Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 31 August 02 >

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 no consensus‎. Sources presented after the second relist suggest a better-attended AfD would have likely resulted in a Keep, but I see no point in extending this, if deletion is off the table. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Franchise Association

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
International Franchise Association (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 previously deleted in 2013 after an AfD. Recreated in 2020. I don't see any reason to dispute the result of that AfD; there is still little in-depth coverage cited on this page. Outside of the Supreme Court case (which appears to have been sparsely covered), the only coverage is a few mentions from minor trade publications. I tried looking for more on Google, but all I could find were press releases. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Berryhill

[edit]
Brock Berryhill (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)

Found no coverage of the artist beyond the one MusicRow article already present. Passing mentions for credits on notable musicians' songs does not make notability here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found this audio-only interview with New England radio station WROR, but even then it's not enough for notability. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 11:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salt extraction process

[edit]
Salt extraction process (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 research paper; the article is not about salt production in general, but one specific procedure described in a 2005 research paper. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator has withdrawn this nomination. Discussion about a possible Redirect can occur. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Scicluna

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. No coverage other than one award in 2007. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator has redirected this to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. I am happy to withdraw this; if somebody else wants to discuss the redirect they could do so elsewhere. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gyankunj School

[edit]
Gyankunj 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)

No notability of any sort, fails verification due to lack of any reliable citation link. I did plenty of clean up but feel this article should be deleted. SalvadorhernandezNY (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the deletion nomination withdrawn and several editors arguing a straight Keep, I think there is support for keeping this article in main space rather than draftifying it. Editors can still work on improving it and making sure relevant content is translated. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Constantin

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

This article appears to fail our criteria for notability of people. It currently has no sources, and I can't seem to find anything online other than social media profiles and an IMDb page. I also believe the author may have a conflict of interest due to the tone and level of detail, especially in the "Childhood and Youth" sections—and I advise them to review the information on that linked page. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 22:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Romania. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 22:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Zero sources in the article, zero sources found either. This could be a hoax. Appears to be a poorly translated article, with titles and name of things still in the native language, I wonder if this was a draft on another wiki project at one point. Not even sure if this is true or not, with zero sources found and zero used to write the article... Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Added sources, including two newspaper articles following her death. Not a hoax. Removed all the excessive detail that was completely unsourced. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the page history shows that the creating editor worked on it for several years in their sandbox, in Romanian, moved it into mainspace late on 1 Aug 2024 and then translated it (except the table) into English. They have not edited any other articles. Perhaps it should have been draftified on sight, as lacking any sources. 07:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now to give the creating editor a chance to supply sources. It was brought to AfD within 90 minutes of being moved into mainspace. PamD 07:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I will rework the article, adding more sources and taking into account your comments. Andreic44 13:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreic44 (talk • contribs)
  • Withdrawn by nominator: I actually heavily considered draftification and even had a lengthy discussion about it with some other editors, but ultimately wasn't able to find any sources on my own, so I decided to move to AfD. I appreciate that you found some, @Cielquiparle—thank you! My apologies for not doing a thorough enough BEFORE check. Given the newly found sources, I now believe this subject passes WP:GNG and I look forward to seeing the article's progression. However, per WP:CSK#1, we cannot completely close this discussion as a speedy keep before checking with the other editor who recommended deletion; @Oaktree b, can you weigh in on this one again? Bsoyka (t • c • g) 13:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftification is fine, I'm not sure the sources added still show notability, but sending it to draft for a chance to improve is a good idea. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve Here is a short review of the sources I've read and analyzed:

Old:

(Obituary with in-depth coverage of her biography)

(In-depth coverage)

(Artist scholarship in her honor)

New:

(Two paragraphs highlighting her career's milestones and multiple collaborations with Romania's major cultural institutions)

I suspect there can be more coverage about her but I'd suggest to include the page in the "Romania culture" project because my "Google Translate Romanian" is not so good. 50.46.167.81 (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors can create a Redirect from this page title if they wish. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genie (programming language)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Genie (programming language) (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 deleted via AfD in 2009 but then recreated. Survived an AfD in 2019 which was quickly closed as a revenge nomination, without discussion. Sources do not provide sufficient coverage and/or are not reliable. Just another non-notable programming language (dialect). IntGrah (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found some sources that describe unrelated programming projects/proposals that contain the word "Genie", but nothing beyond that. This subject is not notable. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jančár, M.; Chodarev, S. (2015). "A generative framework for development of CRUD-based Linux desktop applications". 2015 IEEE 13th International Scientific Conference on Informatics. Poprad, Slovakia. pp. 133–138. doi:10.1109/Informatics.2015.7377821. The Vala compiler also supports the Genie language, which is almost equal to Vala except the syntax. That is useful especially for defining models because of simple, "Python-like" syntax of Genie.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Kentucky Wildcats men's club soccer team

[edit]
2021–22 Kentucky Wildcats men's club soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
2022–23 Kentucky Wildcats men's club soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2023–24 Kentucky Wildcats men's club soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Amateur and intramural collegiate club sports seasons are not notable enough to have an article. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors can create a redirect if they so choose. Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Firor

[edit]
Matt Firor (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)

Insufficiently sourced and doesn't appear notable, redirect to ZeniMax Online Studios? IgelRM (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 12:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kokborok Sahitya Sabha

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

This does not seem to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Day in North American Indian History

[edit]
This Day in North American Indian History (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)

Utterly non-notable, 12-year-old calendar. Per WP:Notability (books), it has not won major aways; made a significant contribution to any of the sciences, humanities or arts; been used as a textbook; author is not exceptionally significant. Yuchitown (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You ignored the first and most important criterion in NBOOK: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". "Significance" measures are precluded by available sourcing and there are at least four reviews of this found on EBSCO search, from Booklist, Library Journal, Multicultural Review, and Wild West. Passes GNG and NBOOK. It's also not a "calendar". PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half of these sources are already in the article - it passes NBOOK already. Nomination is flawed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable book. The article needs work though Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes NBOOK. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Time Lord. Editors can merge content if they believe this is appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Time Lords

[edit]
History of the Time Lords (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)

A split off of Time Lord, which is filled with OR, Uncited Statements, and more. There is no indication this subject is notable, being sourced to all primary sources and with no sources actively showing the history of this species is separately notable from the Time Lord subject (Which, from a search, definitely is notable) and a size split is not necessary since much of this information is easily summarized (Or, in fact, already summarized) at the main article. I see no reason for this article's existence, and is one of the few cases where I'd argue for an outright deletion on this subject, since it just isn't a necessary article in any sense of the word. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter Plays Snake

[edit]
Twitter Plays Snake (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 topic; fails WP:GNG. Very close to meeting criterion WP:A7 but makes a claim of significance (the number of followers). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. Alexeyevitch(talk) 21:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Join-pattern. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Join Java

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Join Java (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: N. I can't find any additional sources that would establish notability (i.e. that aren't written by the designer of the programming language). HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous AfD gives some sources that could be used, but they're mostly brief descriptions in papers/presentations. There's one source that writes about two paragraphs about the language, but the paper is so awfully written (obvious formatting errors and the actual content about Join Java is copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article itself) that I wouldn't be very comfortable writing an entire article around it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources given in the previous AfD do not provide substantial coverage. IntGrah (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Plug

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references to date appear to either be PR or announcements or rely entirely on information provided by the company (interviews), there is no in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, failing ORGIND. HighKing++ 14:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as I see no support for Deletion other than from the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlos Savvidis

[edit]
Pavlos Savvidis (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)

Academic with a decent publication record (h-factors 43) but no significant awards to verify peer recognition, and no significant coverage beyond a mention back in 2008. Tagged for notability in NPP; no action taken beyond an unexplained and unwarranted removal of notability tag. Does not pass any section of WP:NPROF, and there is no evidence that any other notabilities apply. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My vote is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I'm a little baffled by this afd, given the expert credentials of the nom. In Web-of-science, Savvidis shows >100 papers, ~2600 citations, and H=35 (goes to PROF 1). While it's true that semiconductors (one area of research) is a high citation field, what I find here is the usual gigantic variance in research metrics of WP BLPs working in this field. There are folks both much high and much lower, for example Herbert Kroemer (~700 papers, ~23,000 cites, H 90) and Janice Hudgings (31 papers, ~500 cites, H 11), as well as lots of BLPs having similar stats, like Cyril Hilsum (96 papers, ~1700 cites, H 20). On balance, I have the distinct impression that Savvidis has a research impact appreciably higher than the average professor in this field, suggesting PROF 1 is satisfied. 128.252.210.3 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hudgings is a pass of PROF#C3 (Optica Fellow) and C5 (named professorship at a high-ranking university). Her case for C1 is more borderline. For Savvidis, though, it seems C1 is the only suitable criterion. So their cases are not really comparable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @David Eppstein. Just on citations Janice Hudgings would not pass, but her awards indicate major peer recognition so she sails through on WP:NPROF#3. Similarly Cyril Hilsum is NAE plus a stack of other major peer recognition awards, WP:NPROF#3 and perhaps also WP:NPROF#1b and WP:NPROF#2. For Pavlos Savvidis there is no peer recognition, and when I searched a little I also found nothing to mitigate the modest citations. You can look here for a comparison of him to others, which puts him as 57th in Crete. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. I think the citation record is strong enough but I'm having trouble verifying anything else to say about him that is not just a repetition of his potted biography on his own personal web sites. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting owing to the WP:V concerns raised by David Eppstein. We have clear consensus that the subject meets WP:PROF by citation count. How concerned are we that we don't have independently verifiable information about him?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree about the statement "consensus by citation count" particularly for a high citation field and when the citations are not significantly increasing. This is why I nominated the page because there was nothing in WP:V to back up the citations. Academics get awards, the lack of any here including none that are notable concerns me. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Like Eppstein and XXanthippe, I think the citation record is enough. The polariton amplifier work is reasonably significant; that PRL paper has been cited over 1000 times, and he's the lead author. The article is pretty thin and could use more information and better citations, though - I tried to tune it up a bit. Qflib (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please make your cases better. CIte policy. Provide examples. Be clear. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1M1B

[edit]
1M1B (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 like one of the many organizations recognized by UN. However I find the article to be having notability issues. Inviting your comments. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can keep !voters please address whether this org meets WP:NORG, the relevant guideline?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete To start with, User:Broc's 'speedy keep' vote should be discarded for determining consensus as a vague pretension about the nominator's statement and not addressing notability concerns. [1] appears reliable at first glance but is not due to WP:FORBESCON. The Hindu piece cited by the first 'Keep' vote [2] is largely about the hiring of Telanganu innovators to the organisation.

In terms of sources actually in the article, however, I have presented a {{Source assess table}}. I'm admittedly not familiar with Indian sourcing, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA also causes some difficulty in appropriate source analysis of this organisation, so feel free to chip in to anything I might've missed.


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Whoareuagain
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.un.org/en/civil-society/1m1b-foundation No The United Nations is an accreditor of the subject. No From my analysis, I do not consider it reliable for this article due to its lack of independence. Yes The entire article is about the organisation. ✘ No
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/india-not-just-observing-the-future-unfolding-but-actively-shaping-it-ruchira-kambo-2794024 Yes This article by the Deccan Herald does not appear to fall afoul of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Yes While not listed at WP:RSN, from my analysis, the Deccan Herald is a popular newspaper from the Karnataka area, and should be considered generally reliable. Yes This article is mostly about India's envoy to the UN, but the organisation receives a few paragraphs of the article. ✔ Yes
https://thebetterindia.com/133481/bengaluru-students-future-leaders-1m1b-un-new-york/ Yes While the article is written in a rather saccharine tone, the source seems independent from the organisation. ? The author of the article, Sanchari Pal, seems to be a frequent contributor to The Better India, but I'm not able to find any information at all about him online. No The article is mostly about the 14 students going to the UN headquarters and not the organisation itself. ✘ No
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-not-just-observing-the-future-unfolding-but-actively-shaping-it-amb-kamboj/articleshow/105675027.cms?from=mdr Yes The Economic Times is independent of the organisation. ? The Economic Times is the business-oriented wing of the Times of India. Per WP:TOI, the Times has a mixed reliability (somewhere between no consensus and generally unreliable), and I don't see anything indicating why it shouldn't be extended to its business counterpart. Yes The article is largely a regurgitation of the Deccan Herald article (I suppose there's not much room for differentiation when reporting on that story), but it does have some paragraphs dedicated to the organisation. ? Unknown
https://www.news18.com/news/tech/exclusive-open-safe-accountable-internet-what-is-digital-nagrik-campaign-for-students-young-adults-7172539.html#goog_rewarded Yes News18.com is independent from the organisation. No The article is mostly just a quotation of the founder's own words, so is unhelpful for determining notability. Yes Most of the article is dedicated to the subject, aside from a few mentions of Mark Zuckerberg. ✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/lifestyle/tech/2020/Jan/23/the-kids-are-artificial-intelligence-right-2093306.html Yes The New Indian Express is independent of the subject. ? From what I can deduce, the New Indian Express is the southern edition of the Indian Express, which is listed at WP:INDIANEXP as a reliable source. However, I'm not considering it fully reliable because, as with the News18 article, the article is largely quoting off the founder, which obviously decreases its reliability. The article also sounds quite promotional, but that's probably just personal opinion. Yes The article, while short, is dedicated to the subject. ? Unknown
https://theprint.in/world/indian-youth-activists-changemakers-among-winners-of-diana-awards-in-uk/1649917/ Yes ThePrint is independent of the subject. No The article has a disclaimer at the botton stating, This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content. No The organisation is described in a single paragraph, but most of the article is not about the subject. ✘ No
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/1m1b-and-government-of-meghalaya-sign-mou-to-set-up-indias-second-green-skills-academy/articleshow/108081430.cms?from=mdr Yes Most of the article is paywalled for me, but I assume it is independent based off source 4. ? See Source 4 ? I am unable to determine SIGCOV because the article is behind a paywall. The article seems to be about the subject, but I can't fully confirm it. ? Unknown
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/1m1b-foundation-to-set-up-green-skills-academy-in-hyderabad/article68300273.ece Yes Yes Yes The Hindu is considered generally reliable per WP:THEHINDU. Yes A large part of the article is paywalled for me, but there are more than two paragraphs dedicated to the subject, which is more than a trivial mention as stated in WP:SIGCOV. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Overall, the organisation seems to fail NORG, but it's very borderline, so I definitely wouldn't be opposed to keeping, especially if some new sources are found. Whoareuagain (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)— Whoareuagain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 18:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Brass

[edit]
Kingdom Brass (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)

Unreferenced article on living people. I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Complex/Rational 16:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AutoLotto

[edit]
AutoLotto (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 no indication that this is a notable product per WP:NPRODUCT. The only coverage is about funding at the time of startup, most of which appears to be based on quotes from the product's principals, and other similar churnalism and rehashes of press releases. I cannot find adequate information in third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Kinu t/c 16:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sinfest

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sinfest (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 initially wanted to wait until either the webcomic concluded, or the most recent source is 10+ years old, but returning talkpage concerns made me decide to start this early. My argument for deletion is WP:SUSTAINED combined with a shift in subject matter of the work covered. The most recent source, a 2016 list entry by Paste, states that it had "recently become a more specific and pointed criticism of the most toxic parts of American exceptionalism," and this is the most up-to-date information we can cite on this webcomic. Sean Kleefield in his 2020 book Webcomics did mention Sinfest as an example, but in his blog he made clear he did not do any research for this. As editors, we have recently tried to expand on Ishida's/Sinfest's recent political and controversial aspects through primary sources, but this got (probably rightfully?) undone. Reliable sources are staying away from Sinfest and we don't know how to cover it anymore: the article is largely about a Sinfest that no longer exists, or only exists buried in its own archives. Typically when sources on a long-running webcomic dry up, it just means it's no longer in the zeitgeist, but I don't think that really applies here: I would perhaps make the vain suggestion that reliable sources don't "want" to consider this work notable. I would like to hear what other editors think of this argument and issue. Note that "this webcomic is bad/harmful" is not a deletion rationale tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SUSTAINED applies to brief bursts of newspaper coverage: the coverage already in this article passes sustained, with consistent coverage over a period of multiple years. Per WP:NTEMP once something is notable, it is notable for good, and even though the coverage has ceased the past coverage is well, well over sustained. The past Sinfest is the notable sinfest, we do not need to discuss the current one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my opinion, the discrepancy between what Sinfest was in the 2000s and what it is now is so jarring that it has become an entirely different entity, functionally separate from what it was once was. I think we can all agree that reliable sources have not given meaningful coverage to the very disturbing turn the comic has taken over the past few years.
Ordinarily, it's completely fine for an article on a comic to lay stagnant if reliably sourced coverage dries up. However, in this case, we're left with an article that discusses the generally favorable coverage Sinfest received in the past, says nothing about its current iteration, and maintains a link to the website. Together, these facts mean that this page functions as a puff piece on a work of antisemitic propaganda, which it then directly links to.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this was the intent of any editor here; I know that Wikipedia has policies for a reason, and I have not gotten any impression of fellow editors here other than that they are committed to following Wikipedia's procedures and improving the site's coverage of this comic. I do think that, in this case, we might have to be a bit flexible in the application of policy. "Notability is not temporary" is certainly a good guideline in general, but in this case, we have been left with no way to talk honestly about something that it would be harmful to talk about dishonestly. For that reason, I think deletion is the best option.
I'll be honest here, I'm only an occasional editor of Wikipedia, and I'm not thoroughly familiar with the site's policies or precedents on issues like this. I feel about this similarly to the way I do when I hear about US Supreme Court rulings, which is that I have a strong moral conviction about what is right, but I don't know much about actual legal procedure. (I've made a couple comments on the Sinfest talk page about policy in the past, and later realized that I was mistaken about how the relevant policy actually worked, which is why I haven't posted there since.) For that reason, I chose to comment rather than explicitly support deletion. My position is based not on specific Wikipedia policy but on my moral conviction that Wikipedia should not be covering antisemitic propaganda without explicitly labeling it as such.Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, meets GNG and has numerous sustained sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that the sources are not sustained, as it's impossible to update the article since 2011 or so due to a lack of sources. 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete, fails WP:GNG as sources either do not provide significant coverage or are not independent of the subject. Nominator Maplestrip/Mable and comment by Wehpudicabok are correct that this also fails WP:SUSTAINED as the only potentially reliable sources I see here, like Publishers Weekly, only provide coverage during a relatively brief time period, and the lack of sources means this fails WP:NPOV and WP:BLP with several poorly sourced claims about a living person's "perspectives" on "American politics, organized religion, and radical feminism."
    Source assessment: Here is a a source assessment table showing the first 10 out of 11 sources in the article. The 11th source[4] is another example of insignificant coverage, with just two sentences on this topic in a listicle of 29 other items. Elspea756 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Elspea756
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20170202032914/https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/11/required-reading-40-of-the-best-webcomics.html No Six sentences in a listicle of 40 items ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20161222023014/https://www.wired.com/2009/08/10-great-webcomics-you-should-not-share-with-your-kids-geekdad-wayback-machine/ No Five sentences in a listicle of 10 items ✘ No
https://sinfest.net/news.php (redirects to a site on Wikipedia's blacklist) No The subject's website No Self-published source ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20170707021326/https://www.themarysue.com/40-webcomics-you-need-to-read/2/ No Three sentences in a listicle of 40 items ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20090615151041/https://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6663678.html?nid=2789&source=link&rid=1907919383 No Largely based on interview quotes and likely press release from the subject ✘ No
Webcomics. Bloomsbury Comics Studies. ? Offline source I do not have access to. No Nominator says "in his blog [the source] made clear he did not do any research for this." ? Offline source I do not have access to. ✘ No
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/45885-tatsuya-ishida-speaks-on-sinfest-jesus-and-fans.html No Largely based on interview quotes and likely press release from the subject ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20180310090252/http://www.patreon.com/sinfest No The subject's blog post No Self-published source ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20141027235626/http://www.ccawards.com/2004.htm No Artist name and title of work simply listed three times in a list of 115+ other items ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110611141712/http://www.bt.no/bergenpuls/litteratur/Debuterer-i-Tommy-og-Tigeren-2285615.html No Mentioned in a single short sentence in an article on another topic ✘ 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}}.
Elspea756 (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I cannot stand by this source assessment. I would consider many of these sources perfectly usable, notably the Publisher's Weekly articles, the paragraphs in Wired and Paste, and the WCCA, had Sinfest simply left the zeitgeist. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Many of these sources are usable. I had a similar discussion years ago with a table like this (which was also faulty) and it only led to issues. Historyday01 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of credible sources sillygirly97 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's book coverage from 2013 [5] and 2020 [6]. I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you really start an article about a webcomic with that little? The 2013 source is nothing, just sinfest's name used once as an example alongside another comic.
    The 2020 book is sourced entirely from Reddit posts, which are themselves unusable. 05:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we looking at the same source??? The 2013 work contains several pages of actual analyses of Sinfest's panel usage and formatting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then write an article solely about Sinfest's panel usage and formatting, because that's all there's sources for. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What else would they write about? Plot recaps? In your eyes, what would count here?
    Fictional works are typically notable based on outside reception of them. Analyses of a comic like this is a very strong sign it is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's notable, then why is there no outside reception of it that we can use to keep it updated? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is, in the books?
    By your logic, it is against the rules to make an article on any comic until it is over. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One book. The 2020 book is just a collation of Reddit threads that do not count as sources. If only one book, and a fairly technical one at that, mentions something... it's probably not notable. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any webcomic being mentioned in a "fairly technical" book is an accomplishment in my reading, especially with several pages of coverage. The other book shows Sinfest being taken of note - it is not cited to Reddit threads other than to say that the comic's change in tone was controversial on the internet. Where else would he have gotten information on it being controversial on the internet?
    Publishers Weekly + Wired + Paste clear our threshold for reliability and SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it's not sourced entirely from Reddit posts, it is citing Reddit posts to say there was a lot of online controversy over this. What else would you cite???? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Iunno man, I only get involved in Wikipedia a few times a year. Try finding a source for the changes to Sinfest over time on your own time. Maybe discuss that with the people who watch for changes to the Sinfest page. Lot of productive things you could do if you want to save this page. Maybe find a newspaper to publish an article about Sinfest. In the mean time, my vote remains delete due to no WP:Sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no rebuttal to WP:NTEMP. Also you canvassed this discussion in your own favor which is very against our policy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fight the argument, not the one making it. And you have no rebuttal to WP:Sustained 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically, the decision between whether NTEMP overrules SUSTAINED or vice-versa depends on how short-term the sources were; say a week versus a few years. I recognize that my argument is a very atypical application of SUSTAINED that almost goes into WP:IAR territory. Regardless, I want to note that I agree with PARAKANYAA that the 2020 is a fine source, but willalso say that because Sinfest is merely an example of something that can happen with a webcomic, without much depth, it is not particularly useful for an encyclopedic article about Sinfest itself. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My rebuttal to sustained is that sustained does not mean "sources must exist that cover every appreciable moment of something", it means "it making the news for two days and then never again". Coverage over years is sustained by definition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Keep it seeing that we already have one wikipedia page for Stonetoss. Why not keep Sinfest as a page?96.241.99.133 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a huge difference between the Stonetoss and Sinfest pages, though, which kind of illustrates my point. The Stonetoss page immediately identifies it as a neo-Nazi webcomic right from the first sentence, and the claim has several citations to reliable sources. If similar reliable sources existed to identify Sinfest that way, we would simply add them, and then I would vote to keep. We cannot do that, because as far as I can tell, reliable sources do not cover Sinfest and haven't for many years. Wehpudicabok (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, Sinfest very much lacks WP:Sustained if you can't even source such a large and obvious part of the comic. Has anyone here read the recent articles? It's openly anti-semitic and not trying to hide it. It would practically make Jack Chick say 'that's a bit much' 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)~~ 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because one aspect isn't covered doesn't mean it fails sustained.
    Also, sustained doesn't even apply to the comic as a whole, it applies to events. If the owner had made one very controversial comic that would be an Event and need sustained coverage, but the reasons Sinfest is notable aren't related to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Sinfest had sustained notoriety it would be possible to keep the article up to date. It is not possible to keep the article up to date. Therefore Sinfest does not have sustained notoriety.
    If A then B, not B. Therefore not A. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:NTEMP. Once something is notable it is notable for good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:Sustained If something was 'notable' for a very short period of time and isn't afterwards, it probably was never notable. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage in this article is for over a decade!
    If this is what WP:SUSTAINED means, 99% of articles on a fictional work fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it has coverage over several years, it is still notable, even if the coverage ends. That is what WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP mean. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article currently contains many statements about sinfest's early political leanings who's sources would not be accepted in the modern Wikipedia... I have a low opinion on the sourcing of this article. At least an article about the layout and formatting would be sourced correctly. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'Clean up' is not possible. Because it wasn't actually notable in the first place. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per source assessment. Felicia (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I would be wary of the source assessment based on what is stated on the template page: "The use of this template does not imply a final or consensus view of how any given source should be assessed. Though it may be used to summarize a developing consensus, it may also reflect the assessments of a single editor in the course of a discussion." It seems to do the latter rather than the former. Just thought I'd make that one point here. Historyday01 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are two competing arguments happening in this thread and I think it's confusing the issue a lot. Argument 1 - The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit. Argument 2. The comic has never had significant older coverage. That would be a reason to delete, but I am personally a (weakish) Keep on this front. There are a variety of sources, even if the coverage isn't particularly "deep", and it appears to have held at least a minor cachet in the early 2010s webcomic scene. That said, the self-promotion citations (site news and patreon link) should probably be taken out. (aside, I am leery of the "source assessment" table, as it strikes me as a means to paint "objectivity" on the various sources by applying fancy formatting. is this a new thing to wikipedia? I've never seen it before.) Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the comment that "The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit.", editors have done so. Other editors have then removed those edits, because they were not reliably sourced. This is what we've been discussing. There's no way to talk honestly about what the comic is now, because no reliable sources have covered the change. And this is a particularly disturbing change to omit, because the comic has veered into explicitly antisemitic propaganda. If you have coverage of the change from reliable sources, by all means, add them. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't plan to edit the page, no, but it sounds like AfD is not the venue for this discussion then? I'm pretty firmly opposed to "we should delete it because an edit war is preventing the article from being corrected". Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I'm saying and it's not what happened. Some editors made good-faith edits to cover the change, then others pointed out that the changes have to be reliably sourced, and the sources that had been used didn't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. As far as I can tell, there simply aren't any reliable sources that have covered the change. It's not an edit war; there's just no way to make it better unless reliable sources start covering this topic, which they are unlikely to do. And finally (this is my own opinion, not Wikipedia policy), it is unethical to cover antisemitic propaganda without calling it that. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I am sorry to have mischaracterized your statements, I do not mean any ill will here. I agree that it is unfortunate that the article does not (and cannot?) cover the comic's turn into antisemitism and transphobia - things I too find reprehensible - but speaking purely from the perspective of article deletion, my understanding of the policy is simply that articles are not to be deleted for reasons like this. Hornpipe2 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. To be honest, I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policy as I'd like to be, which is why I keep emphasizing that some of what I'm saying is not based on that policy. If this were an ordinary webcomic, I'd be fine just leaving it as it was years ago; and if this were a culturally prominent piece of far-right propaganda, I'd be editing the article to reflect that. It's only because it's in the specific overlap of "gray area of notability" and "far-right propaganda" that we have this problem. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per source assessment 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion on the sources presented by Oaktree b? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficient. Could you start an article with just those? I don't think so. 05:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk)
They are both SIGCOV. And yes you could? Good enough for GNG, in combination with the earlier stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the 2013 book seems to prove is that Sinfest exists. I could write an article about it if you'd like using that source. Ahem "Sinfest is a webcomic".
In the old days you could get GNG with more original research than Wikipedia is willing to tolerate in the modern era. I helped clean up a lot of original research FROM the GNG article, including a list of characters. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2013 source has plenty of analytical coverage of Sinfest. What are you even talking about? It's multiple pages discussing and analyzing a comic from it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And? It's really, honestly, not enough. Wikipedia has far too many pages about non-notable webcomics that popped up during a brief span of time in the 90's-00's when webcomics were 'hot'. It was a fad, and Wikipedia would be better if many of these irrelevant articles were removed. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to do a mass AfD and propose they all be deleted, press your luck, but this clears the standards we have. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It cleared the standards we *had* in 2000. It does not clear the standards for 2020.
I think a reassessment, and deletion, is in order.
2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It clears the standards we currently have now, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the article no longer reflects what Sinfest has become, and editorial policies restricting its update to reflect this seismic shift. Ssteedman (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a deletion rationale. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be counted as Lack of WP:Sustained. Which is reason to delete. Sinfest is not notable, and has not been for ten years. 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reason for events. If Ishida had made one extremely controversial comic 10 years ago and it wasn't mentioned before or since, that would be a sustained issue. This is a comic strip. The coverage is already over multiple years - just because something isn't covered anymore does not make it non notable. Read WP:NTEMP
Plenty of notable TV shows or series have less coverage as they go along. We do not delete a notable work because its later versions have less coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's 'way less coverage' and there is 'completely a non entity among major publications'. And I'm not joking about that, have you read any of the recent strips? If we can't find a source for that extreme of an event, it was probably never an important thing in the first place.
It's like, you've got two football players. A major league one and a elementary school league one. Both get a wikipedia article because they're mentioned in a newspaper. Years go by without their pages being updated. Both of them suddenly say something racist. The major league football player is covered in a national newspaper and his page is updated to include the controversy. The elementary school one isn't, and his page isn't. Do we really need a page for the elementary kid who grew into an adult that no one official cares about? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not based on how popular something is, it's based on if it is covered in reliable secondary sources.
Your example is false because local coverage is typically given less weight in notability. Sinfest has coverage in Publishers Weekly, a respected national publication, and several books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Let's say they get an article in the same national newspaper and are even listed alongside each other. One goes on to have sustained notability. The other does not.
Sinfest does not have sustained notability. You've got a single book from 2013, and a few low quality secondary sources. The book from 2020 is unresearched per the author of that book's blog, and is largely just a citation of some uncitable Reddit threads. You do not have notibility.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are two football players, one of who goes on to be a household name, and one of whom is successful but less famous, and they both have continued coverage in newspapers, yes, they should both have articles. We do not only have articles on famous things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing. One doesn't have continued coverage and one does.
You said it in your own words.
and they both have continued coverage in newspapers,
Sinfest lacks continued coverage.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was covered for over a decade!! PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Covered for over a decade, sure, but the article in no way reflects what Sinfest is now.
Anyone reading Sinfest the Wiki article and Sinfest the webcomic would think they had landed up at another site with a similar name.
If Wikipedia strives for accuracy, it lacks it in describing this.
Ssteedman (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: There is significant onwiki canvassing going on. Special:Contributions/2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 has violated WP:CANVASS by notifying the following editors, whom 2601...403 expects to !vote delete: Kontakr, Daveosaurus, DontKnowWhyIBother, BurningLibrary, PrincessPandaWiki, Jellyfish. Please take this into account when closing this AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that there's also a push from a Reddit post encouraging people to brigade for a "delete" vote. https://www.reddit.com/r/sinfest/comments/1ecf5ki/sinfest_article_up_for_deletion_on_wikipedia/ Hornpipe2 (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add @Historyday01: to the list of users that were possibly inappropriately notified (WP:CANVASS) of this AFD. Diff. Timestamps indicate that Historyday01 received the user talk notification first and then !voted in this AFD second. I have blocked 2601:447:C801:3AD0/64 for a week for canvassing after being previously warned about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's a good idea. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. After a recent bad experience with an AfD, I am generally cautious to participate these days, but I saw this discussion as an exception. And I actually would have even voted delete myself, but its my personal view to vote "keep" (even weak keep) or "redirect" whenever possible. So, if that user was trying to get me to vote delete... that did NOT work. Historyday01 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't care enough about the article to !vote either way. However notability is not temporary, and Sinfest is far from the only comic that became extremist late in its run.Daveosaurus (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that Cerebere's changes can be sourced. And I think that pretty clearly shows the difference between an actually notable, sustained notability, for a comic and... well... this. Which is not sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How long does the coverage have to be for you to consider it sustained? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that depends on what happens in the comic. Has to be enough coverage to keep any major tonal shifts in the comic over the course of it's life updated. If you can't manage that, it's not actually notable.
    If official people care about the comic, they will write official things when the comic makes major changes. Like people did with Cerebrus. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is contrary to WP:NTEMP, so no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, however, WP:Sustained
    Wikipedia has a lot of 'contradictory' rules that are intended to be balanced against each other. WP:NTEMP must be balanced against WP:Sustained and this falls on the side of not being notable.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NTEMP and SUSTAINED are not contradictory. Sustained means that it must have more than a single-event burst of news coverage to be notable, while NTEMP means that once it has cleared that bar it is forever notable. None of the coverage is the "single-event" burst of notable that SUSTAINED applies to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have One. Book.
    That sounds like a single burst to me. The great webcomics fad of the 00's.
    2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The other book is fine. The source analysis is incorrect, the Publishers Weekly source is not a "press release" and is fine, the Wired and Paste sources are enough to be SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like this deletion discussion has seen enough arguments between 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 and PARAKANYAA; I'm afraid that you two may continue talking in circles around eachother until one decides to stop responding. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A possible solution: what is wrong with Sean Kleefeld's 2024 "On Tatsuya Ishida" post as a source for citations in the article (as previously mentioned above)? The author has written an (already cited!) book on comics, is seemingly something of an authority or expert in the subject matter, etc. I guess that blog publishing is self-publishing, but, this isn't self-promoting - more of an "addendum" or errata to the book, in my mind. If this was permitted it seems it'd let the article be further edited towards "correctness" and this discussion could be put to rest. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am reading further about Wikipedia's allowable use of self-published sources and I now believe this self-published article by this expert author meets the criteria for usage except it runs afoul of Biography of Living Person: Avoid self-published sources - you cannot use a self-published third-party source to support a claim about a living individual. I'm not sure if it would be possible to carefully select parts of this that cover specifically the comic itself and not the artist, but the title doesn't give much hope :P
    That said, I encourage people to read the guidelines on self-published sources and especially cases where the subject is writing about themself: it seems likely to me that a handful of posts from the author on their site would suffice to meet both the goals of documenting the current artist's viewpoints while remaining on the right side of the allowable sources discussion. The reverted version (see first post in this thread) cites some Patreon posts and other items from the author themselves: perhaps there's some usable gems in there. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't use Kleefeld's post to say anything about Ishida's descent into conspiracy theories and antisemitism, but it should be fine to use it to say that the comic has changed and no longer connects to its once large fanbase. —Kusma (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while I'm not usually in favor of reading WP:SUSTAINED in such a strict manner (especially for stuff like media or events, which often only have a few bursts of coverage), it's necessary here to avoid having a page that totally misrepresents its subject. If this strip were truly notable, there'd be at least one or two sources commenting on its current nature. The fact that there isn't indicates the page should be deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People are no longer posting regular updates about Badgers (animation), do you suggest that to be removed as well? I am really having a hard time understanding this retroactive hyper-scrutiny applied to a webcomic which was literally written about in book(s) as the best solution to an out-of-date overview. It's flatly the wrong tool to resolve the issue. Hornpipe2 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hornpipe2: Badgers (animation) is not still being published. Again, this is a rather weird case as this almost never happens with media. But having this article as-is is not really in line with our fundamental policies. Ideally, some reliable source would cover this comic strip's transformation and we could keep the article, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does I'll switch to keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability isn't temporary and the book sources combined with the smaller mentions in other sources add up to GNG. Most of these deletion votes are motivated by a dislike of the comic/comic author. WP:SUSTAINED does not mean continuous coverage all the time, just that coverage is not for one event/a few weeks. Sinfest has attracted coverage over multiple years. The canvassing needs to be noted too. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Traumnovelle you're one of the proponents on the Sinfest talkpage of, well, not updating it with any new information because you don't feel that the sources meet Wikipedia standards. The standards that you're holding new sources too is, in fact, so tight that I honestly don't believe that the older sources hold up to those standards.
    It cannot be updated, and it should not have existed in the first place... which is honestly reasonable, it's just a minor webcomic, no real direct links from other Wikipedia articles to it. Documenting it would be like documenting every single fast food chain in the USA that ever showed up in a local newspaper... not something that Wikipedia is intended for.
    What I want to ask is: Why do the early articles on irrelevant sources get a pass in your mind, but the 2024 kleefield blog post and the newsletter article don't? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this was a major webcomic 10 years ago that is now obscure, but did have some nontrivial coverage outside of the innermost webcomics bubble. Sure, it is not Dilbert, but it was, as RationalWiki says, "one of the most popular webcomics on the Internet". Notability is not temporary, and there is nontrivial coverage of Sinfest back when it was a popular webcomic on Google Scholar. —Kusma (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "This was a major webcomic 10 years ago". Original research, also all webcomics were more in the limelight back then, there was a fad for them. 'Rationalwiki says' not a good source. Google Scholar. Not a good source. Bloomsburry studies: Mentions sinfest as an example, but that alone is not enough to make Sinfest notable. Regardless of if you like or dislike the comic, wikipedia is not the place for non-notible articles that cannot be improved. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That it was a major webcomic 10 years ago is evident from its use as an example in various publications, not just from the non-RS Rationalwiki. There do not seem to be any sources for the last ten years, but that may be for the best. We can just say "As of 2014" to clarify we have no newer information. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we do have subject matter expert Sean Kleefeld who can be cited to say that the comic has changed, possibly alienating its old audience. —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a previous attempt to include that information. It was removed because, according to the person who removed it, it wasn't a usable source. The fact of the matter is that the article cannot be updated and cannot be improved. So far no sources have been sufficiently legitimate to overcome the inertia of the folks who don't want to improve nor modernize the page. The page should be taken down. Le Blue Dude (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete 'Rational wiki' is not a valid source. We don't need a separate page for every comic that ever made it onto a top ten list somewhere. This is not a notable subject Le Blue Dude (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I want to clarify my position a bit: The matters spoken of in this article are unverifiable. The sources are bad. Worse the article is riddled with original research, such as claiming that the 2008 shift in the comic was due to 'uncertainty and stress about the financial meltdown' which is NOT a quote from the purported source of that edit. This is a poor article that's not verifiable and made almost entirely from original research. I do not recommend retaining this article.Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, lastly, according to the deletion process, deletion is for articles that cannot be improved. This article cannot be improved. There are no reasonable sources for current events, and the sources for prior events are not sufficient. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and full disclosure, I'm here because I saw the post in reddit. And yes, this article has needed to go for a long while. The deletion section says that articles that are 'unimprovable' should be deleted, and the past few years of people editing new information into the article only to have it removed due to a lack of verifiability is proof that it's unimprovable. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    >Oh, lastly, according to the deletion process, deletion is for articles that cannot be improved.
    That isn't what WP:DEL-REASON states. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a side note, I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that there's a direct link to sinfest on the wiki page. There should not be a direct link to openly antisemitic works on a wikipedia page, and sinfest is openly antisemitic. Le Blue Dude (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTCENSORED. What's the point in removing the link when I can type sinfest into google and it comes up as the first result any how? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for one thing, having the link improves Sinfest's standing in online search engine results. I know Sinfest comes up as the top result on a search for "sinfest," but I'm not thrilled with the idea of putting it higher in the results for terms also mentioned on its Wikipedia article, like "webcomic." I also don't like the idea that any random person perusing Wikipedia could find themselves on a site that promotes hate speech with no warning. Finally, just because Wikipedia is not censored does not mean a link is required. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The link doesn't improve their standing in search results because we use nofollow. There is almost never a reason to avoid linking to a website in an article on that website. We link to Stormfront; we can link to this. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I didn't know that. Okay, I retract that portion of my comment, then. Thank you for the correction. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've already commented a lot on this AFD so I won't dwell here, but I do think that, even though this isn't a vote, I should make it clear that I favor deletion. Until reliable sources exist that can cover what Sinfest is now, the article as it exists is fundamentally inaccurate, and we have no way to make it accurate that's within Wikipedia policy. I would argue this falls under reason #7 to delete an article that's listed at WP:DEL-REASON: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." While some reliable sources documented what Sinfest was circa 2008, no such sources exist for what it is now, and the coverage even then was sparse at best. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria in del-reason refers to things that cannot be verified to actually exist or contain no reliable sources at all. The article contains multiple reliable sources and someone posted two quality sources that can be used in this AfD. We don't need to be able to verify every detail/constant coverage or else we would have to delete Valerius Flaccus (poet) because it's impossible to verify anything about his life beyond his death. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to reply to me, you could at least respond to the crux of what I'm saying. I will reiterate what I said above: "the article as it exists is fundamentally inaccurate, and we have no way to make it accurate that's within Wikipedia policy." I'm not talking about "every detail" or "constant coverage"; I don't demand that the article cover how Slick is no longer a main character. I'm talking about the fact that it's now an antisemitic hate site, which is an enormous change that this article completely ignores. Wikipedia should not lie to its readers. As it stands now, that's exactly what it's doing. Wehpudicabok (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a fair number of what I would call bad rationales here, both to keep ("because we have an article about stone toss") and to delete ("it started to suck really bad between now and the last RS coverage"). For the record, and to put more specificity on what "suck really bad" means, I just went to the website and read through the last couple months of strips. While the art style is certainly better than it was some decade ago when I last heard of this comic, but I cannot help but notice, well: the current series is called "Into The Rabbi Hole" and the latest strip features two roosters representing Christianity and Islam being forced to fight for entertainment by a crowd of jeering Jews. If you go look at a random strip from the last year, it is just more of the same variety of rancid dog shit. The guy seems to have gone completely off the beam in this regard. Well, okay: this is dumb and bad, but I don't think it is an issue that makes sense to resolve by deleting the article. jp×g🗯️ 12:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem isn't the 'sucking' so much as the fact that we can't get any coverage of the shift into open antisemitism. Right now we've got an article about an anti-semitic website that doesn't explain what it is, and includes a direct link without any warnings to the antisemitic website.
    Admittedly Traumnovelle isn't exactly helping. You can see from the article's talk page that this user will only accept the strictest rationelle for 'support'... so strict, in fact, that under Traumnovelle's standards the current article should not have been made. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically what I'm trying to say is: The article is not accurate. The article cannot be made accurate. Deletion is better than having an inaccurate article that is impossible to fix. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I may end up needing to revise my vote here.
    I am trying to look this up and I'm going nuts.
    Has nobody said a word about this in any usable source whatsoever?
    Like, there's nothing at all. No news sites, no magazines, no industry blogs, no blogs of any kind: it's literally just discussion threads on forums and reddit and TVTropes and the Bad Webcomics wiki. I can't think of the last time I saw something like this. What? I feel like it is basically every other day you see a bold accusation that this or that public figure has some kind of secret right-wing sympathies -- social media posters and tabloid sites love connecting the dots on some infinitesimal freeze-frame detail in a video or an obscure flag in the background of a political rally. But somehow, nobody gives a hoot if one of the most widely-read webcomics of the 2000s pivots into [sinfest.xyz/view.php?date=2024-05-26 strips about how Hitler was based]?
    Wild!
    For what it's worth, even the hater websites do not seem to give a crap about this -- the RationalWiki article does not see fit to even mention it until after a rambling diatribe about him wanting porno to be illegal and thinking the COVID vaccine is a conspiracy and being a second-wave feminist instead of a third-wave feminist (all of which are given more attention and mentioned before the Nazi stuff). I guess maybe I am completely alone in thinking that "saying Adolf Hitler was the good guy" is a notably or unusually bad thing to do, and in reality, it's about on the same level of badness as "using the term 'cuck'".
    Like, am I losing my marbles? Isn't being a Nazi a pretty big deal? jp×g🗯️ 14:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is normally a pretty big deal. You know. If the subject is actually notable. This is the exact point I've been trying to make. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much appreciate this comment, @JPxG:, as it affirms that this atypical deletion discussion has a real basis to it. It feels like an absurd situation and at least this gets that across. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've already voted but: Right from the deletion article "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" is where we're sitting right now. You can see many attempts to find more sources in the talk page, and furthermore I've repeatedly turned to the Sinfest Reddit to attempt to find more sources, asking redditers to scrape together any sources they can find.
    Further This article heavily fails WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. It is simply not an accurate representation of the subject. According to WP:COMPOUTCOMES 'flash animations are typically deleted unless extremely well known'. Generalising that to webcomics... I feel that sinfest is simply not extremely well known, and that deletion is the correct step. If it was well known, it would have more sources than a handful of bylines in weak media. The 'book' everyone cites doesn't seem to even directly speak about sinfest, it just uses sinfest as an example of a type of webcomic style... alongside other webcomics also used as an example of that style. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have made 32 comments at this AfD so far; I think if you can't manage to get the point across in 31 comments, the 32nd is unlikely to be helpful. jp×g🗯️ 14:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I'm sorry I'm neuro-divergent and have a tendency to over share and talk to much. That being said, I do want to communicate, and I think it does help 2601:447:C801:3AD0:28EA:B8CD:4100:213B (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are also continuing to canvass users (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Historyday01&oldid=1237166343) despite being IP blocked already - which is strictly against the rules. Knock it off. Hornpipe2 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's not really cool. It's not improving their case either. Historyday01 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You really don't understand the links you're referencing. Encyclopaedic says 'Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.' which goes against what you wish for, unverifiable information to be included. The article complies with encyclopaedic because it represents a summary of what the reliable sources state.
    WP:OUTCOMES just provides an overview of how AfDs usually turn out: it is not a policy nor a guideline and will not be considered by the closer. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I'd say there is marginal support for keeping this page, per the existing sources, and the discussion here. I think others are more qualified to speak on that than me. Surely there are some unreliable sources, I won't dispute. I also feel that some IP addresses (like 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403|2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 which has more than 25 comments) are spamming their comments here to make their point in favor of deletion, which the closer should keep in mind. I think it is better to keep the page for the time being and work on it to improve it rather than deleting it outright. I can't think of anything this page would be redirected to, so at this point the only logical thing to do is to support a "weak keep."--Historyday01 (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSUSTAINED are clearly met by the two books mentioned above, as well as this brief 2009 review in Library Journal and this substantial 2012 review in The Comics Journal. It's not ideal that there's no more recent coverage of the comic, but that's not a reason to delete the article entirely; if the 2024 Kleefeld blog post mentioned above can't be used as a source, maybe it could instead be added as an external link. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 21:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per source assessment. The assessment isn't claiming the Wired, Publishers Weekly or Paste are unreliable. It shows these were passing mentions or press releases. The comic came and went and now seems to exist solely as a topic on user-generated sites. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for how to mention/cite recent changes to the comic strip

[edit]

So, basically, the central deal of it here seems to be that there is a big dispute over what to do about the fashening (for lack of a better word). The conflict here is that the article ends up being utterly ridiculous if we do not mention the fashening, but the sources we have are pretty patchy, and we cannot just claim in the voice of the encyclopedia that people have certain views, even when they obviously are. This is, of course, a good policy to have, but it does present us with a strange challenge here.

Well, after much rancor I think I have gotten something workable out of one of the sources previously ripped out because it was being used and quoted from poorly: the 2024 Kleefeld post (a subject-matter expert who we cite as such all over the product) that I think genuinely threads the needle of WP:BLP concerns to avoid saying anything defamatory about Ishida, while clearly indicating that a) the strip's political leanings have undergone another jarring shift and b) it is now a giant pile of dog shit.

I think we are allowed to note briefly, in an article about a webcomic, that a scholar of webcomics felt it necessary to note that the comic's quality declined precipitously. I have tried to phrase this in a way that does not make any statements as claims to objective fact, and presents them entirely as quotations from Kleefeld.

By 2024, the strip had changed direction again; author Sean Kleefeld said that when catching up on Sinfest issues, he "wasn't understanding them", and that the comic's political themes had gone on a "downward spiral" that seemed "at odds with reality".[1]

References

  1. ^ Kleefeld, Sean (April 8, 2024). "On Tatsuya Ishida". Kleefeld on Comics. Archived from the original on May 4, 2024. Retrieved May 4, 2024.

How's about this. jp×g🗯️ 21:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fair. Historyday01 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely support that if we keep the article, but still support deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Elli. Still probably better overall to delete, but if the article stays, this should too. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that would work. —Kusma (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great - exactly what I was hoping we could get out of all this. I considered whether we might also be able to get Ishida's own statements in there to corroborate the new political direction; unfortunately, his "news" page is rather bare of actual statements. Maybe someone could dig deeper for that sort of thing. Hornpipe2 (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, content-related discussion should be left to the talkpage of the article, rather than in this deletion discussion. I appreciate the work done tho, of course! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons discussed elsewhere - "Article needs catching up to cover shifts in the subject's themes" isn't a great reason to delete, though it certainly does need some overhaul. Sinfest was a big deal in the early days of webcomics (one of the banner offerings for Keenspot, before Ishida left that site in 2006, and a breakout success by webcomic standards in general up through the early 2010s), and feels worth documenting for that historical value alone. It got a writeup in The Comics Journal as late as 2012, talking about the strip's artistic merits and the way its storytelling was developing in new and more complex directions. (Garrity, Shaenon (2012-04-23). "The Sisterhood of the Pimp Ninja Sluts". The Comics Journal. Retrieved 2024-07-30.) It's quite late here and I don't have time or energy to figure out how to best fit it into the article, or to revisit the recent (May) Haus of Decline/Bitter Karella podcast episode covering Sinfest's later developments (and how that fits with BLP), but there might be something there that can help bring the article up to date in a factual and reasonably neutral way. Mockingbus (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm extremely surprised to find this Garrity article I hadn't seen before. It is very good and certainly establishes more classic WP:N. Thank you for finding that! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: IMO Publishers Weekly articles and two book passages make it notable. The Publishers Weekly article, while it may be "based on an interview" as the table says, is not simply a straightforward transcript of an interview -- we can't just discount media coverage because it includes direct quotations like this.--MattMauler (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JPxG's proposed inclusion seems fine to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more feedback to the proposal from JPxG, which seems to be gaining some traction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is insufficient. My vote remains on delete. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: notability is not temporary and JPxG's proposal shows that the current issues are summountable. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I'm learning a lot about Wikipedia sourcing from this AfD :) A user edited the page to add this info, which was reverted quickly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinfest&diff=prev&oldid=1238006919 - note that the change is 'using some of the comic's strips themselves' as a reference to talk about what the comic has become. Why isn't this allowed? Perhaps because it's considered "original research" by Wikipedia, reading the comic and applying our own interpretation, rather than citing some expert doing it? Or is there some other policy? Hornpipe2 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct on why it's forbidden. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the relisting admin that I've updated my original comment to "strong delete." The proposal that the relisting seeks to solicit more feedback on is to use a single unreliable self-published blog to give negative opinions about a living person and contentious political topics. This is counter to many of our policies, including WP:BLPSPS. Elspea756 (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got to be kidding me -- this is one of the silliest comments I've read all month. A widely published scholar on the topic of webcomics said on his own website that the comic -- not the guy, the webcomic that the article is about -- had gone on a "downward spiral". Like, to be clear -- this is a farcical understatement. The comic is now, on a daily basis, the author going on extended rants about how he hates Jews and transgenders et cetera. To limit our description of this to "downward spiral" is already an extremely mild milquetoast phrasing resulting from massive concessions to BLP.

    Your reasoning here is obscene: we can't write anything at all suggesting that the comic is bad, because it's so bad that mentioning how bad it is constitutes defamation, because it makes the guy who wrote it look like a bad person. Well, this makes no sense, there is no policy that says this, and nowhere else on Wikipedia do we make content decisions on this basis.

    Do you genuinely think that WP:BLP says we're forbidden by policy to include any negative assessment of a creative work? Have you, or anyone else, successfully applied this reasoning to any other content in any other article? I claim the answer is "no", and this is a 100% diametrically-incorrect interpretation of what this policy says and how it works. jp×g🗯️ 05:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will counter the "widely published scholar" part; this author got a single book published and that's it. However, it's a very basic bit of reception of a creative work that indeed should not fall under BLP concerns. It doesn't even try to say what the politics are. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Maplestrip, for clearly debunking the "widely published scholar" claim. I'll note that WP:BLP says "Never use self-published sources." The proposed addition is to quote a self-published blog claiming that the artist is on a "downward spiral" and "at odds with reality."[7] The blogger's claim of a "downward spiral" is "everything you need to know about Ishida [the artist] and the downward spiral of Sinfest" is "The long, rambling, and hateful journey from ... nerd [to] addict [to] theorist [to] TERF [to] extremist." The "at odds with reality" claim is that "we've seen a comic creator slide into a headspace that seems at odds with reality." These are all from an unreliable self-published blog making contentious claims about a living person. This has no place in a wikipedia article. Elspea756 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not in the article. I don't know how to explain to you that text not being in an article is not in an article, and I don't understand why you are just repeating the same thing over and over. Your claims are not true. jp×g🗯️ 13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Amending a comment from elsewhere: Kleefeld may not be a widely-published scholar, but that doesn't mean he isn't a valid source. His book got at least one thorough and it seems generally favorable academic review in a relevant journal, and I'd argue that he's at least demonstrated credibility in the field. (Kashtan, Aaron (Summer 2021). "Webcomics by Sean Kleefeld (review)". Inks: The Journal of the Comics Studies Society. Ohio State University Press. Retrieved 2024-08-03.) -Mockingbus (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lol I guess your plan is to target the one consensus we had, get it knocked out, and then you can get back to pushing to delete the comic you don't like? Hornpipe2 (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non-notable with no WP:SIGCOV. And quite frankly, when I search for "Sean Kleefeld", I'm not seeing any reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV that would even qualify this guy for being a "scholar" by our guidelines, or to even have a biography. And a WP search for "Sean Kleefeld" only shows six results. And as one book review put it, his lack of research makes most of what is offered appear anecdotal and subjective. In my view, which is supported by an absence of reliable sources about this guy, his viewpoint is non-notable and insignificant. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean Kleefeld is not the author of Sinfest, whether he is notable or not is completely irrelevant to the question of whether his books represent significant coverage of Sinfest. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you have posted this comment on the wrong page -- Sean Kleefeld is one of around a dozen sources who's being cited for a single sentence. jp×g🗯️ 13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing around a dozen sources being cited for this single sentence: By 2024, the strip had changed direction again; author Sean Kleefeld said that when catching up on Sinfest issues, he "wasn't understanding them", and that the comic's political themes had gone on a "downward spiral". It appears to me a Wikipedia editor has analyzed and interpreted a primary source themselves, then decided that a single sentence is an adequate summary of a 1700+ word article, and then to boot, cherry-picked five words to emphasize (the "quoted passages"), because they think those five words are noteworthy out of a 1700+ word article. Sorry, but I prefer that third-party independent sources analyze and interpret primary sources, and then Wikipedia reports what they think is noteworthy. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be an objection to the general project of "summarizing and presenting the information found in reliable secondary sources", i.e., to the entire project of writing an encyclopedia. If you feel that Kleefeld's article is being misrepresented or missummarized in the article, that's a content question that is subject to discussion and consensus on the talk-page; it has nada to do with notability or deletion. (I am the same person as IP 100.36.106.199.) 71.25.15.114 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sentence implies a comma; sorry, let me type it out explicitly, so that there is no possible way to misinterpret it:
    • Sean Kleefeld is one of around a dozen sources.
    • Sean Kleefeld is being cited for a single sentence.
    jp×g🗯️ 21:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make it clear your comment is about Sean Kleefield not whether the Sinfest article should be deleted? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting seems to have muddied the waters even further haha.
    Regardless of the status of edits adding Kleefeld's article as a source for new information, we come back to the same issue, which IMO is all around WP:NTEMP. Arguments that "the comic doesn't matter NOW" or "the comic hasn't mattered in 10 YEARS" does nothing to dissuade me, or I think most "keep" voters, from pointing out that the comic was notable THEN and should be kept for that reason alone. In fact, through this process, more sources have turned up discussing the comic during its heyday, which further reinforces notability during that time.
    But even so, some argue that even IF it was notable for a time, there seems to be some argument for a "notability quotient", where continued publication requires continued notability, i.e. WP:SUSTAINED on a very long time scale - is the barrier for notability higher, because the author didn't quit while he was ahead?
    The only thing that would persuade me, and (dare I speak for) most "keep" voters, is compelling arguments that the comic was never notable, or that even granted that, past notability isn't a high enough bar in this case. Aside from the (imo very flawed) source assessment table above, the closest thing to overlap I've seen between the two angles is "nobody is writing about its downfall now, so maybe it was never important to begin with." I think it would be beneficial to stick to a discussion of how WP:NTEMP works (or doesn't) with a long-running, lately-ignored media property instead, and hash out the Kleefeld article inclusion in the talk page.
    Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; I have no idea why we are being forced to have this conversation at the AfD. I have absolutely no idea why we are being forced to have this conversation at the AfD when it's simultaneously happening on the talk page, and the same people are crossposting the same comments to both pages. It's unbelievably pointless and I frankly think anyone who brings this stuff up again should just have their comments clerked to the talk page and replaced here with a link. jp×g🗯️ 00:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting seems to have muddied the waters even further
    Agreed, this AfD has been open for 17 days and at this point there is a clear consensus to keep the article, so someone should close this trainwreck. WP:RELIST says a relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. I don't see any reason to wait, people seem to be getting frustrated with one another, evidenced by the screaming and hollering going on. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kleefeld may not be a notable scholar (and I'd argue that he isn't one at this time), but he isn't the one up for AFD here. His book got at least one thorough and it seems generally favorable academic review in a relevant journal. I'd argue that he's at least demonstrated credibility in the field. (Kashtan, Aaron (Summer 2021). "Webcomics by Sean Kleefeld (review)". Inks: The Journal of the Comics Studies Society. Ohio State University Press. Retrieved 2024-08-03.) -Mockingbus (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: has been the subject of sustained and substantial critical attention. Just restricting to the online sources, the 2012 Comics Journal review and the recent Kleefeld blogpost are in-depth, independent coverage, and the Paste, Wired, and LJ reviews are well beyond passing mentions. None of the delete votes offers a compelling counter-argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: the removal of the improvements to the article stands as further proof that sinfest is not, and has never been, notable outside of a minor fad for webcomics in the 2005-2015 era. We don’t need an article for every individual pog and we don’t need an article for every individual webcomic. After this comic page is deleted, I think that dresden codak should be next Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lol Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 8(+1) interwikis including the deletionist German WP, which claims the web comic was also released as four printed books. Seems to have made quite a cultural impact (WP:N) at its heyday. – sgeureka t•c 07:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject meets WP:GNG, and I don't see a policy-compliant argument for deletion here. I'll note for those concerned about coverage that out-of-date articles are common on Wikipedia. It should be clear from the dates of the sources that the article is summarizing older coverage. Suriname0 (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I won't !vote since I haven't done a source analysis. But I'd like to say that this should only be deleted if the original AFD that concluded that this passes WP:GNG was incorrect, and that this does not actually pass WP:GNG. Something being notable but not having recent sourcing is, in my opinion and based on what I've seen in other AFDs, not a valid reason for deletion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brights (company)

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

Unremarkable outsourcing company, fails WP:CORP. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in a WP:BEFORE search, sources are all press releases or passing mentions. "Awards" are inclusion in two long lists of service providers on Clutch.co. Borderline speedy db-corp. Article's edit history strongly suggests paid editing. Wikishovel (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakim Ali Zardari Flyover

[edit]
Hakim Ali Zardari Flyover (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 GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Clearly advertisement . — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

African Entertainment Awards USA

[edit]
African Entertainment Awards USA (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 subject does not meet the general notability guide nor any criteria I am aware of. The sources therein are either non-reliable, or press releases. Best, Reading Beans 14:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of supercentenarians by continent#Other North American countries and territories. ✗plicit 14:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucía Chacón Hechavarría

[edit]
Lucía Chacón Hechavarría (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 are about 50 people in the world who are older than her at any given time (see List of oldest living people), almost none of whom have Wikipedia articles. This is one of those articles that don't meet notability standards. Renerpho (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Campania#Transport. Editors can merge content if they wish. Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AIR Campania

[edit]
AIR Campania (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)

Unfortunately, I cannot find reliable sources per NCORP guideline. TealBass (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage to warrant an independent page. At best, it can be merged to [8] Wikilover3509 (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any other thoughts on a potential merger?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 12:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trolleybuses_in_Avellino#Second_system could also work but I think Campania#Transport is better because of UnicoCampania. IgelRM (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sérgio Rafael

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Searching only uncovers further database sources and a very limited number of primary sources. C679 12:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is absolutely trivial and routine transactional news, nowhere close to SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memaliaj Massacre

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Memaliaj Massacre (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)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Shooting isn't notable enough for a standalone article, nor does it have any international coverage that I could find. I previously nominated this same page yesterday, but decided to withdraw my nomination since it was moved to draftspace by Drmies immediately after. CycloneYoris talk! 09:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of St Columba

[edit]
Knights of St Columba (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)

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, speedy keep under WP:SK1. Sources from previous AfD have been added to further reading by PARAKANYAA. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaean Reach

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gaean Reach (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)

Fictional region in space in a rather niche series/universe (not even named in the article, but perhaps "Gaean Reach series" would be the one?). While it is plausible the series might be notable, what we have here is WP:TNTable - the article does not even list books or whatever works might form this series, and is a pure plot summary of the location (universe?). Pure WP:FANCRUFT, poorly referenced (to one fictional work and to fan-written list of works in ISFDb). At best this could redirect back to the author's bio, unless someone totally rewrites it based on reliable sources... PS. After the min I see this was AfD few months ago - but even if sources exist, the current article fails WP:V completely and as written has zero suggestion of WP:GNG. Unless someone rewrites it, this cannot be kept in the current format, particularly as the sources found are about the book series, not the fictional region, which the current article is a plot summary of (and nothing more). We cannot keep such fancraft; if anyone wants to save this, check the sources found and if they pan out, at least add a sentence or two of analysis (I've saved many articles like this in the past, but sorry, no time for this one right now). PPS. I did check the three online sources and I am afraid we have two passing mentions and one decent source (PhD thesis), this is still not enough since GNG requires multiple sources, and we have just one workable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was AfD'd two months ago and this has sigcov. Per the last AfD it has 9 pages of coverage in a PhD thesis and sigcov in at least two other books, plus other shorter treatments. No one added them, simply. And "this cannot be kept in the current format" is contrary to WP:NEXIST. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administratively Close Nominator's BEFORE was insufficiently robust such that the prior AfD, and its sources, were not even identified. Per RENOM, this is an illegitimate AfD, occurring two months after a KEEP, and should be closed at which point Piotrus can open a DRV, wait four more months if desired, or actually use editing (or even proposed move/rename) to improve the article in the interim. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with. is WP:BEFORE item B ("Carry out these checks") step 4. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. The current article is terrible, but time between the two AfDs has not been sufficient and several sources were identified in the last AfD. I'd suggest someone more familiar with the series work on improving it if they can. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Saint Seiya characters. ✗plicit 13:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Athena's Saints

[edit]
List of Athena's Saints (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)

Riding on the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saint Seiya antagonists (by User:Jontesta), this is poorly referenced sublist that is WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:FANCRUFT and fails WP:NLIST. At best we could redirect it (maybe merge a bit) to List of Saint Seiya characters Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McSheehan

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annu Navani

[edit]
Annu Navani (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:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Perdoceo#History. Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts Miami

[edit]
Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts Miami (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 general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Sedimentologiwan Indonesia

[edit]
Forum Sedimentologiwan Indonesia (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 general notability guideline. article creator is co-founder of organisation. ltbdl (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gutrecht

[edit]
Paul Gutrecht (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 general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Breaking Point (band). Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Disorder

[edit]
Beautiful Disorder (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 general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Breaking Point (band): aside from the AllMusic review present in the article, I found this interview in Hit Parader and a chart placement for one of the album's songs. All told, I don't think the article would meet notability standards even with those additions. The gathered sources would be plenty to add to the band's article, which could use the expansion, but not enough for a standalone article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Count Cola

[edit]
Count Cola (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)

Defunct regional drink brand that died decades ago. Zero sources, searching reveals no significant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Volf (speedway rider)

[edit]
Jaroslav Volf (speedway rider) (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 sportsperson without notable sporting achievements. Sources only refer to sports results. Searching the internet for "Jaroslav Volf" shows other people with the same name. Same case as the recently nominated Bedřich Slaný. FromCzech (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Theatre Ensemble

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

Does not appear to be a notable theater troupe. Apparently defunct now. Some coverage in the UCLA student newspaper [14], as well as brief announcements of productions in other outlets [15]. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bosnia and Herzegovina–Serbia relations#List of wars. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia

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

This is on the face of it a violation of our policy on improper synthesis, these were wars fought between vastly different entities across different time periods, political systems, etc. Not every battle of e.g. the Ottoman Empire that had been located in or near Bosnia constitutes a "battle of Bosnia + adversary", because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. I don't know if it can be rewritten to be actually fine, and I frankly do not trust the quote-less referencing from the newbie user that I already had to warn about sourcing at User talk:Vedib#Introduction to contentious topics. It was passed through AfC but it shouldn't survive AfD as is. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Joy (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also note that the claims the list captions make are sometimes downright bizarre. Like Ottoman-Bosnian victory and Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred under First Serbian Uprising - this is both casually dismissing elementary facts of the situation, that these conflicts were between the Ottoman Empire and its subjects at the time, definitely not just Bosnia and Serbia as such; and it's making a point of listing massacres in some sort of a grief porn kind of way. It's really below the standard of an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article in its current form is extremely problematic; Siege of Belgrade (1521) is not a "conflict between Bosnia and Serbia". The nom's concerns would still apply even if only entries like War of Hum were included. It should not have been accepted at AFC, but I see no need to draftify it now. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . uf, there are all sorts of apples and oranges in this hodgepodge! (Shouldn't, say, Serbs of Bosnia rebelling against Ottomans be Bosnians fighting Ottomans, etc.?)--౪ Santa ౪99° 08:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep. If the author of the article can write and source the article with the changes I list below (I welcome critiques and suggestions from the opposers @Joy, @Santasa99):
  • Bosnian War. The only point during the war during which an entity formally referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form) was in a state of war with an entity formally referred to as "Bosnia" (shortened form) was in April–May 1992 when the Socialist Republic of Serbia, as a constituent of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia or "Yugoslavia" (shortened form) was at war with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Republika Srpska and Serbian Krajina were sometimes colloquially grouped together with Yugoslavia as "Serbia", but such nomenclature is not standard practice in this encyclopedia. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace "1992–1995" with "1992".
  • World War II in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Territorial control initially shifted from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the German Reich and Kingdom of Italy, partly transferred to the Independent State of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). at no point was the formal English name for either the Yugoslav government-in-exile or the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland "Serbia", although their political administration eventually included an entity referred to as "Serbia", parallel to to the Banovina of Croatia (shortened form "Croatia"). Beginning with 25 Novemeber 1943, the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that by that time included an entity "Serbia", so the inclusion of the entry is acceptable. If the author wishes to keep this entry, they are advised to replace "1941–1945" with "1943–1945". A more complex note will be required, complete with references, to explain its inclusion to the reader. Complicated by the fact that the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia also included a "Serbia", meaning "Serbia" was both an enemy and an ally of "Bosnia".
  • Second Serbian Uprising. The Bosnia Eyalet (shortened form "Bosnia") was in a state of war with an entity that already considered itself the Principality of Serbia and was referred to in English as "Serbia" (shortened form), so there can be no objection to its inclusion provided you can source this. However, I would advise striking the sometimes problematic contents of the entire Location column as redundant and (in the case of more expansive wars) too expansive. The same applies to the inlcusion of the First Serbian Uprising, but strike Much of the Bosniak population in Podrinje massacred.
  • Hadži-Prodan's rebellion. Its inclusion is problematic. Yes, it was a "Serbian" uprising, but so was the uprising of 1882 for the most part. Both uprisings featured armies loyal to "Serbia" by that name (in translation), but demonstrating that practically requires the use of primary sources, so they are more appropriate for a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbs" type article (see List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts) than a "List of armed conflicts between ... and Serbia".
A flag of Koča's Serbia used during the Austro-Turkish War of 1788–1791.
  • Austro-Turkish War (1788–1791). It was this conflict that saw the resurgence of "Serbia" as a territorial entity in the first conflict since the death of Jovan Nenad, but it is missing from the list.
  • "Uprising in Herzegovina". Involved an army that mostly desired Austrian rule with a more religious than territorial conception of "Serbia", despite the term's use in a broader sense with undefined borders and administrative structure, making it ineligible for this list.
  • Strike the "Uprising in Drobnjaci", the Siege of Belgrade and the Hungarian-Serbian War from the list.
  • Entries from War of Hum through "Fifth Battle of Srebrenica" needs heavy revision, including additions, merges and clarifications. During this period, both states formally referred to as "Bosnia" and as "Serbia" existed, and conflicts involving both entities in a state of war ought to be included, but only with the appropriate caveats. Part of the issue involves states having rival claims to the title "Serbia"; see List of wars involving Russia for a possible solution.
Ivan (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with all of this is WP:NOR - if no historian would extend the description of e.g. Second Serbian Uprising as an "armed conflict between Bosnia and Serbia", then we can't do that either. By the fact that the term Bosnia isn't even mentioned in that article, it's safe to assume that we're looking at a hard fail here. --Joy (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vedib if you want a source for the inclusion of the First Serbian Uprising:
  • Teinović, Bratislav M. (2020). "Преглед политичког живота у босанском ејалету (1804–1878)" [A review of the political life in the Bosnian eyalet (1804–1878)]. Kultura polisa. 17 (42): 137–154. eISSN 2812-9466. Без сумње, у Босни је почетак рата са Србијом и Црном Гором значио прекретницу у даљим унутрашњим политичким односима. [Without a doubt, in Bosnia the beginning of the war with Serbia and Montenegro marked a turning point in future internal political relations.]
Ivan (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not a source for a historian, because that seems to be a political science journal and the first Google hit for Bratislav Teinović is Institut za političke studije. We would absolutely not be serving the average English reader well if we try to serve them this in lieu of actual secondary sources relevant to the topic. --Joy (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The journal describes itself as "a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal, which publishes original scientific manuscripts on topics from the humanities and social sciences field".[1] The reviewers that year included historians Darko Gavrilović, Davor Pauković, Nebojša Kuzmanović, Vassilis Petsinis and Wolfgang Rohrbach.[2] The website you cited for Teinović is not his primary affiliation, which is the Muzej Republike Srpske (according to that page and elsewhere). An understandable mistake. He received degrees in history from B.A. in 2001 through Ph.D. in 2019 at the University of Banja Luka.[3] But this is just one of a number of sources stating as much. Ivan (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Ivan (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw he's also associated with a museum - but that's not reassuring at all, because some of the worst scholarly citations I've seen have been in works associated with museums as opposed to other kinds of research institutions. The issue here should still be fairly obvious - this person has 75 mentions on Google Scholar, where someone like Sima Ćirković has 1560. I've linked the policy on original research twice already, here's now a link to WP:RS for more information on identifying reliable sources. --Joy (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a counterclaim from Ćirković, please do provide it, and I will introduce that into the article in parallel. Even then, one would have to cite more than one source to show something is against consensus. Citation counts are a poor metric for determining what is and is not a "RS", especially in a field of study as small as the wartime politics of the Bosnia Eyalet in the early 19th century. Some of the worst scholarly citations I've seen have been in works associated with museums as opposed to other kinds of research institutions. I laugh in agreement, but while Teinović himself is associated with a museum, the work in question was published in a journal published by a university. And some of the best scholarly works I've read have been associated with museums. Especially true for archaeological museums. I wouldn't cite Teinović for 1992 because he was effectively WP:INVOLVED even though his military service did not begin until 1994. But he is one of the few to have defended a doctoral dissertation to encompass the war of 1804–1813.
The worst that could be levied against Teinović is not providing reasoning for what to call the Bosnia Eyalet ("Bosnia") and the new Serbian state ("Serbia"), but the only work I know of offhand that discusses extensively the English terminology for the Serbian state during the First Serbian Uprising is only available in a few libraries currently unavailable to me, so I couldn't quote from it. Although there are many scholarly sources calling Serbia by that name when discussing this time period, as is the case with Bosnia, there are only a few sources discussing the involvement of Bosnia (and especially Sinan Pasha) in the suppression of the uprising. Maybe 10-20 at most. I chose a recent one with a concise statement for quotation purposes, but there are plenty of others you could select to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS.
For an English example that discusses the formal name of Serbia during the revolution with "Karageorge Petrović, supreme commander in Serbia": 115  while also describing "Bosnia" and "Serbia" in conflict:: 125 
Ivan (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the new "First Serbian Uprising" entry for a rough idea of what my version would look like. Ivan (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, did you just oppose the underpinning of WP:V? :D The burden of proof that something is out there is on the parties trying to introduce this list article. Y'all have to convince everyone else that this would be the encyclopedia describing something from the real world. If all you have is scattered, vaguely relevant mentions of the topic from vaguely relevant sources, that's just not it. The Bataković 2006 citation likewise does not support the case for this list article - yes, there's a sentence that talks of Bosnian beys, but then it also talks of Ottoman rule and the next sentences talk of Ottoman troops and Muslim violence and Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Muslim forces and it goes on and on. If we cherry-picked any one of these appellations and chose to create a list article based on that, it would be absolute madness. --Joy (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am communicating that I can rescue the article, because its subject is something from the real world. An entity known as "Bosnia" has been in conflict with an entity known as "Serbia" on 6 occasions since 1788 and on more still before the death of Pavle Bakić. The Tanzimat reforms removed most of the autonomy the pashas of Bosnia had previously enjoyed, so you could make the case for excluding the Serbian–Ottoman Wars (1876–1878). But even the Serbian Despotate in exile enjoyed considerable military autonomy, to say nothing of the Banate of Bosnia. These were entities that could be punished if they did not answer a call to arms, but were so autonomous that they often did not, and often undertook military campaigns on their own, with little to no involvement of the central authority they answered to.
The relevant portion of the Bataković quotation is in Bosnia that Ottoman rule might be replaced by that of Karageorge’s Serbia, but the preceding part shows that at times it was specifically the Bosnia Eyalet that was in conflict with Revolutionary Serbia. I still need to introduce more sources to help delimit the duration of conflict between those specific entities, but I have already shown that parts of the conflict are indeed described by historians as one between Bosnia and Serbia. And that is the norm rather than the exception for those parts of the conflict. So it is not a redundant duplicate of "List of Serbian–Ottoman conflicts", as "List of conflicts between Devonshire and the Upper Palatinate" would be a redundant duplicate of "List of conflicts between England and Germany".
Your opposition is because the term "Bosnia" (or indeed adversary, Serbia) is used as if it was a coherent entity at the time, which it typically wasn't, as it was usually an occupation or a vasselage situation of some kind. My support is because both "Bosnia" and "Serbia" were usually singular, militarily independent entities even when they were vassals. The Banate of Bosnia was on average even more independent than the Banate of Croatia, yet the latter's ban Pavao Šubić was so powerful he became ban of both entities following his conquest of the latter in 1302, entirely of his own initiative and with hardly any input from the King of Hungary.
Ivan (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that, List of conflicts between England and Germany could have a redundant duplicate - if it existed. It probably doesn't exist because it's not a topic area that attracts so much contrived conflict. If this list is just going to be replicating low-quality nationalist axe-griding from the real world - Wikipedia still shouldn't have to include it, and WP:ARBMAC has a very clear rule against furtherance of outside conflicts. --Joy (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently rewriting the article. In a few days, it should be well-sourced. Ivan (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan, I am pretty much totally mentally and physically incapacitated with the heat wave we are experiencing around the Adriatic for the last few days. I barely managing to open my laptop and concentrate, and your proposal requires giving some real thought. But, if you think that you can somehow fix it, and if Joy gets on board, I won't oppose. ౪ Santa ౪99° 08:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, thank you. Ivan (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bosnia and Herzegovina–Serbia relations#List of wars. Good last point, @Joy. For the most part, "List of wars involving Entity A" is sufficient, otherwise the possible combinations would produce thousands of stub articles. There are a few exceptions, such as List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia. But List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia is shorter and could be relegated to a section within Bosnia and Herzegovina–Serbia relations. Ivan (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFC reviewer comment: I accepted this with the understanding that it would probably get sent straight to AfD, on the grounds that the topic is broadly notable and this kind of more specific editorial decision ought to have some kind of consensus rather than just be the decision of a single AfC reviewer, especially since it's an obvious POV magnet. (Judging from the above, I was right.) If it's deleted, I think it's pretty likely that someone will try to create it again, so if this doesn't end as a merge-and-redirect, it's probably worth salting this one. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Judging from the above, I was right. Out of curiosity, what POV do you think I represent? Ivan (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think I was implying that you or anyone else in this discussion was POV-pushing, I apologise for that. What I meant by Judging from the above, I was right. is that the fact that the discussion above is so extensive shows that this is indeed a topic that requires broader consensus than a single AfC reviewer's opinion. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SYNTH problems are obvious. — Sadko (words are wind) 12:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Bjelajac, Željko (n.d.). "About the journal". Kultura polisa.
  2. ^ Bjelajac, Željko (2020). "List of reviewers for the year 2020". Kultura polisa.
  3. ^ Milošević, Borivoje; Branković, Boško; Vasin, Goran; Niković, Nenad (2019-06-20). "Извјештај о оцјени урађене докторске дисертације" (PDF). University of Banja Luka.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to hear from some new editors about how to consider whether: 1) there is improper original research (current consensus is leaning towards yes) and 2) whether or not deletion or something else is the right remedy if there is improper OR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has changed drastically between the first discussion and now, and will likely continue to improve for several days. Ivan (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been substantial changes to the article since its nomination and removal of content seen as problematic in this discussion. Does this make a difference in participants' assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still don't think the 19th century uprising against the Ottomans is really describable in list format like this, because these references are insufficient to prove that the scientific consensus is to call this so trivially/casually like that. Either way, whether it's a list of three or two items, it's still a pointless list article, and we don't have sources for the list itself as such. As the title is not really a common search term - I think it's reasonable to assume that the average reader would rather just use search terms like "war Bosnia Serbia" if they wanted to find something like this - we should still get rid of it. Whatever useful content was found in this process can be used to create or improve a paragraph or two in other articles. --Joy (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Sibaldi

[edit]
Igor Sibaldi (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)

Being the author of numerous books alone does not make one notable. Indeed, this article has been tagged for notability for almost 14 years, and searching for independent sources failed to find any. GTrang (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it's been 14 years and it's still fails to satisfy WP:GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concurrence. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While I don't see an absolute consensus I should also mention that other than the nominator, there is no support for deletion so I'd discourage a quick return trip to AFD in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Geo Entertainment

[edit]
List of programs broadcast by Geo Entertainment (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)

Another one that fails WP:NLIST. I removed everything that does not have a reference or a Wikipedia page and there are only three current original programs. Everything else falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I did a WP:BEFORE in an attempt to find sourcing that talks about their programming as a whole and was unable to find anything reliable. I recommend a redirect of the name and maybe include the three current programs on the main Geo Entertainment page as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can point out the coverage where it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources?" --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... Television Dramas and the Global Village Storytelling Through Race and Gender; Women and TV Culture in Pakistan, Gender, Islam and National Identity; Media Imperialism in India and Pakistan
contain passages that address the programming and content of the network as a set. Or this list. or this kind of pages. Or this kind of articles. Keep as a standard split as I'v repeated many times. See the category for those lists. I will not reply anymore as I've said multiple times on other Afd pages what I thought, and insisted a broader consensus should be established before nominating this type of pages (see Afd concerning Hum TV programming, where I had presented sources too, btw, but this too was ignored, so why bother?). So, again, I'll leave it at that even if there are questions, pings, comments, etc. And again size-wise, especially since users regularly perform drastic cuts before nominating pages, the merge is possible. I just don't think it is necessary. If it happens, I am inviting you again to check all redirects (I had done it last time, which you concurred was a concern but guess who checked the double redirects after all?) Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And we are right back to NEWSORGINIDA. I only checked the first reference and didn't waste my time going deeper. [https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/instep-today/589695-top-drama-serials-on-geo-entertainment-this-year bylined by "Instep Desk." --CNMall41 (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After all, this rude reply deserves a final comment: so you ask me to provide sources although I said I had no time but don't even open all links and ignore the academic study and the books? Just like last time!!! No comment on whether NEWSORGINDIA applies on the one source you opened, but hey. I hope the closer is an admin who will comment on your attitude. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I don't think there's anything rude here. Just be careful when using GUNREL sources to establish WP:GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.....Thank you so much for your advice but that is clearly not the point, I'm afraid. Follow the sequence of events, please.
But since we're here, would you happen to have a link mentioning that The News International is considered generally unreliable? I'll be careful and check again myself so as not to waste your time. Let me check ...Surprise! It's quite the opposite, it's considered generally reliable, is that not correct? (on a page you yourself created!!!)? Again, that is not the point, but since I'm replying again, despite having said I wouldn't, I thought better to check again.....as I had indeed (not only by checking the page you created(in your userspace) but also the noticeboard for reliable sources and the board for perennial sources, before posting it in the first place, mind you.....
But never mind. Even the NEWSORGINDIA thing is not the point; the issue is not reading the sources one has asked for! whatever they are; and I don't think you can discard them but again, that is not the point. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Don't jump to conclusions and before making claims a page you yourself created!, check the history of the page. The page was actually created by UPE sock farms to game the system, and I moved it to my user NS. How do you even know about this page? Are you in cahoots with them? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I had missed this. My bad, you didn't create it, it's in your user space and I thought it was your work. I apologise for thinking you had worked on that page! Will amend my comment. No comment on the rest of your reply but feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. But to the point: The News International is generally reliable, is it not?:D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The News itself is RS, but as @CNMall41 pointed out, this specific coverage is not reliable for the reasons they explained. Therefore, it shouldn't count towards establishing GNG. Regarding feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. Sure, I'll take it to the proper venue when and if I deem it necessary and when I've enough evidence to support my report. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Still waiting for your apologies. And your point was "GUNREL", as you repeat below; so, no, it's not GUNREL, that's what I thought. QED. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source dramaspice.net you cited is indeed GUNREL. Oh, why on earth should I apologize to you? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last-minute adjustment drifting from the precise topic of the original conversation :D but even then, I will reply. Maybe Dramaspice is not independent and should not be used and maybe, it is not a good source but that is not what WP:GUNREL stands for (not listed there, which is the precise point of GUNREL, not a description but a list established by a consensus). Or just don't user "GUNREL" but other wording then. And even pretending it was, that would leave us with 5 non-GUNREL sources that you ignore, :D, including a fully available academic article focusing on the programs as a set in a comparative study. But maybe you did not have the time to open it, and that's probably my fault.
As for why you should have apologised, I'm not the one who will explain that to you, I'm afraid. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do not see how that is rude. I am only responsible for what I say, not how you interpret it. What I was pointing out is you have a history of ignoring NEWSORGINDIA in AfD discussions. The News International is considered reliable yes, but not THIS PARTICULAR REFERENCE as it is clearly churnalism. Just like Forbes is considered generally reliable but sources written by non-staff writers in Forbes are not. Not sure how to make that any clearer. It is ad nauseam at this point to go further when the first source is just a repeat of the same argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, Not only has a history of disregarding NEWSORGINDIA in AfD's but also consistently relying on GUNREL sources to establish GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really nasty and undue comment.....so inappropriate. Hope you will apologise.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a history of ignoring WP:NEWSORGINDIA is an inappropriate comment here: but, please, do feel free to report me at the appropriate forum if you think I am of bad faith and that my input here and elsewhere (as you clearly assert) is disruptive. In the present case, I disagree with what I understand of your interpretation of that information page, an interpretation which is not the consensus, as far as I can see, and I simply do not understand your explanation (or lack thereof): "use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter " is one sign that a source might not be independent, not THE proof that you cannot use it at all. But again, that was not my point, as you can see if you make the effort of reading me with attention; and I cannot see why you are focusing on that particular section of an information page when replying to the 6 sources mentioned.
And what I find rude, in case you really did not understand, in the present discussion, is the fact that even if I was not expecting thanks for providing sources at your request in an Afd you iniated, you blatantly and explicitly ignored all of them but one you discarded contemptuously (rightly so or not (not the point, again)) and continue to do so, as you don't even mention them... I'll leave it at that, now. I don't understand the end of your reply but I guess it does not really matter, as I finally give up, this time too. Again, I do hope the closing administrator will comment on this issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no intent to be rude but I understand if you are concerned about the comment. I do not have an apology unfortunately but would recommend going to ANI should you feel my conduct is out of line.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Saqib/Mushy Yank please take the dispute elsewhere. You've weighed in sufficiently here. Please allow others to be heard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP. You cited a manual of style, not a notability guideline. Can you point to the references that talk about the programming as a whole which is required per WP:NLIST? We have categories that do the same thing as what you propose. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 see a consensus to Delete these articles. If an editor wants to work on one in Draft space and submit it to AFC, contact me or REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French people killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

[edit]
List of French people killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (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 first as well as the other articles do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for stand-alone lists. ... Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.

There just aren't enough reliable sources that cover the subject as a whole. We only have bits and pieces of information about the death of one or the other. Additionally, WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly, Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason

List of Israelis killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Britons killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Poles killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Canadians killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons

List of Georgians killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Colombians killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. czar 03:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhis in Afghanistan

[edit]
Sindhis in Afghanistan (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:SIGCOV Axedd (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. czar 03:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California)

[edit]
All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a part of Carmel-by-the-Sea related walled garden. The church seems to fall under WP:BRANCH and a stand-alone article is not warranted under WP:BRANCH. I've boldly re-directed but it has been objected by the creator. WP:OTHERSTUFF argument has been made, which is not a valid reason. What I do see is that quite a few others that may also warrant being re-directed somewhere. I suggest REDIRECT or selective merge. At this point I believe it should be deleted, because there's not much salvageable and a re-direct can be created any time. Graywalls (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Henderson (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing AfC only means that the review felt there's a 50/50 chance or surviving AfD, nothing beyond that. Carmel Pine Cone articles aren't unusable, but they mean very little as far as notability on a world scale encyclopedia. I do question the validity of existence of many of the local church branch articles as well. This one caught my attention, because of the pattern of Carmel-by-the-Sea walled garden matter I have been acutely aware of. Graywalls (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Churches do not have inherent notability. This one, while it may be known in its local community of Carmel, it is non-notable. It is not on the NRHP. The sources above are a hyper-local weekly Carmel newspaper, and a locally-published historical trivia book about Carmel. I would not consider this independent reliable sourcing at all. Of course locals are proud of their local church, that stands to reason, however that does not confer notability. This entry fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT, WP:SIRS, WP:NCHURCH as well as WP:GNG. It also seems to be part of the Carmel/Carmel-by-the-Sea/Monterey walled-garden of articles. Netherzone (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your assessment. A secondary source by definition is a source "provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The two cited sources in my Keep vote count for secondary sources, thus WP:SIRS. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Carmel Pine Cone is ultra hyper-local and it's not even close to meeting WP:AUD and the level of coverage in that article is not what most would consider "significant coverage". This is a local unit of larger organization and a stand-alone separate article on a local church is generally not warranted. It's only outside that generally if the local church in specific meets WP:NORG as explained in WP:NCHURCH. Graywalls (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are saying dosn't make any sense. A newspaper is a reliable source whether it is local or national. Why would you want to erase an article that is (a) well written article, (b) demonstrates with pictures, infobox, links, and map a church in Carmel, (c) been approved by a peer during the AfC review, (d) has nine references to reliable sources, (e) part of the All Saints Episcopal Church, and (f) contains real history and designed by architect Robert R. Jones? It makes no logical sense at all. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A newspaper is a reliable source whether it is local or national. No, it's not. And the fact that you keep repeating the same mistakes and false assertions is not helpful nor indicative that you've taken any feedback on board about why you're blocked from mainspace. AfC review has no merit on AfD, and nine sources is meaningless when they're not independent and reliable. Star Mississippi 19:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per WP:GNG a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article has 12 references to reliable sources. It has been reviewed, accepted, and published by SafariScribe per Articles for creation submission WP:AFCH. The fact that Netherzone and Graywalls continue WP:TAGTEAM my articles is questionable. Let assume good faith and understand that this article was written to provide coverage of a Episcopal Church that is historically important. The church was established in 1907, 116 years ago in a town that was just estabalishng itself. The church was designed by architect Robert R. Jones who went on the desgin the Monterey Regional Airport. The All Saints Episcopal Church page lists many U.S. All Saints Episcopal Churches. Should they be nominated too? Greg Henderson (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TAGTEAM is an essay, which means it hasn't been approved by the community, so it carries virtually no weight. And in any case, in a deletion discussion such as this, the only thing that is going to be looked at is notability and sourcing, not behavior. If you have a problem with the behavior of certain users, take them to WP:ANI with your accusations. Left guide (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg, I have looked at the All Saints Episcopal Church. Look at how disproportionately California centered that list is and many of them are terribly sourced, advertorial and some not even article worthy. I've tagged and re-directed some and pruned some. The presence of pre-existing substandard article should not be an excuse to add further substandard article. Graywalls (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at least half of the buildings listed are NRHP-listed. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm not seeing any claim for the notability of the parish, and age certainly doesn't count for that. The building likewise has the kind of coverage expected in local press. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

question mark Suggestion Upon reviewing this again, I think we all need to take a seriously consider our actions here. Deleting the article about All Saints Episcopal Church is fundamentally wrong based on WP:GNG guidelines. Removing this article would contradict the guidelines for creating a new articles, which state: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." The All Saints Episcopal Church article has nine source citations, with four coming from secondary sources and the rest from primary sources. The article includes all the essential elements: short description, infoboxes, images, navigation headers, and more. Please Keep this article and, if necessary, move it to draft space to further improve it! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, upon glancing at this again, I'm entirely unmoved. My vote stands. Ravenswing 00:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More There is an interesting Wikipedia article about deleting at Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. It says: "Deletionism and inclusionism are opposing philosophies that largely developed within the community of volunteer editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. The terms reflect differing opinions on the appropriate scope of the encyclopedia and corresponding tendencies either to delete or to include a given encyclopedia article." I find this apropos to this discussion. Please consider this before deleting this important article about our history. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, kindly strike your second K**p !vote written in bold.
AfD participants may make several comments, but they are not permitted to !vote more than once. Netherzone (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, I've simply removed the boldface, like I did before, which makes this the third time the user attempted to add a bolded !vote. Left guide (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide, thank you. Greg, please take note that A number of tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words. which is from the AfD guidelines. So if your !vote is bolded more than once, the tool may double count a single editor's !vote. Netherzone (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2024_August_1&oldid=1239464651"