Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Law. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Law|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Law.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Law.

See also: Crime-related deletions.


Law[edit]

Samuel Alito flag display controversy[edit]

Samuel Alito flag display controversy (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:NOTNEWS and can also be covered sufficiently at Samuel Alito. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Christianity, United States of America, New Jersey, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge with Samuel Alito. It’s notable when a Supreme Court justice who is hearing cases related to an attempted government coup is flying flags that are well established by news coverage to support that coup in front of his house. Also, the article is well-sourced enough to establish the notability of the topic. But it’s more confusing to wiki visitors to have a separate article for it, because when they come here looking for this, they’re going to be looking for it under his name. This topic belongs under a “controversies” section in the main article. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Samuel Alito: I agree that this event is currently notable, but I don't think it passes the 10YT. I think it should be selectively merged to Samuel Alito#Ethical questions without prejudice to potentially creating a controversies sub-article for Alito, since he seems to be racking them up recently. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meritt North[edit]

Meritt North (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)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actress and writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actresses or writers. The main notability claim on the table here is that her work exists, which is not automatic grounds for an article -- the notability test doesn't hinge on doing stuff per se, it hinges on the amount of third-party coverage and analysis that has or hasn't been paid to the stuff she did in WP:GNG-worthy sources like media or books.
But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- audiobook narration and writing credits sourced to the works' presence on online bookstores, acting credits sourced to her own self-published acting résumé, volunteer work sourced to the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, and I've already stripped a good half-dozen citations to IMDb on the grounds of IMDb not being a reliable source -- with not a whit of GNG-building coverage about her in reliable sources shown at all.
You don't make a writer notable by sourcing her books to Amazon as evidence that they exist, you make a writer notable by sourcing her books to reviews of the books by professional literary critics in newspapers or magazines as evidence that they got significant attention. You don't make an actress notable by sourcing her acting roles to IMDb or her own résumé, you make an actress notable by sourcing her acting roles to reviews of the films or television shows that singled her performance out for third-party analysis. And on and so forth.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Bearcat,
    I appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns raised about the citations supporting the role of Krystle Minkoff as an actress. It is important to ensure that the information on Wikipedia is both accurate and verifiable.
    Regarding the citations numbered 12-17, I would like to emphasize that these sources are independently verified and adequately support her credited role as an actress under her given legal name, Krystle Minkoff. These credits are also reflected on IMDb, which follows strict guidelines for crediting individuals in the entertainment industry.
    It is important to note that the aim should be to enhance the quality of information on Wikipedia, not to indiscriminately nominate entire articles for deletion due to issues with specific sections or titles. Each piece of information should be evaluated on its own merits and improved where necessary.
    There are numerous citations that document her work as an actress, voice actress, and author under both Meritt North and Krystle Minkoff. These sources collectively substantiate her contributions and career, aligning with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and notability.
    I hope this clarifies the situation, and I am open to working collaboratively to address any specific concerns you may have to ensure the information remains reliable and well-documented.
    Best regards,
    ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is room for improvement or a few items that you absolutely insist must be removed, let's work together to resolve them. I don't think that just because you may take issue with one or a couple items, that the entire page is not useful, informational, and in the public interest.
    ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: we are not looking for simple verification that she had acting roles. The notability test for an actress is not passed by listing acting roles, it's passed by showing evidence that people without a vested interest in her career (namely journalists and film critics) have assessed her performances as being significant enough to analyze in prose. Such as reviews of the films or television shows which singled her performances out for attention, or journalist-written news articles profiling her. The notability test for a Wikipedia article is not "did stuff", it's "had independent third-party attention and analysis bestowed upon the stuff that she did by people who weren't just being paid to publicize her". So establishing notability as an actress doesn't hinge on her own résumé, or IMDB: it hinges on showing that her work as an actress has made her a subject that journalists cover as newsworthy in sources independent of herself. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Bearcat, how about deleting the title of actress and the acting credits table. Would this suit you? ScorpioKLM

No, that wouldn't "suit" me, because you haven't properly established her notability as a writer or audiobook narrator either. Those work the same way: her notability for either of those things is not established by citing her work to itself as proof that it exists, and still requires literary critics to establish her books as significant by reviewing them in newspapers, magazines or literary journals.
No matter what occupation a person works in, they always still have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it in reliable sources independent of their own public relations materials, and you simply haven't used any GNG-worthy sourcing to support this article at all. So the problem isn't resolved just by taking acting roles out of the article, because you haven't properly sourced her writing or narration work either. The whole article is badly sourced, not just the acting section alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Bearcat, I respectfully disagree with your statement that we haven't properly established Krystle Minkoff's notability as a writer or audiobook narrator. Let me explain why I believe the proof is in the citations provided: 

Multiple Independent Sources: The citations we’ve included are from multiple independent sources, not just self-references or public relations materials. These sources include reputable databases, industry publications, and media outlets that adhere to strict verification standards. 
Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff/Meritt North has received recognition within the industry. While you emphasize the need for literary critics to review her books, the notability can also be established through awards, nominations, and notable projects she has been a part of. These are documented in the citations provided. 
Audiobook Narration: The role of an audiobook narrator is inherently significant within the literary and entertainment industries. Notability in this field is often established through the body of work and collaborations with well-known authors and publishers. Minkoff/North's work is verifiably documented through these collaborations, which are detailed in the citations. 
WP 
Compliance: We have adhered to Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP 
). The sources used to support her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage about her work. These are not mere mentions but in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and impact. 
Proof in Citations: The citations include reviews, interviews, and articles from established media and literary platforms. These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration. 
Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the verifiable and well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The proof is in the detailed and independent citations that have been meticulously provided to support her notability in these fields. 
I believe that a comprehensive evaluation of the sources will reveal that the criteria for notability are indeed met, and Krystle Minkoff's diverse career merits recognition across her various roles. 

I highly disagree. Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North have been cited over 90 times by various websites, online newspapers, journals, and magazines crediting her for all of her audiobook narrations. 

However, in order for IMDb to credit officially, it has to be reviewed and approved by IMDb, casting directors, directors, and other actors. It is up for scrutiny by all and goes through a lengthy period of scrutinization before being attributed a final credit. There are 3 titles to which Meritt aka Krystle Minkoff and credited by such, has this blue official IMDb credit. Just a consideration. 

Here is the strict incliusion of credits criteria that must be met on IMDb. https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/imdb-credit-eligibility-faq/GXMWNMB8LQCZYFH8?ref_=helpart_nav_10# 
What do you mean by "eligible"? 
A. As stated above, the first and most important thing is to have received a credit on the title. There are a few additional requirements -- we normally only list people who were credited in the original version of a title. For films, this means we'll only list people credited in the initial original theatrical release; for TV titles, it means people credited when the show first aired. 

B. When a title is announced or in production and is added to the database, our editors will normally start accepting credits for it. These credits, as per the disclaimer on the page, are always subject to change and can be removed at any time. When the title is actually released (or about to be released) and credits are finalized by the production, our editors routinely compare our listing with the actual on-screen credits and delete any entries that cannot be verified or do not match. If you used to be listed on a title and your credit has disappeared, it means our editors could not verify its accuracy during one of these routine checks. 

C. There are 4 credits that have been verified by IMDb. 

2017 
Reelz Murder Made Me Famous | 2 Episodes 
Patron & Mother 

2017 
John Gotti | Season 3, Episode 8 
Steak House Patron 

2017 
David Koresh | Season 3, Episode 7 
Mother 

2016 
Queen of the South (TV series) | 4 episodes 
Campaign Supporter 

E. The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her significant and well-documented career as a Voice Actress. Here are several key points supporting this stance: 

Extensive Experience: Krystle Minkoff has an extensive body of work as a Voice Actress, which inherently falls under the broader category of acting. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to those needed for on-screen acting, such as character development, emotional expression, and vocal control. 

Notable Roles: Her roles as a Voice Actress have been notable and influential within the industry. These roles contribute to her overall recognition as an actress, as voice acting is a respected and integral part of the entertainment field. 

Published Credits: There are numerous publications and sources that document her work as a Voice Actress. These sources include her credited roles on platforms such as IMDb, which adhere to strict guidelines for verifying the legitimacy of professional credits. 

Industry Standards: In the entertainment industry, individuals who perform voice acting are commonly referred to as actors or actresses. This standard industry terminology reflects the comprehensive nature of their work, encompassing all forms of acting, whether it be on-screen or voice-over. 

Verifiability and Notability: The information regarding her career as a Voice Actress is verifiable through multiple independent sources, fulfilling Wikipedia’s criteria for notability. This substantiates her professional title as an actress, encompassing her voice acting achievements. 

Removing the title of "Actress" would not only undermine her substantial contributions to the field of voice acting but also misrepresent the comprehensive nature of her career. Therefore, it is both accurate and appropriate to maintain the title of "Actress" to reflect her extensive and notable experience in the industry. 

Kindly review and advise. 
ScorpioKLM 

Bearcat, I respectfully disagree with your statement that we haven't properly established Krystle Minkoff's notability as a writer or audiobook narrator. Let me explain why I believe the proof is in the citations provided: 
Multiple Independent Sources: The citations we’ve included are from multiple independent sources, not just self-references or public relations materials. These sources include reputable databases, industry publications, and media outlets that adhere to strict verification standards. 
Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff has received recognition within the industry. While you emphasize the need for literary critics to review her books, the notability can also be established through awards, nominations, and notable projects she has been a part of. These are documented in the citations provided. 
Audiobook Narration: The role of an audiobook narrator is inherently significant within the literary and entertainment industries. Notability in this field is often established through the body of work and collaborations with well-known authors and publishers. Minkoff’s work is verifiably documented through these collaborations, which are detailed in the citations. 
WP 
Compliance: We have adhered to Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP 
). The sources used to support her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage about her work. These are not mere mentions but in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and impact. 
Proof in Citations: The citations include reviews, interviews, and articles from established media and literary platforms. These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration. 
Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the verifiable and well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The proof is in the detailed and independent citations that have been meticulously provided to support her notability in these fields. 
I believe that a comprehensive evaluation of the sources will reveal that the criteria for notability are indeed met, and Krystle Minkoff's diverse career merits recognition across her various roles. 

I highly disagree. Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North have been cited over 90 times by various websites, online newspapers, journals, and magazines crediting her for all of her audiobook narrations. 

In addition: When a title on IMDb is announced or in production and is added to the database, thier editors will normally start accepting credits for it. These credits, as per the disclaimer on the page, are always subject to change and can be removed at any time. When the title is actually released (or about to be released) and credits are finalized by the production, our editors routinely compare our listing with the actual on-screen credits and delete any entries that cannot be verified or do not match. If you used to be listed on a title and your credit has disappeared, it means our editors could not verify its accuracy during one of these routine checks. 

D. There are 4 credits that have been verified by IMDb. 

2017 
Reelz Murder Made Me Famous | 2 Episodes 
Patron & Mother 

2017 
John Gotti | Season 3, Episode 8 
Steak House Patron 

2017 
David Koresh | Season 3, Episode 7 
Mother 

2016 
Queen of the South (TV series) | 4 episodes 
Campaign Supporter 

E. The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her significant and well-documented career as a Voice Actress. Here are several key points supporting this stance: 

Extensive Experience: Krystle Minkoff has an extensive body of work as a Voice Actress, which inherently falls under the broader category of acting. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to those needed for on-screen acting, such as character development, emotional expression, and vocal control. 

Notable Roles: Her roles as a Voice Actress have been notable and influential within the industry. These roles contribute to her overall recognition as an actress, as voice acting is a respected and integral part of the entertainment field. 

Published Credits: There are numerous publications and sources that document her work as a Voice Actress. These sources include her credited roles on platforms such as IMDb, which adhere to strict guidelines for verifying the legitimacy of professional credits. 

Industry Standards: In the entertainment industry, individuals who perform voice acting are commonly referred to as actors or actresses. This standard industry terminology reflects the comprehensive nature of their work, encompassing all forms of acting, whether it be on-screen or voice-over. 

Verifiability and Notability: The information regarding her career as a Voice Actress is verifiable through multiple independent sources, fulfilling Wikipedia’s criteria for notability. This substantiates her professional title as an actress, encompassing her voice acting achievements. 

Removing the title of "Actress" would not only undermine her substantial contributions to the field of voice acting but also misrepresent the comprehensive nature of her career. Therefore, it is both accurate and appropriate to maintain the title of "Actress" to reflect her extensive and notable experience in the industry. 

Review policy at this URL: https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/imdb-credit-eligibility-faq/GXMWNMB8LQCZYFH8?ref_=helpart_nav_10# 

Kindly review and advise. 
ScorpioKLM

Here is a full list of all of platforms her audiobooks are verified published at and credited to her as both Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North. You cannot dispute her notability as an audiobook narrator.

Cites for Audiobook Narrator: https://www.storytel.com/in/narrators/meritt-north-525444 https://play.google.com/store/audiobooks/details/Murder_to_the_Max_Witches_of_Keyhole_Lake_Book_2?id=AQAAAEBMSh8KQM&hl=en_IN&gl=IN https://www.booktopia.com.au/murder-to-the-max-meritt-north/audiobook/9781987150421.html https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/moonshine-valentine https://tantor.com/narrator/meritt-north.html https://www.audible.com/author/Meritt-North/B01M3YNGSB https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=meritt+North&skip_spell_correction=true&ref_pageloadid=not_applicable&ref=a_search_t3_noResReversionUrl&pf_rd_p=7a98be95-bbf9-496e-a68c-79ce2c792da5&pf_rd_r=W5AQ8S259PFJWH9HB8CB&pageLoadId=rbqvivlTWdN7xXYc&ref_plink=not_applicable&creativeId=85146ce4-11f8-4d13-a628-fae19c79acaa https://www.audiofilemagazine.com/audiobookindustry/meritt-north/ https://www.audiobooks.com/browse/narrator/290347/browse/bookclubs/13/Sci-Fi-and-Fantasy-Audiobook-Club https://nextory.com/se-en/narrator/meritt-north-776316 https://library2go.overdrive.com/library2go-94-111/content/media/4578862 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jarods-heart-elise-manion/1122395364 https://www.overdrive.com/creators/1811412/tegan-maher https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/moonshine-valentine-tegan-maher/1131877202

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/list/mystery-thriller-audiobooks-9-99-or-less/sIjyvZtfms0HgQjU4Thsmg https://libro.fm/audiobooks/9781987192872-cruise-ship-caper https://www.chirpbooks.com/audiobooks/murder-of-the-month-by-tegan-maher https://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/20-dating-advice-for-women-the-secrets-most-men-dont-want-you-to-know/323130 https://open.spotify.com/show/5sHA37R3rNqqTTCZbKLMyn https://www.storytel.com/tv/books/the-heartsong-cowboy-488808

What part of you do not establish a person's notability by citing her work to itself as proof that it exists, and have to establish notability by citing her work to THIRD-PARTY MEDIA COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS ABOUT IT are you having trouble understanding? Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously disregarding all of the media formats, platforms, publications, audiobook production companies, websites, and audiobook resellers citations that prove her notability as an established voice actress. Here are the cites again. I emplore you to review each one.

Cites for Audiobook Narrator: https://www.storytel.com/in/narrators/meritt-north-525444 https://play.google.com/store/audiobooks/details/Murder_to_the_Max_Witches_of_Keyhole_Lake_Book_2?id=AQAAAEBMSh8KQM&hl=en_IN&gl=IN https://www.booktopia.com.au/murder-to-the-max-meritt-north/audiobook/9781987150421.html https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/moonshine-valentine https://tantor.com/narrator/meritt-north.html https://www.audible.com/author/Meritt-North/B01M3YNGSB https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=meritt+North&skip_spell_correction=true&ref_pageloadid=not_applicable&ref=a_search_t3_noResReversionUrl&pf_rd_p=7a98be95-bbf9-496e-a68c-79ce2c792da5&pf_rd_r=W5AQ8S259PFJWH9HB8CB&pageLoadId=rbqvivlTWdN7xXYc&ref_plink=not_applicable&creativeId=85146ce4-11f8-4d13-a628-fae19c79acaa https://www.audiofilemagazine.com/audiobookindustry/meritt-north/ https://www.audiobooks.com/browse/narrator/290347/browse/bookclubs/13/Sci-Fi-and-Fantasy-Audiobook-Club https://nextory.com/se-en/narrator/meritt-north-776316 https://library2go.overdrive.com/library2go-94-111/content/media/4578862 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jarods-heart-elise-manion/1122395364 https://www.overdrive.com/creators/1811412/tegan-maher https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/moonshine-valentine-tegan-maher/1131877202

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/list/mystery-thriller-audiobooks-9-99-or-less/sIjyvZtfms0HgQjU4Thsmg https://libro.fm/audiobooks/9781987192872-cruise-ship-caper https://www.chirpbooks.com/audiobooks/murder-of-the-month-by-tegan-maher https://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/20-dating-advice-for-women-the-secrets-most-men-dont-want-you-to-know/323130 https://open.spotify.com/show/5sHA37R3rNqqTTCZbKLMyn https://www.storytel.com/tv/books/the-heartsong-cowboy-488808

____________________________________________________ I truly appreciate your dedication to maintaining the high standards of Wikipedia, and I believe the existing citations do indeed establish her notability.

Multiple Independent Sources: The citations provided come from various independent and reputable sources, not just self-references or promotional materials. These include industry publications, reputable databases, and media outlets known for their strict verification standards. These sources collectively affirm her contributions and impact in the fields of writing and audiobook narration.

Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff has received significant recognition within her industry. Her work has been acknowledged through awards, nominations, and notable projects. These achievements are documented in the citations provided, demonstrating her industry impact.

Audiobook Narration: The field of audiobook narration is a respected and integral part of the literary and entertainment industries. Minkoff's collaborations with well-known authors and publishers further establish her credibility. The citations detail these collaborations and highlight her extensive body of work, which is an essential aspect of her notability.

Compliance with WP

We have adhered to Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (WP

).

The sources supporting her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage of her work. These sources go beyond mere mentions, offering in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and achievements. Proof in Citations: The citations include a wide range of reviews and articles from established media and literary platforms. 

These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.

Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The detailed and independent citations provided substantiate her notability in these fields.

In addition, IMDb’s rigorous process for verifying credits further supports her legitimacy in these roles. For example, her verified acting credits include roles in "Murder Made Me Famous," "John Gotti," "David Koresh," and "Queen of the South." These credits reflect her significant involvement in the industry.

The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her extensive and notable career as a Voice Actress. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to on-screen acting, and her notable roles have been influential within the industry. Her work is documented by credible sources, including IMDb, which adheres to strict verification guidelines.

I believe a thorough evaluation of the sources will reveal that Krystle Minkoff's and Meritt North's career merits recognition across her various roles. Her contributions to the fields of writing and audiobook narration are clearly well documented here and significant.

I invite you to review the comprehensive list of platforms where her audiobooks are verified and credited to her, both as Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North. These platforms include Barnes & Noble, Storytel, Google Play, Booktopia, Kobo, Tantor Audio, Audible, AudioFile Magazine, and many more. Each of these sources supports her notability as an audiobook narrator, which cannot be disputed.

Thank you for considering this perspective, and I look forward to your thoughts on how we can further ensure the accuracy and completeness of this article. Best regards, ScorpioKLM

In response to this "establish notability by citing her work to THIRD-PARTY MEDIA COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS ABOUT IT". I have cited to third-party media coverage and analysis about it. Please re-review the citations sent above.

Kindest Wishes, ScorpioKLM

No, you have not cited third-party media coverage and analysis about it, you're citing her own work's presence as titles for sale in online bookstores. Again: you do not establish a writer's notability by citing her work to its own presence on Amazon or Audible or Kobo or Booktopia or Overdrive; you establish a writer's notability by citing it to journalists and/or literary critics independently reviewing her work in a newspaper, magazine or literary journal. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We can't use literally everything proffered above by ScorpioKLM (online storefront/connexion to subject), and the same rationale applies to almost every source in the article itself, with those that aren't merchants/her publishers being content-free profiles or stuff she wrote under the "Krystle Minkoff" moniker. None of the lot is usable in any way, shape, or form. ScorpioKLM, we don't cite IMDb because multiple discussions over the years in re their verification and fact-checking (i.e. their editorial oversight) have concluded it's a joke. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is sourced to primary sources. I can find no coverage at all to substantiate inclusion of this biography on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the wall of words, notability is not established. Mccapra (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to the above, there's statements like "Meritt North had a successful 20-year career in sleep medicine prior to her career in the entertainment industry" - her entertainment career began in 2016 when she would have been 33. One link in her bibliography (Journal of Sleep Disorders & Therapy) is flagged as an unreliable source. Orange sticker (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment I've p-blocked Mooresklm2016 from here & the article to allow discussion to continue uninterrupted. They have made a sufficient case for closer to take it on board when assessing the discussion. Star Mississippi 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: per G11. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1978 West Virginia judicial elections[edit]

1978 West Virginia judicial elections (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)
1980 West Virginia judicial elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982 West Virginia judicial elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The West Virginia judicial election articles for 1978, 1980, and 1982 all fail WP:NOTDB. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as a malformed nomination. The justification given is an alias of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is fairly clear on what constitutes indiscriminate information, and none of the examples apply: a judicial election is not a "summary-only example of a creative work". It is not a "lyrics database". It is not an "excessive description of unexplained statistics". It is not "an exhaustive log of software updates". The third option mentions election statistics, but describes "unexplained" data taken out of context that might be too lengthy or confusing for readers: vote totals for each candidate are the opposite of that. WP:INDISCRIMINATE plainly does not apply to a straightforward description of an election. P Aculeius (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The spirit of NOTDB is that data should be presented with independent sourcing to explain its importance. These articles are purely election results. Maybe merging them into one article with a general description of WV judicial elections would meet NLIST, but as of now, I don't think that these meet notability guidelines and NOPAGE applies. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ADHERENCE which says "the shortcut is not the policy". James500 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now explained a bit more above why I think it fails NOTDB; I agree that I should have provided more of an explanation in my initial rationale. It's also not clear to me what ADHERENCE is trying to get at. The implication of linking to the policy is that I'm incorporating it by reference. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck my !vote in the absence of evidence of GNG. INDISCRIMINATE does not say anything about explaining importance. NOTSTATS says "statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing", which may be what the first sentence of INDISCRIMINATE is talking about. I don't think anyone could be confused by these election results. James500 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic of West Virginia judicial elections satisfies GNG: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Only 1980 West Virginia judicial elections actually contains a single state supreme court election. James500 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that article is created, I would support a merge of the Supreme Court portion of the 1980 article to that page, and redirect the rest. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to 1978 West Virginia elections, but that target does not currently exist. Curbon7 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These are not notable elections - the West Virginia Circuit Courts are the lowest level of courts in the state, and we generally do not have articles for trial court elections in other states either. These barely receive even local attention, often unopposed as seen in several here. If the only source is the government's report of results, there is simply no basis for an article, as we are not a database of every minor election result. Supreme_Court_of_Appeals_of_West_Virginia#Elections could be expanded to have a subarticle for those statewide elections, but these fail WP:N. Reywas92Talk 01:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I do not think WP:NOTDB applies here - but I do not think they meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of Volodymyr Zelenskyy[edit]

Legitimacy of Volodymyr Zelenskyy (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)

Wikipedia is absolutely not for challenging the "legitimacy" of politicians and their rule. See WP:SOAP.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! WP:SOAP has five different subcategories. Could you be more specific, please? The article is not about challenging anything, it covers the debate, cites legislative acts. I'd be glad to hear your concerns to make the article better. Steffuld (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right from the start, the article relies on a bunch of op-eds, which are insufficient establish notability. The legal section is just inserted without context. The "private observers" bit is one article weasel-worded into a larger issue. At most, this could be merged into the Zelenskyy article. Cortador (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello! Thank you for pointing out questionable sources. I've added the Background section to provide the context and rewrote the Other concerns section to cover more sources. Steffuld (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Sparks[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL and I don't see how it meets WP:GNG. I can't find any in-depth, indepdenent sources aside from this image.ie article. Clearfrienda 💬 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello (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)

Here we are, a month after Azzarello's death and there's no evidence of lasting coverage or information about his significance to merit a merger elsewhere. The most recent coverage, also represented in the article, is of the donation of his kidneys. A redirect to List_of_political_self-immolations#2020s where this is mentioned is probably more than sufficient. The AfD was well attended, but explicitly allowed revisiting it, so bringing it back here. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "New Episode Of The Josh Marshall Podcast: Cricket's Revenge". TPM – Talking Points Memo. May 9, 2024.
Merge to List of political self-immolations, per my comment in the previous AFD. Like I said there: "Yes, it did receive coverage in the news, but a lot of the coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, and that does not automatically make a news story notable. I'd actually argue that this violates WP:NOTNEWS. For a news story to be notable, it needs to have WP:LASTING effects, which haven't been proven here yet. Furthermore, I have WP:BLP1E concerns about the existence of this article. While it's unfortunate that this man was driven to self-immolate based on a conspiracy theory, this would be a WP:MILL event if it were not for the venue of the self-immolation, outside a courthouse in NYC where Trump is being tried. I'm not seeing why we need a separate article, as opposed to mentioning this incident in another article, per WP:NOPAGE." I still don't see much lasting coverage; it's being mentioned in passing, but almost all sources are from a month ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Andrew Cuomo[edit]

Political positions of Andrew Cuomo (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 can probably be deleted and it's information merged with the Andrew Cuomo article since the US state governors seem to generally not have separate pages outlining their political positions CGP05 (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak merge. The Andrew Cuomo article is pretty long so I understand the idea of a split. If this article was expanded significantly I would change to keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Short and also largely duplicative. Split wasn't needed, or at least not done like this. Reywas92Talk 14:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as pointed out by others, Andrew Cuomo is waaay too long already. This page isn't perfect, but I think we can keep it. Toadspike [Talk] 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Toadspike — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. Firon & Co.[edit]

M. Firon & Co. (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 see no reason this is notable. It just seems to be a law firm with no significant coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Mateer[edit]

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

The article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability, and likely violates NPOV.

Nathan Vasquez (lawyer)[edit]

Nathan Vasquez (lawyer) (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 references are pretty much all churnalism about his election campaign. One is about an ethics complaint, so is about him. Two are geofenced from me. After hw won, the remainder are P pieces about the win. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, failed WP:BIO. He was a WP:ROTM attorney, doing his job, now a DA doing his job. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn Graywalls (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's a successful candidate for a notable elected office. WP:BLP1E only applies when "[t]he person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual," which won't happen here. WP:NPOL is here to keep Wikipedia from getting cluttered with local officials who don't get coverage and unsuccessful candidates whose only notability is associated with the race. Moreover, he has received significant coverage in local and national media (AP, New York Times, New York Times, Oregonian, Willamette Week). Furthermore, national reliable sources have covered Vasquez in the context of the political significance of his win; see New York magazine and Politico. The most we could do is draftify it until January 1, but I think the sources justify keeping the article now, and delaying the inevitable creation of a virtually identical article for a few months strikes me as a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. It would be ridiculous to say he's not notable until the moment he takes office in six months now that he's won. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dclemens1971. Subject is obviously notable, in my opinion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dclemens1971. I disagree with characterizing the sources as churnalism, particularly the national coverage (and there are many more that could be added). Vasquez is part of a notable trend of centrist challengers defeating progressive DAs in most major cities on the west coast, which continues to attract coverage. He will oversee enforcement of Portland's homelessness policies (which have been covered by NYT and others for several years), and may receive significantly increased coverage if the pending Supreme Court decision (brought by plaintiffs in Oregon) overturns restrictions on homeless enforcement as widely expected. He will also take office in the aftermath of drug re-criminalization in Oregon. Any deletion would be temporary as national coverage is very likely to continue after he is sworn in. Jamedeus (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Subject is very notable. His win and the election as a whole have been reported on national news (AP, NY Post, other local sources, etc). PortlandSaint (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW Keep Vasquez just won the election according to every notable source previously cited, and is therefore the incoming District Attorney of Multnomah County, the most populous county in the state of Oregon. Per WP:JUDGE, local elected officials who have received significant press coverage are automatically presumed to be notable. The guideline also specifically states that people who have not yet assumed an office may still be considered notable. Steven Walling • talk 03:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject meets the WP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources. Let'srun (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Pomfret[edit]

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

Clearly and blatantly promotional. Reads like a resume. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Raees Khan[edit]

Sana Raees Khan (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)

Close to 20 sources are routine coverage from the Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 17 show which is typical for all contestants. She was eliminated on Day 55 and did not play a significant role WP:BLP1E. The remaining sources are passing mentions from the cases she was handling. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, India, and Maharashtra. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Hello @Jeraxmoira, She is not only known for Bigg Boss but also for her high profile cases and she was in BB House for 55 days and had lots of controversies which kept her in significant role till she was in Biggboss house., Notability doesnot mean how many days you spend in bigboss house but how notable you were in those days matter and references for same are as follows: [1][2][3][4]
    The article also has references for the high profile cases she handled like Sheena Bora murder case, Aryan Khan Drug case and following are few references which can prove the notability : [5][6][7][8][9]
    She is also seen in major role in the web-series titled The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth.[10][11]
    Points to consider : She is been known for the High profile cases and then she was called for BiggBoss and then while in biggboss she was in many controversies and was notable by almost all reliable sources. SAN2221 (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source 5 is a paid article authored by Bizz Impact.
    • Source 6 is a video from Big boss.
    • 7 is unreliable.
    • 8 Big boss.
    • 9 Big boss.
    • 10 and 11 - are routine announcements from the docu - series and Pinkvilla's gossip section is unreliable.
    All sources related to Big Boss count as one. The high-profile cases she has handled were only covered with Sana as the primary subject after she entered Big Boss, whereas previously, the coverage of her was only a passing mention on those cases. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check following references as proof and considering notability:
    [8]
    [9]
    [10]
    [11]
    [12]
    [13] SAN2221 (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Jeraxmoira, Kindly reconsider and review the references given above. SAN2221 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to reconsider as whatever you are adding are just paid articles and more Big Boss related coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A contestant on Bigg Boss show does not make the subject notable and neither any of her high profile cases have any significant coverage in the reliable sources. The subject is not well known who had any significant achievements, incidents or an allegation (even if negative) worthy of notice or relevant to warrant a page on her. RangersRus (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check following references as proof and considering notability and reconsider your views:
    [14]
    [15]
    [16]
    [17]
    [18]
    [19] SAN2221 (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @RangersRus, Kindly reconsider and review the references given above. SAN2221 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Being a member of the Women in Red Movement, I always try to improve the articles related to women, increase the number of women's articles on Wikipedia. But unfortunately, at this time this article is not passing WP:GNG. good luck! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check following references as proof and considering notability and reconsider your views:
    [20]
    [21]
    [22]
    [23]
    [24]
    [25] SAN2221 (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Youknowwhoistheman, Kindly reconsider and review the references given above. SAN2221 (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao[edit]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao (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 do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Law, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he was pretty clearly a Madras barrister[26]. He's cited for appearances a number of times in the Madras Law Journal[27]. I'm not finding a lot more than that.
    Are you questioning whether the Madras chief justices book exists? It is held by 8 WorldCat Participating libraries. The comment about cryptic metadata doesn't make sense. Oblivy (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also very likely poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ifrah[edit]

Jeff Ifrah (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 resume is an advert. Besides that, I cannot find any significant coverage about the subject, rather than by the subject. Adjunct professor doesn't count for NPROF, and nor does citations in general media rather than scholarly works for the bibliometric criteria. I cannot identify any other additional criteria that Ifrah may pass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is promotional biography. Sources in articles are name-checks, brief quotes from article subject, interviews, and firm profiles. Google Scholar appears to have nothing of substance and his articles are not widely cited. Agree he doesn't meet NPROF or GNG, and hard to see another guideline that would apply. Oblivy (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very PROMO, the only article about this person is 16. Might have a brief mention in "gambling laws in the USA" or something along those lines, just not enough coverage about the person. Most articles are about the legalities of sports betting, not about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree #16 is probably SIGCOV. It's a regional newspaper which might reduce its weight but that's just quibbling. Oblivy (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the analyzed sources do not help to establish fulfilment of WP:ANYBIO or general notability. --BoraVoro (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UL 365[edit]

UL 365 (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. Sources in article are primary, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth from an independent source that meets WP:GNG. I am also nominating the following related pages:

UL 2610 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
UL 294 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Standards_for_Alarm_Systems,_Installation,_and_Monitoring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

 // Timothy :: talk  22:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Never used talk pages before, is this how we "talk".
I need to google many of the terms in your talk comments?
  • Reply No need for Google, I have wikilinked the above terms and you might find Wikipedia:Glossary helpful for any other terms you come across.  // Timothy :: talk  23:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will be back in about 20 hours, and will reply then.
Some things may be a bit circular at the moment, please bear with me. I am adding the content as I can at work, estimating a week.
Background, I am a security architect, and for work I needed the information I am authoring. I am not affiliated with UL.
I have discovered that the information I and my colleagues needed, is (mostly) not found on the internet. It is many, many closed areas. I feel this information should be in Wikipedia as #3 of the Wikipedia:Five_pillars states. I am privileged to have access to many of the usges of these standards, and the standards themselves. Theses standards are an unseen impact on security, but very large impact they do have. See businesswire.com's "Global Alarm Monitoring Market Report 2021 Market to Reach 57.7 Billion by 2026"[28] for some ideas as to the scope.
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline I see "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."
Maybe the items I am putting together should go in one page. But "Wikipedia has no firm rules" Jpyeron (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, regarding the secondary sources - there are many non public secondary sources. At the same time a standard is measured not by its citations, but by its usage.
Look at many devices, see the stickers? Here you can see all the companies saying they are compliant with UL 2610: [29]https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22UL+2610%22#ip=1 Jpyeron (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to continue spending my time improving the content, but I would like to get some community consensus on that the articles are kept or merged. I am thinking they should be merged in to one page covering the security standards.
Based on my reading of WP:GNG it is not applicable (passes), and WP:SIRS is uniquely narrow for this case. Again, 5th pillar. Can someone cite specifics?
Will follow up in a day. Jpyeron (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the AFD is now classified as "could not be categorised due to insufficient information in the article". I want to continue putting in the information, but: I do not have responses to my above clarifications, and I am not going to put significant investment if it is just going to be deleted.
If the insufficient information is the reason, isn't incubation the proper remedy? Jpyeron (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will merge the articles tomorrow, the new article will have this AFD at the top and the other pages will redirect to it. I think this addresses the "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community."
The new merged article Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring will also eventually have other non-UL items, such as ISO/IEC 22237-6:2024. I will follow up tomorrow. Jpyeron (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Friday got away from me, doing the merge now. creating Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring and then setting the redirects. Jpyeron (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you know, but you left the article deletion tag in the new article. Sadustu Tau (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did put it there on purpose, because "removal is not allowed" until consensus. The new article is a merger of the old 3. Jpyeron (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed the merger and redirects - I will follow up Monday Jpyeron (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here besides the content creator and the nominator. It looks like the nominator didn't set up any deletion sorting, can a helpful editor like Wcquidditch take care of that for this discussion? Many thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Engineering, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominated articles were merged and changed into a redirects two days ago. It's discussed in the above "thread" but that's just Jpeyron making a series of comments and nobody objecting. I don't think this is how things are supposed to be done even as part of a good faith effort to resolve the deletion rationale.
    I think the appropriate thing is for @Jpyeron to revert the changes and then propose a merge with a rationale given. The merge article can be moved to draftspace. Note that there are rules about WP:Copying within Wikipedia that may also be at play. Oblivy (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to do so, it is hard to do the right thing in a vacuum.
    Regarding the merge, I created the pages separate, but after reading up on the AfD and associated items the merger process seemed to be the best logical organization.
    But I am a bit confused on the "copying" thing. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed .
    Note, this week is going to very busy for me, had dedicated time last week for putting the content in. More time after 3-Jun. Jpyeron (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, the preference is for leaving pages for deletion in place so they can be assessed by participating editors. On the other hand (and I do this a lot), editors are encouraged to work on improving articles to prevent deletion. It was just very confusing to click through to the article and see that it had been changed to a redirect.
    I guess copying rule doesn't apply. I hadn't looked through the history to see that you were the only editor of those pages.
    I'm happy to vote merge -- it does seem to be a good outcome, and if one of the sub-subjects turns out to be notable someone can create a WP:FORK over your redirect page. In which case the copying rule would apply! Oblivy (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer merge as well.
    re: "It was just very confusing to click through to the article and see that it had been changed to a redirect." it is why I added the AFD to the top of the new.
    Should I revert? It is much easier to edit in the new doc, and continue to add to it. I am going to hold off on the busy work reversion until there is a clear request/preference to revert. Jpyeron (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge General members of the public rely on alarm system standards to assess the quality, safety, and effectiveness of systems they procure, often looking for certification marks to ensure trust in these products. This article provides an overview of these standards to satisfy the curiosity of those who wish to understand the gist without delving into technical details. For industry stakeholders, it highlights how adherence to these standards facilitates compliance and maintains a competitive edge, serving as a gateway for further detailed exploration of specific standards and best practices. Jpyeron (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please clarify for me, what is the Merge target article here? It can't be one that is also nominated for AFD deletion. Are all articles to be Merged to the same target article? Please be very specific on what outcome you want and do not usurp the discussion and Merge and Redirect before this discussion is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this was discussed above. I am new to this process and trying to do the most meaningful work. Do you want me to revert the redirects at this time? Do you want me to remove the AFD from the new target article? Jpyeron (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz as far as I can see, @Jpyeron created a set of pages for these UL specifications, then when @TimothyBlue nominated them for deletion they in good faith decided to merge them into a single larger article at [Standards for Alarm Systems, Installation, and Monitoring]]. When it was relisted, I tried to untangle this and got frustrated by the redirects, which led to my comment above. A comment which could have been more welcoming of the efforts as I can't see why the combined article wouldn't be a better outcome assuming it's properly sourced.
    @Jpyeron I can't speak for Liz, but I think the AfD notice should be removed. You pasted it in when you created the merge article. I'm going to be bold and remove it as it doesn't belong to that article. Oblivy (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debian Free Software Guidelines[edit]

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

Non-notable precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.

The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.

Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar[30][31]. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search seems to produce a couple hundred mentions. Are these all cursory? --Joy (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all I found was quotes of the definition and mentions—no significant coverage differentiating it from the OSD. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's give people some time then to try to find better coverage. If it can't be found, and if the mass of primary and cursory references isn't deemed worthy of a standalone article, then there's the matter of where to redirect - Debian Social Contract or even a section inside Debian may also be good destinations. --Joy (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

85th percentile speed[edit]

85th percentile speed (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 do not think this concept merits its own article, and believe it is adequately covered at Speed limit#Maximum speed limits, which actually goes more into depth than this standalone article (which is nothing more than a dictionary definition). This article should be redirected to that section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 85th percentile speed is a policy decision that was perhaps in the past considered a minor component of Speed limit#Maximum speed limits. However it is now being covered by reliable sources as a large component of Transportation safety in the United States, with criticism directed solely at the 85th percentile rule (as opposed to high speed limits in general) and laws being written to eliminate the rule (but not high speed limits). The rule has significant coverage and meets GNG.
Subject deserves its own article to track the development of 85th percentile rule usage and decline, as covered by reliable sources. Just like Parking mandates is a different article from Parking.
PK-WIKI (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Ferrada[edit]

Claudio Ferrada (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:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never held any office that makes them inherently pass NPOL and not enough sources to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Committee of Gagauzia[edit]

Executive Committee of Gagauzia (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, Single source is primary, nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject 'directly and indepth. Nothing sourced in article for a merge, but no objection if there is a consensus for a redirect to Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia  // Timothy :: talk  02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126[edit]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Could be redirected to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is significant coverage of FMVSS 126 in a large number of sources in Google Scholar and Google Books, including at least three entire articles on this subject: [32] [33] [34]. James500 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG still does not mean it must have a standalone article; per WP:NOPAGE, it's more appropriate to cover the topic in context elsewhere. There are also sources on the European Union's regulation of electronic stability control, on Australia's regulation of electronic stability control, on Canada's regulation of electronic stability control, on Argentina's regulation of electronic stability control, etc.... I'm sure an additional source for each beyond those in the main article can be found to satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean a duplicative page is necessary for this. Reywas92Talk 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There does not appear to be any duplication. The laws of one country are not the same thing as the laws of another. In any event, there comes a point where the sheer volume of coverage of a topic is so large that it cannot be stuffed into a single article; and in such cases the parent article needs to be split. Electronic stability control is such a topic. There are hundreds of articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about electronic stability control, to the point where the words "electronic stability control" actually appear verbatim in their titles. The article Electronic stability control is already 62kB long and does not need to be made longer. James500 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Um no, page length is measured by prose text and it's only 25kb/4,000 words long, well under WP:LENGTH's guideline. Expansion of that article including its regulation section is absolutely more than welcome. But if you think it should be split, a single country's regulation of it is the wrong way to do so (a different section or a general Regulation of electronic stability control would be better if warranted). This US regulation page is so short, it is duplicated in its entirety by the main article's "The United States followed, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing FMVSS 126, which requires ESC for all passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds (4536 kg). The regulation phased in starting with 55% of 2009 models (effective 1 September 2008), 75% of 2010 models, 95% of 2011 models, and all 2012 and later models." This is unnecessary to be a separate page. Reywas92Talk 14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This regulation does not duplicate the regulations of other countries. The sources about this regulation do not duplicate the sources about the regulations of other countries. WP:ARTN says "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability". Accordingly, the fact that some of the content of this article is similar to the content of the parent article does not decrease the notability of the topic of this article. In any event, the article has now been expanded some new content that is not in the parent article, and more can be added. Likewise, the fact that this article is presently short is also irrelevant, because it can be expanded so as to make it much longer. In theory, this page could be moved to Regulation of electronic stability control, without prejudice to a future split, in order to speed up the creation of such an article, but this page should not be merged into another page (which would not have the page history of this page). James500 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation, where this is already discussed. The sources above would also be better in the main article than a separate page. Individual regulations rarely need their own articles and I don't see an exception here. Reywas92Talk 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or WP:ATD Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards#Crash avoidance both of which cover the subject. There are literally hundreds of these individual regulations, evidenced with the above Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Title 49 has around 35 regulations under "Crash avoidance", "Crashworthiness" with approximately 27 regulations, "Post-crash survivability" with five regulations, "Miscellaneous" with five regulations, "Other regulations relating to transportation" with approximately 54 "parts". Per The slippery slope is creating hundreds of dictionary type entries with mainly primary sourcing, at the expense of the parent articles. Per Reywas92 Individual regulations rarely need their own articles. The actual concept is supposed to be that there is "significant coverage" in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a "whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", referred to as a permastub. Just because Wikipedia allegedly has unlimited space does not mean every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. At a point, if an individual subject grows large enough then a split should be discussed. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of individual regulations is not excessively large. Hundreds of regulations is nothing compared to the 6 million articles we already have, or the hundreds of millions of topics that probably satisfy GNG. In any event, no one is arguing that all the regulations should have an article. We are only arguing that the regulations that satisfy GNG should have articles. And right now we are only arguing that this one regulation satisfies GNG, which means that right now we are only arguing for exactly one article. The slippery slope fallacy is not a reason for deletion or merger. In this case, the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects. The article does not violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY in its present form. It is not a definition or a dictionary entry. In any event, the article can be expanded far beyond a definition. The sourcing is not primary. Reywas92 is not a policy or guideline. There is significant coverage in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. The article is not half a paragraph or a definition, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. The article is not a permastub, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. No one has argued that every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. We have argued that topics that satisfy GNG are presumed to merit an article. Insisting on waiting until the parent article actually reaches 8,000 words is bound to result in the article becoming seriously unbalanced (WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION). That is one of the reasons that we don't try to stuff and stuff and stuff lots of notable topics into a single article. James500 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The number of individual regulations is not excessively large" Maybe not U.S. motor vehicles regulations, but internationally among all subjects there are – hundreds of thousand of regulations do not need articles. "capable of being expanded". So is the main article. There's simply no need to have this separate page at this point, regardless of your hypothetical of who would write articles on individual regulations. The sources you added are highly technical papers that I do not believe are particularly conducive for an article here. The article could easily have a "Testing procedures" section as well. "article becoming seriously unbalanced" There is no indication that this will happen and we can still split before that point. Reywas92Talk 15:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The total number of regulations on all subjects worldwide is irrelevant: not all regulations are equal. The USA is a large country with a correspondingly large number of motor vehicles and motor vehicle accidents. Motor vehicle safety is one of more important subjects on which regulations are made (because of the risk to life and property). US motor vehicle safety regulations are likely to receive more coverage than regulations from smaller countries on less important subjects. For example, a commencement order from Tuvalu (population 11,900) is not going receive anything remotely like the kind of coverage that US motor vehicle safety regulations are going to receive. The correct approach is to create standalone articles on those regulations that actually satisfy GNG. There is no evidence that an excessive number of regulations satisfy GNG. (There is no evidence that the number of regulations that do actually satisfy GNG is actually "hundreds of thousands" or even remotely close to that.) In fact, the number of regulations that satisfy GNG is, by definition, the number that is not excessive for our purposes. The point is that no one is arguing for a standalone article on every regulation in the world, we are only arguing for articles on the regulations that satisfy GNG. I think the three articles that I linked to above, and the rest of the 270 sources in Google Scholar, are conducive to an article on this regulation. James500 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So write it. The vast majority of those sources are brief mentions of the regulation or sine with dwell test, which are perfectly conducive for inclusion in the main article for appropriate context of development and testing of electronic stability control. Reywas92Talk 14:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Electronic_stability_control#Regulation: where it is already covered in as much detail as is encyclopedically warranted. Owen× ☎ 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted. Simply claiming that something is "unencyclopedic" is one of the arguments to avoid listed in the essay WP:ATA. James500 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTEVERYTHING, a section of the policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not explicitly states the following: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I invite you to reconsider the accuracy of your comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one has argued that more detail should be included "solely because it is true or useful". More detail can be included without the article ceasing to be "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". James500 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted which is not a correct statement, as written it could be justification for articles of infinite length. And all you've managed to do thus far is add one sentence about a "sine with dwell test" (whatever on earth that even means). What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) are sources that give significant coverage to the regulation. What more is there to be said about this regulation? If it can't be expanded beyond a stub it clearly should be redirected to Electronic stability control#regulation per WP:NOPAGE (and that's even generously assuming the regulation is notable, which has yet to be demonstrated either). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are twisting my words. The statement "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted" does not mean what you claim it means. As far as NOTEVERYTHING is concerned, it is a correct statement because that policy does not forbid the inclusion of "more detail" that is "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". I did not say "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". If I had meant to say "even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" I would have said so in express words. There is no policy, guideline or consensus that forbids "more detail" only because it is more detail. James500 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already supplied you with sources that satisfy GNG including [35] [36] [37] and others. What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) is any explanation of why the coverage in these sources is allegedly not significant, or why the additional information they contain about this regulation should allegedly not be added to the article. James500 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you had actually read those sources, you would know what the Sine with Dwell test is. James500 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG, no problem.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Bigg Boss 17: Sana Raees Khan On Equation With Vicky Jain - "If He Would Have Come Alone..."
  2. ^ "Aryan Khan's lawyer Sana Raees Khan lands in trouble for participating in Salman Khan's 'Bigg Boss 17'".
  3. ^ "Aryan Khan's lawyer Sana Raees Khan gets involved in another controversy, Faizan Ansari calls her 'FRAUD' and 'CRIMINAL'".
  4. ^ "Bigg Boss 17 Under Fire: Bombay HC Lawyer Complains To Bar Council Over Advocate Sana Raees Khan's Participation In Show".
  5. ^ "Sana Raees Khan's Legal brilliance prevails, secures win".
  6. ^ "Aryan Khan's lawyer Sana Raees Khan talks about how we can tackle issue of body shaming – 'Education and awareness'".
  7. ^ "Supreme court lawyer Sana Raees Khan proves her mettle once again, wins case representing builder Indrapal Patil in the infamous Bhiwandi building collapse case".
  8. ^ "Bigg Boss 17: Meet Sana Raees Khan, Lawyer Of Sheena Bora And Aryan Khan Drug Cases".
  9. ^ "Advocate Sana Raees Khan becomes contestant in Hindi reality show 'Bigg Boss'".
  10. ^ "Bigg Boss 17 fame Sana Raees Khan bags web series titled The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth".
  11. ^ "BB 17's Sana Raees Khan Defends Indrani Mukerjea In Buried Truth Docu-Series; Shares Promo".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Law&oldid=1225809607"