishab as far as I know. But, I do need to point out that Wikipedia article are not meant to "support" researchers on their mission. You seem to be hinting towards what may be a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 05:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that in my discussion with Qx.est, we agree that the subject should not be classified as an academic. His notability should be weighed under general Notability guidelines. CraigSut (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rishab Jain, a proven child prodigy researcher, visited Dublin a few years ago. I attended his lecture, and since then, I occasionally track his and other researcher pages, particularly after the passing of my family member with pancreatic cancer. Jain's sources are credible, and he has been working in research for 5 years, receiving recognition every year. He generates over 15K-20K hits on search engines, and his latest paper publications on Sarcopenia and Recombinant vaccination are published in academic journals. His Time magazine, Planet named after him,  attests to his recognition. Unfortunately, our media doesn't cover scientists with same vigor as other disciplines like sports or music or politics. But Jain got fame as researcher and deserves to keep it! We should encourage researchers to focus on research instead of getting famous in media. His page inspires so many youngsters.
    Jain deserves to be tracked on Wikipedia for his research, Discord work, and Youtube work. His biography seems to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Comments above about a request for deletion due to a Gen Z/ Qx.est show Conflict of interest for request to delete other student pages. I looked through their work and this seems to be the first page requested by them like this. Two years ago, Jain's page was vandalized with inappropriate comments from other students, which were stopped. Jains wikipage has been up for at least 4-5 years now. I disagree with the requestor's arguments and support keeping the page. Oliver1981161 (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) — Oliver1981161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Hi Oliver! I'm sorry to hear about your family member's passing. This was mentioned earlier, but Rishab's work does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines. I cannot find evidence of the 15-20K search engine hits, and the recent publication you are mentioning does not have a significant enough citation rate as mentioned by criteria 1. The recognitions you are also mentioning have mostly, if not all, been "victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements" which also do not count towards criteria 2. These are the only two criteria which might be relevant for Jain's status as a researcher. Jain's Discord work and YouTube work do not appear to be substantial enough to have a page created as a Wikipedia:CREATIVE which deviates far from the sources about Rishab and his work. On a semantic note, I would like to point out is that an asteroid (considered a minor planet) was named after Rishab, not a major planet, because he was "a finalist in the 2019 Broadcom MASTERS, a math and science competition for middle-school students, for his medicine and health sciences project."[43] The WGSBN consistently names asteroids after finalists in Broadcom MASTERS and Regeneron Science Talent in nearly every bulletin, so I do not think this conveys notability on its own.
    Given the millions of pages on Wikipedia, the amount of time a page has been up does not indicate if it does or does not meet notability. It's very easy for anyone to create a Wikipedia article about anything. Additionally, my affiliation or not affiliation with generation Z does not present a conflict of interest with this article. That's not what Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is. Qx.est (Suufi) (talk • contribs) 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Yvon

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Lack of significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quest for Saddam

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

The article fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the copious sources that mention it are as a passing mention on the game Quest for Bush and on Wafaa_Bilal's "Virtual Jihadi" modification of the Bush game, both of which received extensive coverage (unlike this game). Examples include: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. There is nothing to merge to either article, so a straight delete should be fine here.

There's a somewhat odd story behind this nomination. Back in 2015, I was one of the only participants in an AfD for Quest for Al-Qa'eda, and I suggested that this article also be nominated for deletion. I'm following through on that nom 8 years later today. Nomader (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Found these sources. [53], [54], [55] [56] . Apparently, there was some coverage of the game on FOX News and CNN according to the last source. Timur9008 (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for digging these up (I'm slightly embarrassed I didn't do a newspapers.com search before nominating, so thanks for doing it). Worth flagging that the first two are press releases/market wire releases. The quote at the top of the site clearly seems to be sarcastic or a joke as well, but there was an interview on MSNBC that's definitely worth flagging here. I looked into all three of the networks listed on the site below. Nomader (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • MSNBC did a full interview segment (!!) with the creator of the game. It's pretty wild honestly. At one part the anchor says, "all these publications and reviewers are calling you a legit designer! They're saying, was it Wired magazine, Game Informer, Computer Games magazine, Gamingrevolutions.com, they're giving positive reviews of this game" -- but I've found none of these. Searching now. [57]
      • Fox News mention is passing, in the context of Virtual Jihadi, and doesn't contain any reviews of the show. [58])
      • CNN gave it a brief passing mention in 2003 on Wolf Blitzer's show in a "look at other headlines around the world segment." It featured a tiny clip of gameplay and the following commentary: "Quest for Saddam" is debuting at the Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles. The creator is just 19-years-old." Other CNN sources only mention it in the context of the Bush game ([59], [60]).
        • I'm still standing by my nomination for now. It's clear from further searching that the game was renamed sometime in 2002-3 to "Quest for Saddam" from its original name, "Quest for Hussein." I haven't found any of these articles that the MSNBC interviewed mentioned, and candidly, judging by the website, I'm not sure it actually received that coverage (the interview is extremely fawning and may not have investigated things here). It's worth noting that Wired in particular maintains a very detailed database of its old stories and hosts everything, but it isn't there at all -- if anyone has scans from around 2002-3, might be worth looking into. I've also found a couple of passing mentions of the game at its old name: [61] (an article from the Boston Globe about whether to call Saddam Hussein "Saddam" or "Hussein" and is a passing mention) and [62] (Philly Inquirer column that uses the game as a framing narrative to talk about games that feature killing terrorists). Nomader (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've gone through and added some of the sources (including the Detroit Free Press piece) to the article, along with context about it being a part of Quest for Bush. I could also see an argument to be made where the page is merged into Quest for Bush -- the latter has a ton of sources and a really good article could be written about it. Nomader (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found books that write about it:
  1. We Are Iraqis: Aesthetics and Politics in a Time of War. (2013). United States: Syracuse University Press. Page 99 is mostly about it. I'd call this significant coverage, people could debate that.
  2. Anthropy, A. (2012). Rise of the Videogame Zinesters: How Freaks, Normals, Amateurs, Artists, Dreamers, Drop-outs, Queers, Housewives, and People Like You Are Taking Back an Art Form. United Kingdom: Seven Stories Press. (also half a page, borderline significant coverage in my assessment)
  3. Flanagan, M. (2009). Critical Play: Radical Game Design. United Kingdom: MIT Press. (most of a page, but larger book, more writing than the two above, I'd call this significant)
Like the above books do, academic papers also discuss the racial/ethnic and natioanlistic elements of the game:
  1. BILAL, W. Curated Spaces. Radical History Review, [s. l.], n. 117, p. 139–148, 2013. DOI 10.1215/01636545-2375232. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=90650133&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 23 mar. 2023.
  2. HODGE, P. M. Manifesting Extinctathon: Virtual Reality and Terrorism in Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake. Global Media Journal: Indian Edition, [s. l.], v. 13, n. 1, p. 1–22, 2021. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=155700174&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 23 mar. 2023.
I actually find it surprising that both books and academic papers wrote about this game. It seems unusually notable. Also surprising that this has not been discussed above. CT55555(talk) 23:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But again though, we see that all of this context is based around Quest for Bush and Virtual Jihadi. @CT55555:, I think you've made an excellent argument that Virtual Jihadi should be expanded and possibly spun out from Wafaa Bilal's page, but at best, Quest for Saddam should be a background sentence for it and for Quest for Bush. It is simply not notable on its own.
  • The "We Are Iraqis" book's section is an extensive discussion.... of Quest for Bush or in this case, referring to it as Night of Bush Capturing. It highlights how the game used Quest for Saddam to create this other work.
  • The Anna Anthropy piece feels like it more directly addresses the game itself, and I think could be used for notability... but it's still presented in the light of Quest for Bush, which is where its significance comes from and only talks about Quest for Saddam in half a paragraph. (She is definitely a reliable source and is a prolific writer of both independent video games and about their creation, as a note here).
  • The Flanagan book is a really interesting piece..... on Bilal's "Virtual Jihadi" game that I mentioned in my nomination. It extensively discusses it.
  • The first "Curated Spaces" article again is a great piece on Bilal's "Virtual Jihadi" game which is again a modification of Quest for Saddam. It contains no information about Quest for Saddam. It is also extremely similar in the text that appeared in the "We Are Iraqis" book and appears to have been written by Bilal himself on both occasions (also using the same "the widely marketed video game" language).
  • The last source is actually worse than all the others. It literally says, " In 2006, Al Quaeda altered the video game Quest for Saddam, a first-person shooter game that allowed the player to capture Saddam Hussein, into Quest for Bush, thereby completely reversing the player’s aim. ISIS also released a jihad version of Grand Theft Auto and its android app called The Dawn of Glad Tidings."
I think it's clear based on your exhaustive search that there is *not* coverage of Quest for Saddam independently that makes it notable. Trust me, I've searched everywhere for it too, and everything that comes up is stuff like this. It should be at best a "background" sentence or two for these other topics. Nomader (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of the coverage is a fair point to disagree on, even if I am not convinced. Do you consider that the game inspiring, or being the template for, others helps establish notability? From my perspective, I find it strange to accept the the spins offs are notable, but the original inspiration is not. CT55555(talk) 16:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly isn't a common thing that we run into here on Wikipedia that's for sure! I don't think it necessarily does TBH, I really wish there was more independent coverage of the actual source here.
After reading through source after source, it seems clear to me that the only things saying that it "got significant coverage" is actually from Bilal talking about and promoting his own creation, Virtual Jihadi, and that weird MSNBC interview that I cited above where the interviewer takes at face value that it was covered in other places, but doesn't actually seem to be? I think this is really pushing me towards significantly improving both the coverage on Quest for Bush and Virtual Jihadi so a redirect can feel like a realistic ATD instead of deleting a reasonable place where all of this information can live. If this article ends up being kept and this discussion is closed, I may ping you for a gut check if a redirect would be appropriate later on. Nomader (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, being the inspiration for games does not confer notability. Everything is considered in a vacuum and it would be the same as arguing your clone of a famous, notable video game inherits notability from that famous game. It's possible that a game inspired by something can reach far greater heights of fame than its inspiration. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The discussion was split between keeping and merging, while the merge !voters were evenly split as to target. The delete position did not reach consensus; this defaults to keep, but there is no reason that merge discussions cannot occur as a normal editorial process. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circular fashion

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

look like an advertisement with no reliable sources Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While there are corporations that claim to be "circular," but since the EU commission has policies centered around this term, I think it is a topic relevant for Wikipedia users and the general public. Blokkhedd (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Ohnoitsjamie. The sources are just overviews of circular economy in the fashion context. Those that actually mention the term circular fashion do so amid other invented circular jargon. small jars tc 19:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are lots of published papers using the term 1. Even if it is just a subset of the concept of the circular economy, thats not a reason for delete. JMWt (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist. I am interested in thoughts on the merge target. Two options have been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems like a notable thing, meets WP:GNG as evidenced by:
  1. Blum, P. (2021). Circular Fashion: Making the Fashion Industry Sustainable. United Kingdom: Laurence King Publishing.
  2. Circular Economy in Textiles and Apparel: Processing, Manufacturing, and Design. (2018). United Kingdom: Elsevier Science. (Section 2.3 is "Circular fashion" and coverages pages 23 to 29)
  3. https://www.ecotextile.com/2023031630488/materials-production-news/australia-sets-out-circular-fashion-ambitions.html
  4. https://www.glossy.co/fashion/weekend-briefing-the-ongoing-logistical-challenges-of-circular-fashion/
  5. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230227-how-to-recycle-your-clothes (three mentions of the phrase, or the phrase reversed)
  6. https://www.elle.com/fashion/trend-reports/a43325427/circularity-fashion-sustainability/
Article could be significant expanded, no reason to delete or merge. As per WP:ATD: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page CT55555(talk) 23:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there is a consistent definition of "circular fashion" between these sources that significantly differs from the meaning of "sustainable fashion"? One of the articles contains this definition, the concept that we can produce goods that cause no harm to the planet in manufacturing and that all parts can be reused, which seems to be the same thing. small jars tc 13:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great question. When I !voted I did not consider that. Now you ask, my assessment is that circular fashion (creating a closed-loop system in the fashion industry; all about movement of items) is a specific approach within the broader field of sustainable fashion (a more overarching term that encompasses a variety of practices and approaches aimed at reducing the negative environmental and social impacts of the fashion industry).
i.e. circular fashion is part of sustainable fashion.
In this context I would normally be assessing if circular fashion should be merged and part of sustainable fashion. However, noting WP:SIZERULE and that Sustainable fashion is about twice the length of the Almost certainly should be divided category, I think that supports my initial keep !vote.
That said, I'm an open minded person, tell me if you disagree. CT55555(talk) 14:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A rename might be warranted given the comments in this AfD, but that can be discussed on the article talk page. Aoidh (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khormans

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

Non-notable. By author's admission, better sources aren't available, and BEFORE certainly finds nothing. None of the three sources cited meets the GNG standard, and the external links provided aren't any better. Has been repeatedly sent back to drafts, but the author insists on publishing it. Fails WP:GNG, as well as just basic WP:V. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep I’ve added three refs which indicate that although relatively little is known about this ruling clan, they are discussed in multiple scholarly journals and books. I think the title should be changed to “Khurman” to reflect the standard Arabic transliteration that is used in the sources. The current spelling looks French to me, which may indicate even more sources in that language, but I haven’t looked. Mccapra (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject itself is notable. Cleanup and/or stubification can be handled at the article itself as warranted. Aoidh (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Philosophy of Freedom

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

Mishmash of WP:OR lacking WP:RS. Rudolf Steiner's books are not WP:RS and anthroposophic publications are not WP:RS. Rawls is WP:CITED, although probably Rawls never wrote anything about Steiner's works. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of Rawls concerns not Steiner but the definition on intuitionism. In sense of intuitionism other than Rawls', e.g. Moore's, Steinner may not be an intutionist. Thewikibeagles (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broader explanation: While a certain amount of MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR is allowed, this article is nothing else than MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR.

After 17 years, this article is not even wrong in terms of WP:PAGs. It is a collection of musings based upon Magister dixit rather than an article of a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia.

The article does not do Steiner a favor, on the contrary, it only shows how poorly received his magnum opus was. His ethics is valuable, so the poor reception is unfair, but that's the reality, and I'm not here to WP:RGW.

By "not even wrong" I mean: it could be bad stuff, it could be good stuff, but that is in no way assessable by the Wikipedians having a long track record. It's not transparent who is the authority judging Steiner's book. It seems that by and large Steiner is passing judgment upon his own book, or that some editors are citing him to that extent.

Steiner is cited copiously and the source Wilson is simply a translation of Steiner's book. The reference to Rawls is original research.

Also, the broad consensus at English Wikipedia is that Rudolf Steiner did not write WP:RS, and that, as a rule of thumb, anthroposophic publications are not WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify – Reduce the article to the bare facts about the book and its publication. As much as this article is a mess, the book is notable and this shouldn't have been taken to AFD over cleanup issues. small jars tc 21:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't deny that the book is notable, finding WP:FRIND sources to validate its WP:N is rather tricky. Professors of philosophy by and large ignored and still ignore the book. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Stubify and Keep. It may be tricky, but if you think it's notable you should put in the effort and not just seek its deletion.
      Apologies for these quick and dirty citations, but here you go:
      • μκρκ, "Review of Die Philosophie Der Freiheit", The Monist, Vol. 5, 1895, p. 150.[63]
      • Irons, David. "Review of Die Philosophie der Freiheit", The Philosophical Review, Vol. 4, No. 5 (Sep., 1895) pp. 573-574 [64]
      • "Review of Die Philosophie der Freiheit", Mind, New Series, Vol. 4, No. 13 (Jan., 1895), p. 129-130.[65] (all three of the above are mainstream philosophy journals that still publish today)
      • Förster, Eckart. Foreword to Rudolf Steiner Schriften - Kritische Ausgabe: Band 2: Philosophische Schriften, (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboo, 2016), pp. VII-XIIX.[66] (Förster is a professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins and a credible academic.)
      • Hoffmann, David Marc. (March 15, 2016.) "Auf dem geheimnisvollen Weg nach innen." Neue Zürcher Zeitung[67](This is a mainstream credible Swiss newspaper.)
      • Bach, Thomas[68]: Zum Zweiten Band der Kritischen Steiner Ausgabe – Philosophische Schriften, in: Der Blaue Reiter 39 (2017), 105.
      Jahaza (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and no reason to expect that further disucssion will yield any different outcome. BD2412 T 01:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Vehmeier

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

Not a notable person. The two references are a university press guide (unavailable) as the reference for statistics, and an obituary (which doesn't mention his one year of coaching an amateur football team -- the presumed claim of notability). Walt Yoder (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article on his wedding here – its a bit funny – he was married on December 12, 1912, 12 minutes and 12 seconds after 12, leading the Rev. O. Wilson to remark, "12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12." (struck as about the wrong Vehmeier) BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is odd, I read here that "F. Vehmier left last evening on No.2 for Grand Forks, where he has accepted a position as [f]ootball coach on the ...versity team. Mr. Vehmier is [a]n old star of the Wisconsin team." BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some coverage of "Coach Vehmeier" from the Grand Forks Herald: [70] ("Coach Vehmeier, who has done such good work with the team this fall, left this noon on the Northern Pacific for his home in Illinois. Vehmeier came here after the season had started and took hold of what many people said was a hopeless task. Although the university squad was defeated in all but one of their games the state championship was won by that team, when the North Dakota agricultural team was beaten here last Wednesday. Vehmeier deserves much credit for the way he coached his men. There were twenty-two men in the picture taken this morning, including Coaches Vehmeier...") [71] (song about him, plus a few mentions of him in relation to his players, e.g. "the men were given a stiff workout, by Coach Vehmeier") [72] ("Coach Vehmeier Is Putting His Men Through Grilling Practices") [73] ("Coach Vehemeier Leaves with Fourteen Huskies Tuned For Action"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just was able to find out that the person who coached UND in 1912 was not John Vehmeier – rather, it was Fred! See here which gives some biographical details (could be argued as SIGCOV) and mentions that the real coach played at Beloit College and on the freshman team at the U. of Illinois. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of coverage from The Daily Journal, The Post-Crescent, Wausau Daily Herald, and Chicago Tribune (seems he was somehow attending U. of Illinois and coaching U. of ND at the same time?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and move to Fred Vehmeier). Vehmeier is very borderline, in my opinion. I lean on the keep side, just slightly, with this being my reasoning: Vehmeier was the full-time head coach at a major school (North Dakota is Division I and has won national championships in the past – and he would meet NCOLLATH if he coached in more modern times – though oddly the criteria only applies post-1957?) and I am not sure we have ever deleted a D-I head football coach before, and in terms of coverage we have this: a bit of a detailed article here (Freeport Journal-Standard) which could be argued as SIGCOV for a topic of this age and significance, plus lesser detailed coverage from The Daily Journal, The Post-Crescent and others, in addition to many different mentions (and even a song) in the Grand Forks Herald, one of which ([74]) goes into some detail on his coaching and could be weakly argued as SIGCOV; for this kind of case, I'd be willing to say so – and even if not, I do believe we have enough coverage to write a decent biography of Vehmeier and satisfy WP:NBASIC, which states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" (we have coverage from at least six newspapers, so it satisfies the "multiple independent" criteria). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another significant source that I was able to find: [75] (from the Grand Forks Herald). My "keep" !vote is a bit stronger now, since we now have likely sigcov from the Freeport Journal-Standard and the Forks Herald, which satisfies WP:GNG (which only requires "multiple" of such sources – and two is multiple). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have improved the article to the point that it is now a very decent c-class biography. I've removed my "weak" statement from my !vote, and am now convinced that he is notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He was not a "D-I coach", UND wasn't even part of the NCAA at that time (and wouldn't be for 10 years) and it would be almost 100 years before they got D-I status.
    The Freeport and Grand Forks sources are local coverage of the "announcements" variety, which NOTNEWS specifically says does not count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He was not a "D-I coach" North Dakota is currently a Division I program – so I still think he has significance as their head coach. As for your NOTNEWS argument, it says For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events) – so I do not believe that would apply here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'd say suggesting that coverage of when Vehmeier was hired should not count towards notability, even when it has enough depth to pass SIGCOV, while citing "NOTNEWS" is ludicrous – I've never seen a suggestion like that before, let alone it being consensus. And locality of coverage is absolutely irrelevant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would NOTNEWS not apply -- it's coverage of an announcement that he was joining the UND program. NOTNEWS applies to everything, not just events, which is why it specifically notes the additional guideline for events. The two announcements, which are just 5 days apart (failing SUSTAINED), also aren't SIGCOV. Freeport is quite explicitly repeating an announcement Word has been received here from Fargo, N.D., announcing that Fred Vehmeier, of Dakota, Ill., a former Beloit College and University of Illinois foot ball star, has been appointed to the position of head coach of the University of North Dakota foot ball team. Mr. Vehmeier, according to the information received here, takes charge of the team at once. Mr. Vehmeier is well known in this city. He attended Beloit College two years and was a star athlete of that school. He also starred last season with the University of Illinois freshman team. Mr. Vehmeier had been traveling for the past few months in the interests of a large Harvester company. His new position is a lucrative one and the many friends of the young man will be please to learn of his good fortune.
    The Grand Forks one especially is written in a very primary, promotional, personal tone Vehmeier arrived in Grand Forks last night. One look at him and you will be convinced that he knows something about athletics. In build he is a regular bull moose, broad of shoulder, deep chested and husky limbed. Any candidate for the university football team who gets a bit sassy can count on a beating, if this new coach is the man he looks to be. ... He is watching the Grand Forks and Grafton high schools battle this afternoon. The athletic board of control of the university selected the new man at a special meeting held this noon.
    Locality of coverage and compliance with NOTNEWS are absolutely relevant to gauging encyclopedic merit, as has been noted in numerous AfDs. It's only been a month since Larry Green was closed, where essentially the exact type of sourcing was roundly dismissed in the closing statement: The discussion ultimately boils down to an argument about whether or not there is sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this individual per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. The most substantive source that was presented during this discussion is a 6-sentence article in the evening edition of a local newspaper that mentions Green as a possible future candidate to play baseball for the Orioles, along with a very brief synopsis of his history. Calling this "significant coverage" strains credulity to its breaking point, and this sentiment was quite convincingly argued by a number of participants in the discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still disagree that those sources should be discounted under NOTNEWS and you leaving massive WALLSOFTEXT is not going to get me to change my mind. We clearly have enough coverage here to write a biography, and we've got several articles over a period of several years discussing him, enough to pass NBASIC, which states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Deleting this very high quality article on a coach of a Division I football team would not in any way help the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, he was not in any way the coach of a D-I football team, and cobbling together a bunch of quotes and stats from local news does not make those items encyclopedic or compliant with NOT, much less "very high quality". And I really hope you don't think BASIC is met with a literal police blotter; one sentence reporting what Vehmeier said/felt; an announcement in a Freeport paper that he had passed through town that also bafflingly misrepresents his 1-4 record as "The team had a very successful season, winning a majority of the games played and finishing among the top with the universities of the northwest"; or a routine injury report in local press that appears alongside what is apparently serialized coverage of the town's warring choral societies... JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, your claim that University of North Dakota didn't become in an NCAA member until 1922 is almost certainly wrong and wholly irrelevant. The exact dates when schools joined in the NCAA in those days is obscure and appears to have been largely ignored by contemporary news coverage. North Dakota joined the newly-formed North Central Conference (NCC) in 1922, and the NCC eventually became associated with the NCAA, but I don't know when that happened, and it's unclear that the common NCC members all joined the NCAA in sync. I do recall an editor here (it might have been User:UW Dawgs) once finding an obscure document on the NCAA website that listed the years that various schools joined. What I recall from glancing at that document is that joining the NCAA seems to have had no functional impact on the level of a given team's competition in the early days (say pre-WWII). That's one of the reasons that for the time period before the NCAA first created divisions in 1956, we treat college football just as one unstratified bucket, e.g. 1912 college football season, 1955 college football season. Was North Dakota a major football team in 1912? Not really, but they did they play South Dakota, who in turn played Minnesota and Michigan, who certainly were major college football teams in 1912. North Dakota also played Minnesota each year from 1913 to 1916. Now, the main question at hand here, is Vehmeier notable, ultimately rests on specific coverage about him. But your suggestion that North Dakota was playing a lesser or illegitimate "sub-NCAA" brand of college football in 1912, and that should negatively impact the assessment Vehmeier's notably, is a faulty argument. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My statement was in direct rebuttal to the claim that the subject was a "D-I football coach", which suggested the level of college football UND was playing in 1912 was much more elite than it was (or would be for 100 years) and promoted an inappropriately positive assessment of Vehmeier's notability. JoelleJay (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, first, what I think BeanieFan11 meant what that Vehmeier is a historical coach of a program that is now NCAA Division I. I'm confident he knows that "NCAA Division I" didn't exist in 1912. Second, you made a number of statements, twice implying that North Dakota gained some sort NCAA status specifically in 1922. Such statement belie a misunderstanding of the material and advance false notions about technicalities of NCAA membership and what it meant in the early 1900s. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (North Dakota is Division I and has won national championships in the past – and he would meet NCOLLATH if he coached in more modern times – though oddly the criteria only applies post-1957?) and I am not sure we have ever deleted a D-I head football coach before sure implies a misunderstanding of NCAA history, and if that's not the case it's a pretty blatant misrepresentation of Vehmeier's position since obviously the many more years ND spent in the College Division/D-II would be more applicable than comparing 1912 to 2008. As for ND's NCAA membership, I had looked up the list of original members here (p. 25) and, unless it joined as an independent member sometime between 1909 and 1912, I find it doubtful it belonged to the NCAA when Vehmeier coached. Not that that would be relevant since it clearly did not represent the level of prestige then that it does now. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know my football history, I was arguing that since he is a historical coach of a current Division I football team, that should help his case here, especially since he arguably meets GNG and NBASIC. But whether I know football history or not (which is quite the absurd statement; I've studied it for years, have written about 700 articles on historical football and have improved many others; although surprisingly your the third editor to say that I am not knowledgeable) is off-topic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NCOLLATH makes it clear that being a D-I coach is only predictive of GNG post the 1957 creation of divisions (and he wouldn't have met this criterion for 50+ years after that, either), so his being a coach 45 years earlier is not a valid guideline-based consideration whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think being the historical head coach of a current major program is important and should help his case. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoelleJay. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do either of you have any explanation of how deleting this very high quality article on a historical head coach of a Division I football team improves the encyclopedia? Especially when he's got several in-depth sources, including one calling him "one of the best coaches in the United States"! (Grand Forks Herald) BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The small-town newspaper serving UND using flowery language to hype UND's new 24-year-old still-in-college coaching hire is a staggeringly clear example of why such local news should not be used for determining notability. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was quite typical in that era for recent grads, grad students, and transfers who were in their early to mid 20s to be head coaches of college football teams. And sports coverage of that day was often written in a style that looks very flowery and goofy by today's standards. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sources in this thread pass GNG. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG based on the significant non-routine coverage from the Grand Forks Herald and Freeport Journal-Standard brought up by BeanieFan. Frank Anchor 12:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep clear pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but move to "Fred Vehmeier". When nominated, the article was a micro-stub and what little content there was turns out to have been about the wrong person. Pretty much a mess. BeanieFan has made a solid effort at saving the article, fixing the mistaken identity, and adding sourcing some of which is borderline SIGCOV. While the nomination was certainly warranted, circumstances have changed sufficiently to keep per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."). Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying SPORTSBASIC doesn't need to be met? And how do the (very local) hiring announcements pass ROUTINE/NOTNEWS? The guy coached five games for a team that wasn't even part of the NCAA, got some brief mentions in hyper-local press, and then disappeared...why do we need to document every single game and every primary observation (e.g. the first-person description of him from Grand Forks) when all the actually relevant info is already contained elsewhere? JoelleJay (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    why do we need to document every single game and every primary observation ... when all the actually relevant info is already contained elsewhere? None of the information is contained anywhere else on Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He's listed in the relevant navboxes and his coaching record is at List of North Dakota Fighting Hawks football seasons. We don't need more details than that for a person whose only claim to fame is coaching 5 games at an independent school that took another 10 years to get into the NCAA, was in the College Division and D-II until 2008, and only now is in D-I (and FCS at that). JoelleJay (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article we have here is probably at least 500 times more helpful than an entry in that list; from this, you can learn all sorts of things; from that, you learn that he existed and coached for a year. I say, we should have these kinds of details and articles. The encyclopedia is made better this way. You were the one complaining at the mass removal of Olympians proposal that stubs are worthless and nobody cares about them, yet now you're saying that high quality articles are worthless too? What is something that an encyclopedia should have, in your opinion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Predictably, all of the above keep !votes come from CFB project members following BF's notification there, with only the last providing an argument that doesn't make the faulty assertion that GNG is met with two brief routine hiring announcements published in hyper-local newspapers 5 days apart... JoelleJay (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the faulty assertion that GNG is met – That is your opinion. Currently everyone else (besides Therapyisgood) has disagreed with you. If anyone is making "faulty arguments," I'd say that's you, repeatedly stressing "oh the coverage is local[1] so can't count and is ROUTINE[2]" — (1) discounting coverage for being local on people is completely non-policy based and (2) ROUTINE does not apply to people; it is for events. As for the members being football editors, I see absolutely no issue with that, considering that they would be the ones most knowledgeable on this subject. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are many of the same Some of these keeps are the same CFB editors you rounded up to make those specious IAR arguments that got you and the project warned at ANI and whose GNG arguments were chastised by AfD closing admins ("Calling this "significant coverage" strains credulity to its breaking point"). 1) Local coverage is absolutely relevant, NSPORT even calls it into question with the warning it must be independent--the Grand Forks announcement in particular is suspect here given the clearly first-person account of the subject's appearance and the fact the hiring had been finalized at noon that day. How do we know this isn't a press release from the hiring committee, especially considering the hyperbolic praise it gives him? We also have multiple recent closes emphasizing the deficiencies of local news, e.g. the argument that an exclusive reliance on local news coverage implies a lack of notability, is persuasive[76], Despite the existence of substantial local coverage on the subject, there was a rough consensus that a standalone article is not warranted[77]. 2) As has been explained to you so. many. times by multiple people, "routine coverage" is defined by NOTNEWS, which applies to all articles (Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage). This has been affirmed by the numerous deletions/discussions based on arguments that sourcing is routine.[[78][79][80][81][82][83][84]
    [85]"sources which are purely transactional in nature (coach hired) which we tend to discount at AfD". 3) The two sources above fail SUSTAINED, having been published 5 days apart. JoelleJay (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There you go again with the WALLSOFTEXT... My opinion is that this coach is notable, and you will not get me to change it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And also These are many of the same CFB editors you rounded up to make those specious IAR arguments that got you and the project warned at ANI and whose GNG arguments were chastised by AfD closing admins ("Calling this "significant coverage" strains credulity to its breaking point") – (1) there was no consensus at that discussion for any kind of warning whatsoever, and (2) that was one close, and in it, the admin didn't even pay attention to the longer sources which were the main arguments for notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't speak for any other editor, but no one "rounded me up" because I found the discussion through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football, a page I frequently check. There was no consensus to warn anyone at ANI and you should strike the comment as incorrect. The coverage provided in the sources is cleary WP:NOTROUTINE and the subject passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was also unaware of any notification on WikiProject CFB because I am not a member of that project. I am not one of the same CFB editors [Beaniefan] rounded up either. I learned of this AFD because I monitor the American football sort category. I also respectfully request JoelleJay strike this baseless accusation. Frank Anchor 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. While none of us were there to personally verify it, the paper saying he was one of the best coaches in the US and a star player also helps strengthen his case. ND were also state champions the year he coached and with them being an independent, that may have been the largest title they could have won, strengthening the notability and reasons to keep the article. Wikiproject CFB also specifically cites that even being a coach for one season does not disqualify anyone from being notable.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; looking through the sources available, they are trivial coverage (Vehmeier was hired as coach, coach lined up his team for practice, team was beaten, etc.). The Freeport Journal source provides glowing coverage (he is well known in this "city"), but we have to keep in mind that Freeport was/is a small town, and the tone of the article suggests a bit of puffery (if Vehmeier was really one of the best football coaches at that time, why did he take a position at a small university like UND?). Most of the other sources are the kinds of things anyone can find in a genealogy search; it certainly doesn't establish WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After going through the sources I feel it fails WP:GNG. User:Jogurney's above argument pretty much sums up my position on this one. I wouldn't be against redirecting it, for instance to North Dakota Fighting Hawks football. Alvaldi (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a bit ridiculous to say that the sources do not cover the topic "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (SIGCOV/GNG). From the shorter one (Freeport-Journal Standard), you learn that he is from Dakota, Illinois (1), attended Beloit College (2) then Illinois (3); was appointed head coach at UND (4) and had previously been at Illinois for one year (5), on the freshman team (6); prior to that he had spent two years at Beloit (7) and was a star athlete (8); he was a star freshman at Illinois as well (9), he was a well-known local figure (10), and had been working (it seems) the past few months for a large Harvesting company (11); and additionally his contract was a "lucrative" one (12). That's at least twelve different details ("directly and in detail") about Vehmeier and its from the shorter one! That's the definition of SIGCOV! BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And in addition to GNG (which this is definitely a pass of), this is also a very clear pass of WP:NBASIC, which states, "If the depth of any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources can be combined to demonstrate notability." BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That same argument could be made for "Thomas L. Lawson", a county surveyor whose departure from Grand Forks for San Diego was announced in the same edition as the "larger" Herald piece with a ~20-sentence column summarizing his whole career. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out other topics is not a valid argument in AFD discussions. We are here to talk about if Mr. Vehmeier’s notability, and nobody else’s. JoelleJay is a very experienced editor (particularly in AFD discussions) and should know this. Frank Anchor 22:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the argument is that SIGCOV is met when multiple severable pieces of biographical info can be extracted from a source, it's plenty relevant to mention that the same degree of detail is available from such a source for a random non-notable citizen. This speaks toward how routine that coverage is, which is the major factor in NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the argument is that SIGCOV is met when multiple severable pieces of biographical info can be extracted from a source, it's plenty relevant to mention that the same degree of detail is available from such a source for a random non-notable citizen. Not really – trying to discount sources because someone else was covered who's likely non-notable has no basis in policy. Still an invalid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to argue non-notability because of too much news coverage is just a song-and-dance routine. I don't dance. Maybe the closer will...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the discussion above. WP:NOT overrides guidelines, and the capacity to extract details from a source does not mean those details are of encyclopedic value. Just about everyone holding an important position in a small U.S. town will receive coverage in multiple local newspapers, that doesn't mean an article on them through NBASIC is warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is arguing that everybody who gets coverage in a small-town newspaper passes GNG. I think we both agree that, in close cases like this, we have to weigh the coverage with the impact/overall importance of the person. Which is why I often vote delete for one- and two-game NFL players from the 1920s and such (even in cases where there is a little bit of coverage in a local paper). In this case, reasonable minds can and do differ on that impact/importance. What tips me to a "weak keep" vote is (i) the impressive expansion in the few days that the AfD has been pending, and (ii) Vehmeier's status as a historical head coach at a major college football program. The North Dakota Fighting Hawks football program is one of the oldest and most prominent in the plains states, with a history dating back to 1894. Programs of this caliber warrant a full historical treatment, including IMO articles on each of its historic head coaches (assuming there is enough coverage to prepare a reasonably rounded article). This is not like so many of the early NFL and cricket players where we have deleted because there was literally nothing remotely approaching SIGCOV and no way to write a reasonably rounded article. I respect your conclusion, but the totality of the circumstances lead me to the other side of the divide. Cbl62 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the above. Reviewing many, but not all, of the sources, I have not been able to find WP:SIGCOV; one source comes close but doesn't, in opinion, meet that standard. If I am wrong then I would ask keep !voters to provide the best WP:THREE sources, which will make it easier for editors to assess the level if SIGCOV and make it easier for the closer to determine the strength of the arguments for and against the existence of SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument is this: we've got two good sources, the ones about him coaching from the Grand Forks Herald and Freeport Journal-Standard, and then many other ones that are not as in-depth but still are useful and can be combined to demonstrate notability under NBASIC. And while his notability is close, considering that he is the historical head coach of a major Division I college football program we should be able to keep; deleting would not help the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Beanie on this one. We have been able to build a reasonably rounded article, and this is the type of circumstance for which WP:BASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.") fits like a glove. I'm all in favor of deleting/redirecting substubs based only on databases, but this is not that circumstance. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How can a biography be well-rounded if it's sourced almost entirely to primary, non-independent, and/or trivial news (and that doesn't even include all the local and routine sources)? And does this mean you believe SPORTSBASIC #5 is not required? JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We disagree about your assertion that the souring is all primary, non-independent, and trivial. This article has been substantially expanded with 15,126 characters and 28 sources, covering Vehmeier's life from his birth in Illinois, to his college career in Wisconsin, to his coaching career in North Dakota, and forward through marriage, later real estate career, and death. That's pretty well rounded IMO -- I'd guess top five percent of all sports biographies on Wikipedia -- not the sort of sub-stub that we ought to be seeking to expunge. As for SPORTSBASIC #5, I think you know I am a fan of it (I proposed it after all), but this provision was intended to aid us in expunging the plethora of sub-stubs sourced to databases and lacking any significant coverage that would allow us to write a well-rounded biography. Here, we have a clear pass of the overarching Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, and SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule. Cbl62 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at just the first section of the body, the majority of the content there is cited to primary, non-independent, and trivial sources.
    Sentence 1: state vital records (primary), draft registration cards (primary);
    2: a mention in the Freeport Daily Journal (predecessor to the Journal-Standard) local interest section stating, in whole, "Fred Vehmeier, Jr., who is attending school in Dixon, spent Saturday and Sunday at home" (trivial; local news (pop. ~17500)); and the Freeport Daily Standard/Journal-Standard announcement that he was hired at UND (local news; and IMO routine);
    3: an injury report from the Appleton Post-Crescent (local (pop. ~17000), routine);
    4: a report from the Beloit school newspaper (not independent, local) stating Vehmeier had been selected for all-state by the sports editors of the Ripon and Beloit school newspapers (not independent, local);
    5: the FJS hiring announcement and a two-sentence announcement in the local interest section of Devils Lake World that he was hired at UND (trivial, local (pop. ~5200), routine);
    6: a peacock quote describing him from the Beloit school newspaper (not independent, local);
    7: his name in a freshman squad list from the Daily Illini school newspaper (not independent, trivial, local); and the GFH announcement he was hired at UND (local (pop. ~12,500), IMO routine);
    8: a two-sentence police blotter in the Chicago Tribune (primary, trivial);
    9: the FJS source, which is used to claim he was "well-known in local towns and cities" but only says "Mr. Vehmeier is well known in this city."
    10: a two-sentence announcement in the Freeport Daily Bulletin that he stopped by Freeport and will be working for the International Harvester company (not independent, trivial, local, routine).
    NBASIC is not met with trivial mentions or non-secondary independent RS. Just because prose can be constructed out of such details doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on Joelle. That a misleading and cherry-picked analysis that conveniently ignores the other 18 sources. Cbl62 (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all the sources in the first section; do I need to assess the sourcing for all the other sentences too? And do you disagree with my characterizations of primary, non-independent, and trivial here? JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes"It's up to you" and "yes". As one example, you dismiss this source on your wholly subjective claim that it's "trivial". To the contrary, it arguably qualifies as WP:SIGCOV as it addresses Vehmeier in some detail (two paragraphs, six sentences), reporting that he (i) was appointed head coach at North Dakota, (ii) will take charge of the team at once, (iii) attended Beloit College where he was a star athlete, (iv) attended the University of Illinois where he starred on the freshman football team, and (v) had been working for a large harvester company. Cbl62 (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say the FJS hiring announcement was trivial. I said it is routine in my opinion. And anyway, I analyzed the rest of the article and in the second section 17/23 sentences are cited to one clearly non-neutral source, the GFH (or that plus UND archives), and of the remaining 6 sentences 3 of them are to primary stats and 1 is to a trivial quote from Wausau. That leaves us with two sentences from anywhere else: sentence 1, which is sourced to the FDJ/FJS and GFH, and sentence 8, which is sourced to a game announcement in the Fargo Forum (also local) and the GFH. ~375/570 words in this section are direct quotes from GFH. The result is a predictably highly-positive account of Vehmeier sourced pretty much entirely to what is probably one reporter's opinion at the newspaper serving his school's 12,500-person town all over a timespan of under two months of his life. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Tudor Owen, the author of at least three GFH articles (sources 16, 18, 19) was a student at UND[86] at the time. Source #20 is by "Hank", likely another student. JoelleJay (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We've still got 24 other sources... (and those weren't the most in-depth ones, either, so it doesn't really affect his GNG/NBASIC pass) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing the identity of the authors of the other GFH/Freeport articles, how can we be sure that they are independent?(*) And no, we do not have "24 other sources", we have 15 different sources total and of those 5 are indisputably primary or non-independent and 2 more are very likely non-independent submitted obituaries/wedding announcements. Those 7 sources, plus the 4 GFH refs and 2 FJS obits, are the sole support for over 40% of the text on the page. Of the remaining 8 sources (FDJ/FJS 1, 2, 3; Post-Crescent; Devils Lake World; GFH 1, 2, 7; Chicago Tribune; Freeport Daily Bulletin 1, 2; Fargo Forum; Wausau Daily Herald), FJS 1, DLW, FDB 1, CT, and Wausau are trivial and/or non-independent -- these bring the non-GNG-supported text up to 50%. And all of that is without passing any judgment on whether the rest of the sources are routine or non-independent.
(*) Harry H. Cooper, City Editor of GFH in at least 1911, was formerly the president of the UND Athletic Association[87] and managing editor of the UND student newspaper[88], and joined the GFH editorial staff while still a student in 1907[89]; in at least 1911 he was also a charter member of the Delta Sigma Rho UND chapter[90] and in 1913 was attending law school at UND [91]. The telegraph editor in 1912 was also concurrently a UND law student[92], and another reporter for GFH was a university student in 1912[93] where he worked directly for Coach Armstrong[94][95]. So actually there is a very good chance whoever wrote those pieces for GFH was connected with the university and not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there was an editor at the GFH who had once attended the university does not mean the articles are non-independent – and especially not because you have no evidence that the articles (with the exception of the article by Owen; however, those weren't the sigcov ones so doesn't matter) were written by those people!; and you also have no evidence whatsoever that there were connected people working for the Freeport newspaper. (Also, I'm seeing Cooper having edited in 1907 and not 1911, and certainly not 1912, the date when the articles were published - Hammond was the telegraph editor, so I find it unlikely he wrote about sports - and I'm not seeing evidence that Locklin was an editor). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that multiple people were GFH editors/reporters while they were students indicates a much greater probability that the editor/reporter of any individual piece is affiliated with the university -- something that is very much alluded when NBASIC emphasizes the requirement for local news to be independent. Cooper was the city editor in 1911[96], Locklin was a reporter in 1914 (and with a prior personal connection to the team wouldn't be independent even if he wasn't a student at the same time). And those are by far not the only GFH staff who simultaneously attended UND (e.g. the editor of the university section in 1911[97] [98]), let alone ever attended. FWIW, the sports editor at the start of 1911 left in June 1911[99] and it's unclear who filled in for him. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously going through the Grand Forks job directories of the 1900s/10s, then digging through old newspapers in hopes of finding that the GFH editors had once attended the university? Anyway, you have no evidence that the articles we're discussing here were written by non-independent people (it would likely be the sports editor who replaced Benson - also, for Torgerson, how is a mention of him serving with the Ad Altoria Literary Society evidence him being non-independent and working for the Herald?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult to search for "editor" or "reporter" in a directory and match those hits to newspaper archives. And NBASIC reiterates that local coverage must be independent, which sure sounds like independence is not assumed for local newspapers and should be demonstrated if those sources are to contribute to notability.
The linked sources show Torgerson was a student at UND while being the editor of UND news at the newspaper. That's clearly not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment It's unclear why John Vehmeier was converted to a redirect to Fred Vehmeier, who is an entirely different person, mid-AfD. I've restored the John article so that we can discuss it. –dlthewave ☎ 23:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC) *Delete John Vehmeier, the person whom this AfD is about and who has no significant coverage. Fred Vehmeier is a different person who should be nominated separately. –dlthewave ☎ 23:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dlthewave, I think you've misunderstood what's going on here. The subject in question here has always been the man who was the head football coach of the University of North Dakota in 1912. That man was Fred Vehmeier. However, the article was originally titled "John Vehmeier" due to an error about his name originating in the North Dakota football media guide. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I went ahead and changed it back. –dlthewave ☎ 00:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - on the basis of BeanieFan11's work and Cbl62's argument regarding WP:BASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.") I'll add that I can't be the only one who has completely lost patience with the attitude of withering contempt routinely displayed by certain entrenched Delete !voters. Ingratis (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment there is no reason to relist this discussion, a good number of editors have commented. At this point, if the consensus isn't clear then it would clearly be "no consensus" -- this discussion can be closed based on the current volume of participation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to draft. Draft:Vedat Marathe Veer Daudle Saat - Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vedat Marathe Veer Daudle Saat

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

Fails WP:NFF. Also, WP:TOOSOON. Needs to be deleted or moved to DRAFT until release. AShiv1212 (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : closing admin, only shooting started
Same reason: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal (2023 film)
Liz, comment check Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. ~ ‪AShiv1212‬ (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article covers many aspects of the film already apart from just principal photography. Multiple references are discussing shooting locations, storyline, controversies, launch event, etc. Thats passing WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. This is a film which may or may not be released eight months from now. The applied and found sources do not yet meet GNG or the SNG for films, in my view. User:Liz's close of the other linked process was correct, but that's not immediately relevant to this discussion. Despite User:Dharmadhyaksha's dismissive comment, there's inadequate sourcing to support a film never publicly released, and since this film might one day see release, I'd prefer to draftify. BusterD (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It meets NFF. And whats the point of moving to draft space? Whats harm in main article space? Wikipedia isn't ruining its reputation with this one article being present in Article space. Also, when moved to draft space, am sure someone will make a different article in Article space; and thats gonna be even poorer in quality than this one; but just made by a very enthusiastic newbie who wont bother to look draft spaces etc. Also, a film can still remain notable without ever being releasing. So that worry of the film not releasing in next few months is unfounded. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism and centrism in Iceland

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

It's WP:OR and personal opinion. No refs on the page for many years, surely time now to WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. In reaching this conclusion, I considered the strength of the arguments as well as looking at the references offered in support of notability. The sourcing appears to clearly fall below expected standards. While there were numerically more editors arguing for keeping the article, their arguments overall were not as well supported. There were also an unusually high number of editors with limited experience in this discussion. Of the keep !voters all but 2 had fewer than 52 edits, and were editing AfD for the first time. To the extent these votes were less policy compliant, they were weighted less. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Thoronka

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

Flowery text, person not meeting GNG or BLP. Article is unclear as to what the person does, appears to be a student. Vaguely promo. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn their nom based on what they view as significant coverage added during the process. While early clash was tending towards delete, after sources were added one of those !voters switched to keep. With these switches, the trend of the discussion clearly indicates a keep outcome. BusterD (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve England

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

Article about a radio DJ and producer who has moved around various companies and stations, the article is mostly a resume for the subject and lists the various radio stations he has worked on. Does not assert notability - the links are mostly to the subject's own sites and/or his employers' web sites. Flip Format (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SBKSPP, you have voted both Delete and Keep. I assume you changed your mind so could you strike the previous vote? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh shoot. SBKSPP (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2023 (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, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For exactly the reasons that User:ResonantDistortion said: he played a major role in inventing a new creative process. In addition to that, we have enough coursing to write a reasonable length biography. To me, this is a WP:CREATIVE pass. CT55555(talk) 23:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the original nominator, I withdraw this nomination. ResonantDistortion has located significant enough coverage in reliable and independent sources to prove the notability of this individual, specifically around his work in radio imaging and production (rather than his pirate radio DJing, where he was one of many on-off DJs). Thank you to ResonantDistortion. Flip Format (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Latin phrases (N). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen mysticum

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

Proposed merge (WP:BLAR). This article is too short and should be merged with List of Latin phrases (N). Alternatively, we could merge it with one of the articles in the "see also" section. Mast303 (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Searching tended to produce results in Latin or even in Greek, but even results in English tended to be either passing or explained what was, well, obvious. There's probably some place to point this (craft name is the same idea, but Wiccan jargon rather some other group), but it wasn't obvious to me what that would be. I note that all the examples given are related to an obscure and short-lived group, though the hits I got didn't seem to be related to it. Mangoe (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We should redirect to List of Latin phrases (N), as we did with vice versa. Mast303 (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as suggested by nominator, who might have skipped this step entirely and just proposed the merge. This is dictionary definition territory, but for the translation issues. Since an appropriate list is available and in good condition, merge to that location. BusterD (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Aoidh (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kikkerspuug

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

No evidence found that this is a notable band. Fram (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. After a WP:BEFORE search, I haven't found anything that seems to satisfy WP:N. Pizzahut69 (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This band is an important example of Dutch-language punk rock in the 80s. It is discussed on the Punk in the Netherlands page of Dutch wikipedia and has it's own band page on Dutch wikipedia that dates back 11 years. The present article is deeper and better cited than the Dutch page. Punk rock, particularly with non-English lyrics, is not a topic frequently discussed in newspapers or academic journals. Newspaper articles that may have been written about it (in the 80s, in the Netherlands) are no longer are accessible. This band is mentioned in long-running, widely distributed punk zines that are still accessible. Snowflakedivertor (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Views split roughly equally between "keep" and "merge". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Factions of Halo

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

The article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, with no evident reason why the factions of Halo - as a group - are notable. The reception largely refers to Halo's AI, which is really an aspect of Halo's gameplay, not its fictional universe. I believe that if a faction cannot stand alone, like the Flood can, it should simply be explained in the list of characters before describing those who are part of it. There is no need for a faction list that is separate from the character one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Both Halo (franchise) and this article are long and mature and can live side by side. gidonb (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind there is also List of Halo characters which can easily fit this information. There has already been such a spinout, and an article on individual factions is duplicative. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article on individual characters is also long enough. Its intro is even tagged as too long! Efforts should concentrate in the article space. gidonb (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Characters can also have background information on their race or faction. It would not make the article overly long if the non-notable fancruft was pruned out and a selective merge was made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article already suggested a merger. CastJared (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree this is legitimate spinout article. Too much valid information couldn't be merged without making the other article too long. Dream Focus 23:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Halo (franchise) as being wholly reliant on primary and affiliated sources (not meeting the general notability guideline). Remove the unsourced content and minimize the primary sourced content to focus on the secondary sourced content and what remains would fit sufficiently in the parent franchise article within its respective existing sections (fictional elements under "Plot", etc.) It makes little sense to call this a "spinout" article when it's clear that there was no attempt to cover these topics in summary style depth in the parent article. czar 19:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The OP's deletion rationale, which relies on a flawed interpretation of WP:DISCRIMINATE, an essay of opinion, is noted but not accepted. As a few other editors have pointed out, there is also no practical consideration to merge a valid spinout article the size of Factions of Halo, especially when an argument about the topic's alleged lack of notability as per WP:GNG is not properly articulated. On a related note, while there is indeed no consensus to take Covenant (Halo) out of mainspace, what was brought back by the OP as of January 2023 is a rather subpar attempt that do little to convince other editors that an article about such a topic can stand on its own. Haleth (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Haleth: You seem to have misread my rationale, as I linked to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, not WP:DISCRIMINATE. The latter is indeed an essay, while the former is a policy.
    Re: The lack of notability, please see WP:BURDEN. It is not the responsibility of the nominator to lay out a detailed source by source analysis. Simply stating it is not notable is sufficient, when an admin checks for themselves and sees, even if people deny it.
    Re: Recreating the Covenant article, no it was not an attempt at anything, that is a direct assumption of WP:BADFAITH and an WP:ADHOMINEM argument. I literally just happened to notice it had been redirected, I assume because the creator of the Factions article did not realize consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Everyone has good points, but i think the factions of Halo are relevant enough for their own article. Merging seems like a reasonable option until you realize it makes the main Halo article way to long. Blitzfan51 (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between those wanting to Keep this article and those seeking a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been several comments as to how this meets the GNG, but there has been no explanation as to why and review of the sourcing. I am relisting this in hopes that an analysis of those points emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. The Factions article was created way back when as a way to prevent a bunch of recreations and serve essentially as a quarantine against more cruft expansion. It's never been meaningfully restructured because there's not a ton on the individual factions beyond game reception and a few older scholarly subjects, and they're definitely almost never discussed in context of the factions as a whole, which would be necessary for a GNG pass; while the article could be better than it currently is, I don't think it ever could be good, and a lot of the relevant real-world tidbits can just be included in the series article or other places (development of the visual look of the Covenant, for example, in Halo: Combat Evolved, or their redesigns in the relevant other game articles.) The only ironclad GNG pass is the Flood, and they've already got an article. Broadly speaking, there's not really any reason readers need to know about the various species in the Covenant, etc. to understand game articles, and the franchise article will not suffer SIZE issues from folding in the relevant bits. I don't get why the Covenant article was spun out again, either, when the GAR agreed it didn't particularly demonstrate notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Above, I mentioned that Covenant might qualify for a stand-alone article if someone could find enough sources. I meant that as an alternative to this non-notable list, and not as an addition. I don't think there's a consensus to spin Covenant out as a separate article yet, and that should be reverted until there is a proper discussion. Making major changes during an AFD makes discussion more confusing, and makes it harder to build a consensus. It's led to contradictory AFD comments on how to handle the notable (and non-notable) factions of Halo. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was already consensus not to merge, but it was redirected anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Nobody Told Me. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon UFO incident

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

Article fails to meet notability requirements (WP:N) and is easily encompassed at relevant song pages Tkbrett (✉) 12:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect
AtFirstLight (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nobody Told Me, add details there if supported by sources.
Oblivy (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - G5 by GB fan. Girth Summit (blether) 18:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chipolo

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

Was draftified in hopes of improvement, but no improvements were made and it was moved back into mainspace. Current sourcing includes a single in-depth article on the company, (this one, although I'm not sure how reliable a source it is), with the rest being ads, non-reliable pay sites and brief mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 10:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The used sources would be fine for an article on the gadget but not the company. I've tried to find additional sources about the company but to no avail. If you can provide them, please list them. --TadejM my talk 10:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of them; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The company is the subject in most of these articles and I believe that conforms with WP:SIRS, what do you think? Globesam (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Salvio giuliano 16:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netball at the Arafura Games

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netball at the 2001 Arafura Games. Event as a whole fails WP:SIGCOV and general notability guidelines for sports events. Ajf773 (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Aoidh (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gessner

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

I don't believe this actor meets WP:NACTOR. He hasn't had significant roles in films and has only appeared in a few episodes of TV series, nothing lead or recurring. I don't believe he meets our standards of notability for actors. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since then I've found a second news article in which his name is in the title of the article (and ref'ed it on the page, of course). That's two news articles which are about him. That's notability, too. --Eliyahu S Talk 13:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Harris Corporation. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leitch Technology

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

Acquired in 2005. Not notable before that. No references are forthcoming to satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP doesn't say that acquisition or public trading makes a company notable. It's about coverage, just like WP:GNG. WP:CORP does say that trivial overage (like the announcement of a merger or acquisition) doesn't satisfy notability. There needs to be coverage about the company itself, significant, reliable, and ... -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulshan Aliyeva-Kengerli

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

I think the person fails GNG as a scientist. Also, UPE/COI issues again.. — Toghrul R (t) 06:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not entirely correct, though. First of all, WP:CRYSTAL applies to all ifs. Second, WP:NACADEMIC applies to being the Principle of a Major academic institution. A quick look at university rankings confirms we are very för indeed from anything that could be called a major academic institution. Being the Principle of any academic institution is not what WP:NACADEMIC says (and again, she is not principle. As for the Taraggi Medal, I'm not sure a medal created by a dictator with a personality cult and awarded for unclear reasons is the kind of award to which WP:NACADEMIC refers. The fact that she has the same last name as the famously nepotist dictator makes me doubt very much whether it was awarded based on any academic criteria. Jeppiz (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the importance of the university is well made. I suspect that nepotism is a factor in national awards the world over. I think we should consider the importance of the award, but stay away from (sensible) speculation about how it is awarded. CT55555(talk) 22:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not denying that nepotism occurs in all countries to some extent but let's not resort to false balance either. It is well-documented that the Aliyev family (Aliyeva for females), which has provided all of Azerbaijan's dictators, are matched only by North Korea for personality cult, and have bestowed "honours" on family members for decades.Jeppiz (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you on the nepotism. But I also think we tend to see nepotism and other injustices more clearly when they are further away from us. I don't think me pointing out the complexity/impossibility for us to discount WP:ANYBIO passes on the basis of well-informed speculation is False balance. But either way, even if we knew an award was given for nepotism, the award would still be given. If this is a reason to discount it, the path forward would be to propose edits to WP:ANYBIO. CT55555(talk) 23:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, fair point. What I meant is more that I have my doubts about the value of the Taraggi medal; I wouldn't count any recipient as notable just for having received it. Jeppiz (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
🙂 I think we are in agreement. I'm still undecided on notability, really 50/50 at this point. I'm watching and reflecting. Thanks for the polite discussion, CT55555(talk) 00:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: I have posted a link to this discussion at WT:WIR CT55555(talk) 15:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Legit in the sense that it exists, but nowhere near conferring automatic notability on any recipient. Please remember that the criteria here is not "receiving an award" but rather receiving a highly distinguished and recognised award. Jeppiz (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. The article was already draftified and the hanging redirect was deleted (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PM-SHRI Scheme

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

Article was created by an editor with a history of warnings for various types of behavior. Editor has made 48 successive edits without creating more than three sentences, sometimes one word at a time. Editor also recently made a series of 10 successive edits to Bharatiya Kisan Union resulting in the blanking of cited content and insertion of a gibberish word. This is not a new editor so it's unlikely to be an edit test. Suspect that this is an attempt to obtain extended autoconfirmed status.

The article itself is not particularly notable; it is a real event, but just a policy announced by the Indian government without any track record of notability. No links, no categories, no pages refer to the subject matter. Oblivy (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: article got moved to draftspace as soon as I said I'd be making an AfD proposal.Oblivy (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Article has been moved to draft and mainspace page has been deleted. Oblivy (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I agree that WP:TOOSOON applies here. If the page creator wishes to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. It's not ready for main space. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raditya Adi

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. KH-1 (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the deletion you give on the page Raditya Adi, think carefully before providing the template because this act is like vandalism. The article has been accepted and is eligible, if article is not eligible it may have been deleted from the start. if you want to delete the article this! That it's up to you! Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.boy77 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in idwikipedia it was delete as not notable person (A7) Ariandi Lie (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've improved the article by adding some references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.boy77 (talk • contribs) 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep because the article I made meets the requirements and has been received from Draft:Raditya Adi and has been moved to the main article space Raditya Adi . however the previous Raditya Adi article has been removed as it was created by a blocked user. so I tried to make the article back but all your rights if you want to delete this article. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.boy77 (talk • contribs) 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chesterfield transmitting station

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

I cannot see any reason why this television and radio relay station serving a town is any more or less notable than the thousands of others serving different towns, cities and villages in the UK. Almost the entire article consists of WP:OR and it is not a particularly unique or significant landmark. WP:NOTDIR of routine television and radio transmitting stations that are not the site of any particular innovation, do not serve a significant or large population nor form a notable landmark. Flip Format (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete. Agree with nom, this does not meet WP:GNG whatsoever. Stopasianhate (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes this is a relay transmitter but it covers a substantial area which will extend beyond the actual town, and will broadcast to well in excess of 100,000 people. This is therefore a notable transmitter and therefore a notable article. Rillington (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you find any sources to back this up? Independent coverage that is specifically about this transmitting station (as opposed to lists of TV relays in general)? Even MB21 is drawing a blank and they are normally a good source of things like BBC R&D papers about transmission sites. This appears to just be another very routine TV relay, and the article as it stands doesn't make a case for notability.
I'd say Emley Moor is notable as a significant listed structure serving a few million people; Bilsdale transmitting station is notable again as a very major site and because of the fire; Ferryside is a small relay, but it is notable because it was the first relay in the UK to switch to digital TV and there are news and other sources to back up its notability.
In contrast to those examples, I can't see any reason why this site is special. 100,000 isn't a huge population coverage and it doesn't appear to have been the site of any particularly remarkable events. If you or someone else can make the case beyond a simple unsourced statement of "it's notable" then I'd be happy to see the article improved and kept, but what's there now isn't justifying an article. Flip Format (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To expand this slightly. In order to get some consistency as to what TV transmitters are seen notable, I'd suggest that any transmitter which carries all six DTT multiplexes is notable but the fill-in transmitters which only carry the BBC and ITV multiplexes are not notable. Therefore, using this criteria, this (Chesterfield) transmitter would be seen as notable because it carries all six multiplexes, but the other two currently in service transmitter articles being considered for deletion - Bala and Burry Port - are not notable because they only carry the BBC and ITV multiplexes and therefore would be deleted. Rillington (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rillington, you've just invented a new guideline mid-way through an AfD, to suit your desire for this article to be kept. I'm using existing guidelines, namely WP:GNG. I can't find any significant coverage in a reliable and independent source that is specifically about this transmission site and tells us why it's so important over and above all the thousands of other TV/radio relay sites in the world, regardless of how many services they transmit. We can't have an article on every radio relay, cell tower and minor mast in the world, so WP:GNG as an existing policy is where the line needs to be drawn. The entire article as it stands is WP:OR, and when I've tried to improve it using known sources for things like research papers on transmitter sites, I've drawn a blank. All I can find are basic details of its location and the services it transmits, and WP:NOTDIR of transmitters and frequencies. Can you find anything to prove the notability of this transmitter in a reliable and independent source? Flip Format (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was trying to find a compromise for this particular set of articles, and this is probably now more relevant given that you have nominated for deletion many more similar articles. Rillington (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, from this comment, I take it that you can't find any policy-based reason (e.g. some significant coverage in a reliable and independent source) for this article to be kept, so you're attempting to make up a new policy on the hoof. Otherwise, your comment would have read along the lines of "I've found some good quality sources for this article and I've added them". I'm glad we're now clear on that. I'd be happy for the article to be improved and kept, but neither of us seems able to find any decent coverage of Chesterfield transmitting station specifically (as opposed to lists of tx sites in general). Other nominations for similar transmitter articles have been made for similar policy-based reasons and have no bearing on this discussion, which is specifically about Chesterfield transmitting station. Flip Format (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right when it comes to references as there are no internet-based reference provided in this article and this in itself makes keeping any article harder to justify. However for me, it comes down to notability and what I was trying to do was to define, for the basis of UK TV transmitters, what might be seen as a notable transmitter. I did notice that when this article is deleted, there will be some coverage of this relay as is listed in the Emley Moor article. Rillington (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Yes, it's good that some people want to talk about the infrastructure of radio transmission, and it's good that they set up enthusiasts' websites to exchange information about what they've found. But this is not the right place. We should have articles on those transmitters that, because of their history, or technical situation, have attracted wider attention. Failing some event(s) that hit the news, some important role in history, we can't have an article. An analogy is rail accidents, where railwaysarchive.co.uk correctly aims to list every accident that's ever happened in the UK, while our own List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom selects those that are in some way significant, and have more than trivial news/book coverage. This transmitter is not Droitwich by a long shot. Elemimele (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elemimele above. Wikipedia should not over-represent anorak interests beyond their significance in the wider world in the way it has often done in the past. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I accept that Wikipedia isn't the place for an article about every relay transmitter in the UK - there are more than 1,000 of them. This is one reason for my suggestion regarding what transmitters could be seen as notable and which are not. Rillington (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrille S. Oguin

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Despite being ambassador to United States for 13 years, there is a complete lack of coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was delete. BD2412 T 01:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Parenting Magazine

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

Clearly PROMO. No links to any critical discussions of the magazine, all I find are articles they've published. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Social science, and Florida. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 16:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Article edited to now include dozens of reliable and authoritative sources. Notability is presumed for magazines under WP:NMEDIA that verifiably meet, through reliable sources, one or more of the WP:NMEDIA criteria. Tampa Bay Parenting Magazine meets at least one, and probably all of them. It has (1) produced works that have received well-known/significant journalism award (multiple Florida Magazine Assn awards); (2) has a significant history (15+ years of issues); (3) considered by reliable sources to be authoritative / influential in subject area (cited dozens of times by every local TV station and newspaper); (4) frequently cited by reliable sources (cited dozens of times by every local TV station and newspaper); and (5) significant publications in non-trivial niche markets (Tampa Bay area, parenting).
Leglamp123 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Leglamp123 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. – The Grid (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth WP:NMEDIA has been deprecated as a subject-specific notability guideline; it's currently an essay that lacks community consensus in support of it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While, it does have some issues with promo from the old version. With the edits however, it now seems like a fairly normal and good wikipedia article. It has a lot of sources and doing a quick Safari search wields a lot of results about them. Sorry if anyone disagrees with this. Have a good day. Tvshowoflife (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedaway

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

The article hasn't been notably improved in the 8ish years since I last tagged it, and BEFORE didn't pick up anything obvious I could use to improve it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2015-02 (closed as no consensus)
Logs: 2005-10 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Joseph2302 said it all. ImperialMajority (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NESkimos

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

The standards of inclusion for bands have changed since the 2006 deletion discussion that arrived at "no consensus" for this article. The previous AfD found a blurb in the Orlando Weekly and an interview as part of the segment and a bit of the subject for a The Legend of Zelda spot on MTV's "Top Video Games Countdown" ([112]).

I only found one direct interview at a source from Destructoid that only situationally meets WP:VG/RS ([113]) and the rest are a series of passing mentions that don't meet the criteria ([114], [115], [116], [117]). If there was an argument to keep, it could be #12 from WP:BAND, but they weren't really the focus of the segment.

Would love your thoughts! Nomader (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge

[edit]
A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this is a notable guide. A BEFORE indicates just links to it, nothing of substance to meet notability. I have not merged to International Institute of Business Analysis as that seems unlikely to survive AfD. Star Mississippi 01:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick J. Townsend

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

Article for musician created by the article subject (User:Nickjtownsend) whose edits focused on their autobiography and an article on their band (Weak13, now deleted) and one of their albums. Admins can see their deleted edits. Online search found social media accounts and two Q&As but nothing I would consider SIGCOV. I see no lasting coverage of this musician. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 21:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Louis (artist)

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

appears to be a random guy who sells his paintings on the Internet through a website called "ArtSumo" with no outside notability The brave celery (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_March_23&oldid=1147816021"