The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find any evidence of a community with this name at this location. Does not appear on topo maps until the 2011 edition, likely based on the GNIS entry which in turn cites "Place Names of Bibb County, Alabama" (1980). No apparent connection to the community of Blocton which appears on old maps at this location. –dlthewave☎ 19:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a set of mine(s). See [1], [2], apparently worked by convicts. Hog FarmTalk 21:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage. Not to be confused with Flat Top, Jefferson County, Alabama, which is where I believe the mine and prison was located. Trying to differentiate between the two is tricky, Alabama Mine Map Repository has Flat Top Mine in Jefferson County. Searching Google for '"Flat Top Mine" "Bibb"' seems to only find references for the mine being in Jefferson County, I never found anything that indicated the mine was in Bibb. Bibb County, Alabama: The First Hundred Years has two references for Flat Top, but they are not shown in the preview. Other than that, I found nothing notable for Flat Top in Bibb County in GBooks. Searching Newspapers.com came up with a bunch of hits for the mine and associated prison (clearly Flat Top, Jefferson County, Alabama might be expanded if it really is the location of the mine and prison.) However, it seems that the subject of this article is near Centreville, Alabama, so looking at the Centreville newspaper for Flat Top is indicated. Even then, the only thing I found was an article about overdue taxes. As Flat Top, Bibb County has virtually no coverage, it is not notable and I found no legal recognition. Thus neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG are met. Cxbrx (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cxbrx, who is always very thorough. I was having trouble distinguishing between the two Flat Tops, which is why I didn't !vote earlier, but I trust their thorough research. Hog FarmTalk 15:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You are too kind. Your two newspapers.com references got me started. Differentiating between these two is not easy, I could be wrong. If someone has conclusive evidence that Flat Top, Bibb county was where the mine and prison was located, I would quickly change my !vote. Cxbrx (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would change my !vote in that situation, as well. Normally, I can at least guess based on geographic context what one a source is referring to, but in this case Bibb and Jefferson counties are next to each other, so it's basically impossible. Hog FarmTalk 16:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1899 USGS map says that these coordinates refer to "Blockton", 1934 and 1940 maps say the article's coordinates are in "Smith Hill"... no "Flat Top" there, and it doesn't look like there's anything beyond a few houses at that location. All this for a single-sentence stub -- and if Cxbrx and Hog Farm didn't find anything, I don't think anyone else is going to. jp×g 22:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cxbrx. THere's a chance this is the one that's in Jefferson County and the book they mentioned may have been incorrect in mentioning Flat Top being in Bibb County. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the hunt for sources above, it's clear we can't write about this (potential?) place unless something new turns up. /Julle (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2021 (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.
Weak delete had this now defunct club won an AMNRL or USARL title, I would have said just about passes Notability and gone weak keep, as they haven't, it's a weak delete for me. Undelete if anything majorly notable about the club comes to light in future. c87d98b10 19:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merge or delete in that order. SpartazHumbug! 17:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of a community with this name at this location; appears to be another GNIS transcription error. 1930s topos show only a "Black Bayou Sch." (school) along a body of water called Black Bayou. –dlthewave☎ 21:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There was a Black Bayou of some significance during the Steele's Bayou expedition in the Civil War/War Between the States, but I don't think this is the same place. Hog FarmTalk 00:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Topo maps do show a Black Bayou Junction and a Black Bayou School near the Black Bayou. This gazetteer website says that there's a reference to it in the Business Atlas and Shippers' Guide (1895) and a 1911 map. While I can totally believe that this is a nonsense GNIS stub, it seems like some more research would be helpful. jp×g 22:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm thinking this is a non-notable railway station, so WP:STATION applies GBooks lists it in a shipping guide and topos have that location next to the Illinois Central Railroad. The nearby Black Bayou Bridge is possibly where Emmett Till's body was dumped. The bridge is possibly notable, but this article is about somewhere else that probably was only a station. Newspapers.com had nothing indicating that anyone lived or died at this location, though searching is a bit tricky. I did not find notable (or really any) coverage nor did I find legal recognition so WP:GEOLAND is not met. Cxbrx (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Czbrx, since it looks like the source analysis I talked about has come in... jp×g 21:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sourcing, serves only to promote the actress–it's not encyclopedicly informative. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲talk 20:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I couldn't even find a source to confirm her alma mater. Gargleafg (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any significant coverage to show this Sinhala film passes WP:NFILM. The two sources are both dead, and one only existed to show that this was the "the 1074th Sri Lankan film in the Sinhala cinema." The other source is the National Arts Newspaper of Sri Lanka, and appears to have simply been sourcing the cast list. Searching that site yields no hits on "Rana Hansi" or "රණහංසි". IMDB does have a minimal page for this film (for what it's worth) at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7985738/ I can't find any other coverage, and I see no actual claim to notability in the article. Meters (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a stub consisting of nothing but the cast list and a few production crew details. Meters (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has been around for 4 years (and not my area), so bringing it to AFD rather than something quicker. Meters (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Archived copies of the sources now provided by user:Eastmain, but nothing in either of them to show notability. Meters (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two new sources and an IMDB link have been added, but do nothing to show notability. The sources are merely two more database entries to support "It is the 1053rd Sri Lankan film in the Sinhala cinema." That's not a claim to notability. We know it exists. Meters (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not evidence this passes the gng SpartazHumbug! 17:24, 27 August 2021 (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 23:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability - the only independent source is about a campaign speech that took place at a conference held by the organization, not about the organization itself. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless sources appear. SpartazHumbug! 17:25, 27 August 2021 (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.
State-level lobbyist and political operative fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. January 2021 edits indicate likely WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues. KidAd • SPEAK 22:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete absent better sourcing. SpartazHumbug! 17:27, 27 August 2021 (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 23:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Run-of-the-mill businessman. Article was last deleted two years ago. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material, press releases and/or quotations. Possible COI or paid editing. Edwardx (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article previously deleted through afd. I have also felt that this is the case of COI. And now talk about the references; All the references either Press Releases or announcements about the company. Subject does not meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines.DMySon (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was created by User:AngryMushroom, and although they deny having any COI or being involved in paid editing, I have spent enough time at WP:COIN to be very scepitical of their denials. Methinks WP:DUCK applies. Edwardx (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability through WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Agreed with COI concerns. Have draftified another of their article which is likely UPE. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 17:22, 24 August 2021 (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. No prejudice to a later merge. MBisanztalk 18:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the assertions to notability are connections to notable people. I couldn't establish he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is currently short on sources but that does not mean they don't exist. Ward is mostly known for his early death, but he was a member of two notable bands, and after his death he was noted for inspiring the works of his former bandmates. Here are some more possible sources: [3], [4], [5]. I think he has surpassed the "non-trivial" requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I don't think "sound technician" is correct for the title of this article. If it survives this AfD, I suggest changing (moving) the disambig term to simply "musician". (There are some other Jeremy Ward's in WP.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm on the fence, actually, because as near as I can tell this subject never received reliable coverage recognition in his lifetime; as the nominator points out his accomplishments are less individual than they are part of another notable subject(s). I push it to weak keep only because the quality of sources that covered his death suggest there may be something more to this subject than what the lack of sources suggest. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle(talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third relist for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Looks like the subject meets WP:GNG per the sources provided above. Additional coverage here. Suriname0 (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources listed in the discussion here. /Julle (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also support renaming the article, per doomsdayer520 above. /Julle (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirect or merge in that order. Target the band article. Sources 1&2 just say that he died from a drugs overdose and the third is an interview about how sad the band is from his passing. There is nothing here that wouldn't fit well in the band article and frankly this looks like ONEEVENT territory. Absent evidence his death has a lasting impact, lets make the readers' experience more unified. SpartazHumbug! 17:33, 27 August 2021 (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.
Fails WP:NOTABILITY. The only coverage I am able to find on this individual is the source mentioned in the article. This man seems to be only known in the area where he once lived.
I also want to nominate these articles, as well:
All three articles have the same opening sentence, and cite the same, and only, source. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added the AfD tags for the other two articles. --MuZemike 16:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (this article and the other 2 included in the nom). The subject would appear to fail WP:NCRIMINAL and WP:SIGCOV. By some distance. In terms of the former (NCRIMINAL), even if the subject's crimes were confirmed (and not, as seems to be the case, loosely alleged and possibly apocryphal), any related article would cover those events/crimes. And the subject's role in them (alongside that of the subject's accomplices/"confederates"). If the subject was a contemporary thief/murderer, and his crimes were notable enough, we would have an article about the crimes. Not about the criminal(s). In terms of the latter (SIGCOV), I can find nothing at all about the subject or his crimes in the typical sources (not JSTOR, Scholar, Books or anywhere else). If the subject is covered anywhere it would seem to be in the single work/book which supports the text. And, even in that work, the subject is far from the main biographical topic. A passing mention in one book fails SIGCOV. By a country mile. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete one source isn't enough for one article, let alone 3. SpartazHumbug! 17:37, 27 August 2021 (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 23:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor, according to WP:NACTOR. Has appeared in many productions, but not in any significant roles as far as I can tell. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 16:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete not sourced to the required level. SpartazHumbug! 17:38, 27 August 2021 (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. What The Supermind wants to tell us does not amount to an argument for keeping the article, insofar as it is even understandable. Sandstein 10:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No even 1 and 2 sources fully covered about her biography and career. These withstand the article themselves. The Supermind (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the first is a non-reliable source, and the second is a primary source, neither of which go to notability.Onel5969TT me 23:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both detail about her career and life and you have to see the content of site, not necessarily the site itself. You can see inserted references contents that have identical information about the subject. That can pass GNG. The Supermind (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough reliable, secondary indepth sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look [6]. Again shows identical information. The Supermind (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone with the relevant languages comment on the several Ukrainian and Russian language sources cited in the article? Also on the nature of the Smoloskip literary prize? Furius (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can read Russian and google translate helps. Source analysis as follows:
source1 - student report of a university event published in a university publication. Neither independent nor RS
Source2 - I wondered why an arts site with just 2 reporters could manage so much content but in the about us section they confirmed that they accept user generated content and submissions. Given this, a long over detailed piece with no byline does not feel at all independent or suitable as an rs for notability,
source3 - aggregator source that appears to be a mirror of the ua.wikipedia page but with no byline I don’t see it as independent or reliable if it predates the ua article, the later is a copyvio
source4 - university site again
source5 - a uk based ukrainian aggregator site that is another wikipedia site and this one clearly lists wikipedia as the source.
the award might be notable but we have no article and ua has lots of red links in their article. I’d suggest we were better trying to get ab article on the award off the ground rather than trying to use that to justify a blp with no rs and lots of indications if self serving sources. ′′′delete′′′ SpartazHumbug! 18:27, 27 August 2021 (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.
Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has only played in amateur/non-pro leagues in Indonesia. Fails WP:GNG as coverage is routine (transfers, match reports). However, there is this article, which is pretty in-depth, though it seems to be the only non-routine article about the player. Nehme1499 21:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme1499 21:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article above is just simply a prose version of one of his database profile pages. It just lists his DOB and the clubs he played for along with his appearances for each one. A lot of hits in an Indonesian search but none of it seems to be significant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2021 (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.
Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has only played in French amateur/semi-pro divisions and in non-FIFA international football. Fails WP:GNG as I couldn't find significant coverage on him by reliable sources, other than the usual database websites and transfer news. The most I've found is this interview by a blog. Nehme1499 21:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme1499 21:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:29, 21 August 2021 (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.
Fails WP:GNG. Lots of unreliable coverage in the article, but little of substance (particularly little that's in-depth on Cohen), and all I found with a WP:BEFORE is this one-seventh of a HuffPost listicle and more news of the sort that doesn't go beyond what the article already contains.
It's been proposed for merging with Hillsborough disaster - pinging the commenters there, TipsyElephant and OGBC1992 - but I don't think that's due weight in an already very long article. I don't believe WP:BLP1E technically applies because as a radio host I'm not sure how he'd be "low profile" (criterion #2), but this information can best be covered at some article(s) about the platforms he broadcast Hillsborough misinformation on, or nowhere at all. — Bilorv (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally considered opening an AfD, but I decided to pursue WP:ATD first to see what others thought. Does not pass WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons specified in the nom --MattBinYYC (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems only to be famous (but not notable) for making idiotic comments, one of the shows he hosted (World Soccer Daily) has already been deleted as non-notable and I suspect the other (Fox Football Fone-In) would fail that test too. EdwardUK (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2021 (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. Ultimately the independent coverage isn't there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical article created by its own subject (see his own admission on his own user talk page that he had decided to start an article about himself), without actually demonstrating or sourcing any strong claim to notability under Wikipedia's inclusion rules. This is filled with a lot of life trivia that doesn't speak to notability at all, and very heavily reference bombed to a lot of sources that aren't helping to establish passage of WP:GNG (pieces of his own bylined writing, the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, student media, glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him in any non-trivial way, etc.), and after considering those problems, it's just not at all clear that there's a genuinely strong notability claim, or enough solid notability-building sourcing, left. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where people are entitled to place themselves for a publicity boost -- even if he is genuinely notable enough for an article, he still has to wait for somebody else to write and source an article properly, and independently of his own self-promotional efforts, and is not entitled to use Wikipedia as a platform for his own autobiography. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant self promotion with no clear indication of notability because of the way it is written. WP:TNT. If the creator wants to write a neutral article about himself that clearly demonstrates his notability, then he would need to do so using the WP:AFC process. (Personally, I probably would have just moved the article to draft space rather than bringing it to AfD). Melcous (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw or didn't understand the numerous references within Wikipedia, above, until this moment. Thanks again to everyone on suggestions.
re:Author, Autobiographical--AUTHOR-AUTOBIOGRPAHY ADDRESSED: I have stopped participating in writing other than in minor edits (punctuation, missing reference so far). I better understand the issues here and again apologize for the mistake
re: Notability --NOTABILITY ADDRESSED VIA CITATION/EVENT COUNTS? I believe in the instances left after others' edits, Notability requirements have been met: see >1 article? I'm unclear about "making a claim"? I thought the articles did that? I recognize this isn't an easy case. I again apologize for the difficulties and thank those helping to make corrections
re: reference bombed--REF BOMB: ADDRESSED - I believe this has been handled by others? My thinking about multiple references for the same event: a) establish the veracity of the event b) establish the reach of the impact (e.g., citywide, statewide, region wide, nationwide). I'm not sure what others have been doing in their pruning, but this was my original thinking. In one instance, for example, an AP story went out on the wire. Only one gave a byline to the author, Doug Richardson and nearly all shortened and rewrote what they received via AP. Only one establishes that "AIDS" was new for the Governor. That AP story was printed in national publications all through the US. And ofc the ABC coverage.
re: WP:GNG the tone of the article did not help the case, here. I believe that has been corrected. As to substance, I believe that: i) EVENT ii) references number > 1 article (meeting all requirements). An issue is made about articles written by subject: these have been reduced immensely by others' editing. No event is established merely by reference to an article or blog written by the subject.
re: self-published STILL OPEN? Yes, there are important caveats, but then we have: "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I have to think more about this.
re: WP:AFC- HAPPY TO MOVE IT TO DRAFT -- the suggestion that it be moved into draft space is great. I followed those steps at AFC, but never saw how to move it or build it in draft space. I will look at how to do this. Especially happy to do so if it helps cool tones. Yet a great deal of good editing has prevented the necessity complete blow up?
Thanks again for all questions and Wikipedia citations. I apologize for not seeing the above errors and especially my tone. No need to go personal, so apologies to all participating in this. Was not aiming for self-promo, but fall into that at times. Was not aiming to claim Notability where it doesn't exist. I had read the Autobio guidelines in a more open way than I read them today. I thought the second sentence underscored these are guidelines and not hard and fast rules. But I also didn't intend on bumping up against so many.
Please disregard most of what follows. I hadn't yet seen enough of the guidelines yet. I'd prefer to remove it so...but don't want to remove context for Bearcat's explanationsInformatics411 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this discussion. I am still learning all the guidelines and appreciate others' attention to them and this chance to address these important concerns. This will be a start in addressing those concerns.
I have edited the Informatics411 Talk to better adhere to policy of COI editing; this doesn't remove it, but maintaining anonymity going forward is, I see, important and necessary. I understand better how this raises flags and creates difficulties for editors in general. I apologize for the difficulties re: COI, neutrality, autobiography. COI is possible, neutrality need be carefully policed (thanks and sorry for the extra effort), and autobiography needs to be avoided.
We are still early in the process, e.g., first 24 hours. I appreciate continuing the discussion so as to better learn about the standards. Individual events, alone, demonstrate that Vore article meets GNG requirements--if it isn't, one can easily see the autobio problem arising.
Over 60 sources attest to a) significance of events Vore participated in b) those sources are independent of him 90% of the time c) those sources are verifiable. No original research shows up in this article. The neutral point of view will be tricky. This writing process is collaborative and crowdsourced. This author will work to avoid impartiality and he apologizes for the need for unusual review.
Removing the admission that it's an autobiography doesn't mitigate the issue. The rule is not that the article can be an autobiography so long as you hide the fact instead of being open about it; it's that the article can't be an autobiography regardless of whether you're open about it or try to hide. Also, your sources can't be written by you, they can't be the self-published websites of organizations you're directly affiliated with, and they can't just briefly mention your name in passing — for a source to help support your notability, you have to be its subject. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now seeing above bullet. I agree that removing information in Informatics411Talk does not remove the concerns and I apologize for the needed unusual review; that is, regardless, where we are and will be. I agree with your statement of rules but don't agree with your seeing a violation in the instances mentioned. --John Michael Vore as a source, himself, is autobiographical in only the instance of a masters thesis (which is, by its nature, significant and attested to)...? As discussed at length in Reference Referent, the rule you apply simply cannot hold in the instances mentioned: a) when an article subject is a speechwriter, the speech given by the speechmaker is an event including the speechwriter b) Similarly, as behind-the-scenes actor in policymaking, behind the publicly-announced, pursued policy c) Similarly, as behind the scenes organizer of events, themselves, reporting about those events equates to reporting about the event-maker.--In the three instances above, there are no references by John Michael Vore about any of them. In the high school setting, the actual high school paper's coverage about the Reagan inaugural is not about Vore, but is, in fact evidence of what is claimed about Vore.--It is not obvious and applies in all instances but those in which is article subject is a behind-the-scenes actor in a public event. No blog entry establishes anything autobiographical. But see "Reference referent" above? Informatics411 (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of a masters' thesis, insofar as it constitutes a reason for an encyclopedia article, is not established by the existence of said thesis; it is established by the existence of external analysis of its significance by other people in third party sources. The significance of speechwriting, insofar as it constitutes a reason for an encyclopedia article, is not established by citing the speeches to themselves; it is established by the existence of external analysis of their significance by other people in third party sources. Reporting about events does not establish the notability of the organizer if said organizer is not himself the subject of the coverage. And on and so forth: notability is never, ever, ever just a question of what the article says, or by citing the claims to primary sources that metaverify themselves (like speeches sourced to themselves) — it is always a question of the volume and depth and geographic range and quality of the media coverage that can be used to support the things it says, and can only be established by sources where John Michael Vore is the subject being written about by third parties in media. Notability cannot be established by sources you wrote yourself; it cannot be established by the self-published websites of organizations that aren't media; it cannot be established by sources that briefly mention you without being about you; it cannot be established by sources that tangentially verify facts while not actually naming you at all in conjunction with them. You would do well to (a) listen to what's being said, and (b) stop referring to yourself in the third person here. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has been deleting a) References and b) Categories from the page in question. In the first instance, yesterday, it made it appear that Bearcat's argument had merit in a specific instance where it did not; today, we see Categories drastically reduced, removing the article subject from Categories which are obvious from content of article; can someone explain?
Re: Bearcat, above:
To suggest author isn't "listening" is to actually demonstrate that, so far, the one person objecting, is not, themselves listening--as if this one person, Bearcat, is the law, when from all I read on Wikipedia, that is not how it works; Informatics411 has made several changes in response to Bearcat which show that, irrefutably, this author is "listening"; is Bearcat?
So far, in this "debate," Bearcat has yet to accept one line of rebuttal; nor has Bearcat accepted even 1 Reference (there are 60+) as used in the subject article;
Please stop breaking the anonymity of the author, after an error in its regard has been established and corrected, per your critique (which would, then, show author is "listening"). Author has responded to your critique and taken action directly related to it--which you, nevertheless, also critiqued (and continue to do so), questioning the reputation of the author (by suggesting author has gone in "hiding" which is a bit dramatic and ridiculous in relation to a subject whose whole metier has been about being in the public sphere);
The author of the article in question has repeatedly accepted the standards found on Wikipedia pages, striven to meet them as written--and also repeatedly thanked others for their critiques. One writes the word "others" to give Bearcat the benefit of the doubt--that in fact there are others who object;
Please start referring specifically to Wikipedia policies themselves in your objections; are they not online and available? Though "good faith" paraphrasing is acceptable, unanchored it leads to fighting about the paraphrasing, not the article in question;
More than 60 References relate to the subject of the article in question, per Wikipedia policy, and in multiple instances meet Notability requirements. The first six sections, each taken separately, meet Notability alone without any need for interpretation or gray areas as suggested above by Informatics411 in "Reference referent." If you disagree let us work through each example section by section, reference by reference. 95% of all references were found via Newspaper.com searching for the subject's name (and combinations of) in the geographic areas where subject lived;
Bearcat's paraphrasing about what constitutes a secondary source goes beyond what Wikipedia requires as a secondary source, per the "No original research" page, section 1.2.2.
While Informatics411 appreciates the need, in a debate, to continue to amass "evidence," whereas Informatics411 has repeatedly referred both to Wikipedia policy and responses to Bearcat critiques, Bearcat never responds in kind. Please start responding, Bearcat;
Wikipedia citations in this section of responses to Bearcat critiques: Behavior section, Guide to deletion, section 4.2.2 specifically addresses concerns in this response; early responses by Informatics411 have specifically related to WP:GNG. The current References in the article attest to: Significant coverage (>1 source, in multiple instances), Reliable sources (Newspaper staffs, newspaper reporters), secondary sources (section 1.2 at "No original research" states: "...one step removed..." as is the case in 95%), independent of subject (95% true), with Presumption that significant coverage, itself, suggests merit in subject having article; Bearcat never makes a Presumption which in any way accepts even one sentence of article, which is a bit extreme;
I have now made several changes to the article in question per this discussion as well as responding specifically to critiques. Please acknowledge this so as not to make this debate one-sided.
Delete As per nom and Melcous, this is simply a bunch of self-promoting filler for a person with no indication of notability. This editor clearly has some problems with WP:NPOV — edits of his were reverted last year on the Jean-Paul Marat article for inserting his own opinion on the subject — and him writing an article about himself is simply a reflection of his obvious narcissistic belief that his opinions and his image matter more then anyone else's. He blatantly lies about "following policy" (conveniently ignoring the different policies that Bearcat mentioned in his initial deletion nomination) and also paints it as though Bearcat is the only editor on Wikipedia that would object to his article, that if he showed any other competent editor this dumpster fire of an article, that they wouldn't immediately vote delete. In conclusion, Informatics411 is simply a self-centered editor who disregards any argument against him and repeatedly lies in an attempt to defame editors who criticize his work. Blow the article up.Lettlerhello • contribs 14:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lettler, you might want to ease up on the personal attacks, as they are completely inappropriate. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where do nom and Mellow show up?
Regarding our COI rule: as I already explained above, the rule is not that COI is okay so long as you don't admit that it's a COI. Withdrawing your prior admission that you were writing about yourself, and then referring to yourself in the third person thereafter, does not mitigate the COI — the COI is still there, and still not acceptable, regardless of how you conduct yourself, because the rule is not that COI only exists if you're open about it, while somehow ceasing to exist if you hide it. Regarding categories, the only categories that were removed were ones that are not consistent with how Wikipedia categorizes articles: we categorize articles by what the topic literally is, not by every individual "keyword" we can find in the body text. For instance, every individual person from Indiana does not go directly into Category:Indiana; Category:Social networks is for things that literally are social networks, such as Facebook or Instagram, and not for every individual person whose article simply includes content somehow related to their personal presence on a social network; Category:United States presidential inaugurations is for things that literally are inauguration ceremonies, not for every individual person whose article simply includes content about a presidential inauguration. Categories are a system of classification, not of keywording, and we classify topics by what they literally are, not by keywording them into the category for every individual word that happens to be present in the body text. Bearcat (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T DELETE -Others have rescued the article in question--and I appreciate the effort. There were problems from the start, which I acknowledged. The remarks, re: Bearcat, other editors, were a fairly blatant call for their participation--and was not a personal attack. This from Lettler certainly constitutes personal attacks? As I said above, if we're not going to anchor a criticism to something specific, what can anyone respond to? Regardless the article has improved without my participation.
Lettler: Wow. Anyone can see I'm a relative newbie here. I've asked for help repeatedly and done my best to make a defense, as seemed to be the requirements, when asked for. And I've asked for pointers about the requirements, repeatedly.
Informatics411 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a new note here to direct your attention back to the top of the page under the original bundle of concerns. I had not realized the Wikipedia guideline pages were embedded as the basis for the critique. I believe these have now been addressed.
As for Lettler above, other than the personal attack, he mentions the Marat discussion. And he says I was trying to put forth my interpretation as further evidence that the current page I had been working on is worthless.
No matter how my input re: Marat is characterized it doesn't change the fact that what I was saying came from my reading Paris in the Terror: June 1793-July 1794" by Stanley Loomis. While any of us might disagree with what an authority might write, his view was the standard view until I believe about 1990. Whereas Loomis & company saw Marat from what he did during the terror, others have seen in him a precursor to Marxist ideas and embraced him. I'm surprised that I could find no way to express the Loomis view, now in the minority. I'd be happy to hear the solution to this, perhaps at my talk page? A Marat section exists.
Delete No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 17:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion is now longer than the article in question.... I've done what I could to make it more readable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:55, 28 August 2021 (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 article has no sources. It is long past time when we should stop permitting articles with no sources John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aubrey was a top-level college basketball coach and a key player on an NCAA championship team. A three-minute search turned up extensive sourcing, a sliver of which has now been added to the article. @Johnpacklambert: Given that your concern was with sourcing, I assume you will now withdraw? Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the sourcing is to a local paper, so I will not withdraw my nomination. Beyond that there ae no inline citations, which indicates that you just slapped on some sources at the bottom without even trying to improve the substance of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources include national coverage (see here) and have now been converted to in-line citations, and the subject is clearly notable, passing both WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH (prong 5). Your refusal to withdraw, even after your stated sourcing concern has been addressed, seems to be borne out of stubbornness rather than rational policy arguments. So be it. Cbl62 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in several sources.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. A good rule of thumb is to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. Alvaldi (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG per sources listed by Alvaldi. He also meets WP:NCOLLATH as a division I head men’s basketball coach, which would have been the first stop in performing WP:BEFORE, which seemingly was not done. Rikster2 (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is clearly notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per HEY. Clearly meets the notability guidelines. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 01:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable per all above !voters. May be time to call WP:SNOW at this point. Smartyllama (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2021 (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.
Redirect as it fails WP:NSONG. I would actually suggest Stop and Smell the Roses as a better target, as the song was intended to feature on that album and is already discussed in the article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2021 (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.
Keep Matsas and his book have significant coverage in the sources cited. He was a pioneer in writing about the Holocaust in Greece, according to reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 05:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — For reasons stated by Buidhe and secondly this is a horrible nom rationale, jeez scrap that, it isn’t even a rationale. It’s basically asking a question. Celestina007 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2021 (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 only source and claim to notability is that this book was a nominee for an obscure political award, and I could find no information about the nomination process on the award's website. I could not find any publisher reviews or other sources about this book in reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep whatever your feelings on libertarians the Prometheus award does carry some significant in SF and probably does convey notability. Weak because it's a nomination rather than a win - establishing notability by some other means would probably be a good idea. Artw (talk)
Also the article is super thin so I'm going to suggest a merge to the author. Artw (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author unless sources are presented showing this meets NBOOK; ping me and I'll be happy to review them and reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:55, 24 August 2021 (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.
Could be a redirect, but an editor insists on recreating, with zero real-world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me 16:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a page or Merge with List of minor DC Comics characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. We can get potential out of this page if we go the former. Also, it was restored by @JosephWC:. If you ask me, we need to hear his say in this discussion since he was the one who restored it from it's redirect state. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the spirit of WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Pure fancruft, fails WP:GNG, and the absence of reliable sources renders merging inappropriate. Avilich (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle(talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle(talk • contribs) 17:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This material is better suited for a DC Comics Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2021 (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.
Fails WP:NCRIC. While he has indeed played for the French team, the matches were not in a World Cup or Global Qualifier, as per point 2. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 16:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of France Twenty20 International cricketers Per nom, T20I matches played were in a non-notable competition and so fails NCRIC. In terms of GNG I'm seeing passing mentions but not enough for a GNG pass. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's snowing! Happy for the article to be redirected, per the above, and this AfD to close. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 07:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The only opposing !votes to outright keeping are to merge, yet many of the keeps explicitly express opposition to doing so. Consensus is to keep outright, as it isn't uncommon to have independent articles discussing reactions to a very notable event. (non-admin closure)Bungle(talk • contribs) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not news and not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles like these tend to get made when people start putting a bunch of generic reactions into the article on a news event, and at a certain point someone forks them off into their own article to avoid bogging down the main article. Which is preferable to leaving them in the main article, but I don't see what benefit an article like this has to our readers. Fall of Kabul (2021) § Reactions and § Refugees cover the most important aspects. There isn't any particular encyclopedic relevance to the fact that Finland has evacuated its diplomats or that Brazil has expressed concern. Basically every country in the world has the same response to this: "That's bad. We're evacuating our people," with an optional "And maybe we'll take a few refugees," and a fork like this just creates a few dozen items in need of update in a few months/years when editors have stopped paying attention to this page. I don't see a way where this evolves past a bunch of press releases (or uncritical news write-ups of those press releases) to in-depth coverage of the various countries' reactions.
Keep It's far, far better to have this here rather than cluttering the main article. Just send it to AFD in six months time (or in this case a year). Thincat (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not delete it, and limit inclusion in the main article to things that are clearly relevant? There are many articles where editors have successfully drawn that line.-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
because that is an argument you'll never win without a great deal of ongoing reversions. There are much better things to do. Thincat (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strongly agree that it's much better to include these reactions here than let them clutter up the main article. The Fall of Kabul was an incredibly important event globally, and how other countries react to it is, for obvious reasons, important information. As time goes by, this article can be cleaned up to only include the most important reactions (e.g. if a country formally recognizes the Taliban's IEA government), but I think it shouldn't need to be said that WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE obviously doesn't apply here. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trim heavily and merge to Fall of Kabul (2021)#Reactions (or write that section properly from scratch and delete this outright). I am reminded of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes (which resulted in merging, for the record), and I'll restate my points from that discussion here (with some alterations): These "reactions to" articles are a blight on Wikipedia, a complete embarrassment. What we have here is a flag salad and a WP:QUOTEFARM. There is no way this passes WP:10YT; nobody is going to look at this in ten years and think "Brazil expressed concern, did they? How very interesting." This article only exists as a result of failing to properly distinguish between information with news value and information with encyclopedic value in combination with a reluctance to remove excessive material that doesn't improve the main article. Creating a sub-article for the sole purpose of keeping the main article clean is a bad solution which should never have happened in the first place. All worthwile information on this article could easily be summarized in a few paragraphs on the main article. WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies here, specifically because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. If we summarize it properly from scratch, I don't think there is even any need to retain the edit history for attribution (see WP:CWW) and the article could thus be deleted outright. TompaDompa (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Better to have this rather than let it clutter the main article. Elishop (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as argued by others above - a summary should be included in the main page, but the substantive content here be retained with an action to remove flaglist with 'vague' statements of concern etc. and retain the stated reactions that are substantial/notable - as per other 'Reactions to' articles given as examples by Pharaoh of the Wizards in the statement above.Kaybeesquared (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: per above. Nitesh003 (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge into Fall of Kabul (2021). These articles are simply a way to remove responsibility from the editors on actually moderating included content for WP:DUE. Most of the articles in Special:PrefixIndex/Reactions to are from this century only, which suggests it to be a recentism thing. Most of the reactions are uninteresting cruft, Wikipedia would not become any worse if you delete 90% of the content here. WP:NOTNEWS perfectly describes what is going on here. (Disclosure: I became aware of this article by a screenshot that was published on Discord.) stjn 11:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merging this vast sum of information, even if trimmed, would arguably overwhelm the Fall of Kabul article. There's a lot going on here, and the event is the climax of 20 years of conflict, reporting, and America's longest-ever war. To merge this into that article would be to either grossly oversimplify the global response or to risk not trimming it enough to even fit properly. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge to Fall of Kabul. --Weaveravel (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that it's actually a fairly good article. I don't support trimming because the reactions are already quite brief for each entity. BirdValiant (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2021 (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.
Tesla Bot fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. The bot was 'announced' yesterday. There is no way of knowing what the notability will be; so far it's just a tool for media attention. All of the specs are just speculation at this point. As mentioned in the article it's anyone's guess as to whether a working Tesla Bot will ever see the light of day.[1]Mikalagrand (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am invoking Wikipedia:Snowball_clause as there is already an overwhelming rough consensus to keep and frankly the argument for the AfD was not a terribly good one to begin with given the number of reliable independent third-party articles about the subject. QRep2020 (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is all other news. Even if Tesla fails to produce it at all, it is already written in history. --Igor Yalovecky (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Washington Post, CNBC, The Verge, Bloomberg and Techcrunch wrote about it, so it is notable even if "it's just a tool for media attention". Artem.G (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above Coldbolt (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it will never come out, it already gained significant media coverage by many reliable sources.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2021 (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.
Saint Barthélemy have only played eight matches which isn't enough to justify a standalone article. Article is now a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as all of the content is contained within Saint Barthélemy national football team. The national team article is of a reasonable size so there are no problems as far as article size is concerned. Also, per WP:FOOTY convention, notability for lists of national football team results articles is limited to members of FIFA. Similarly sized national teams who are not members of FIFA include Tuvalu national football team which does not have a standalone results article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Perhaps I am just missing it but I do not see anything in WP:FOOTY about notability for lists of results. I removed the results from the team page because some of them are now almost a decade old and the convention is to keep them for only 12 months. The results were removed from the team article once the list article was created to avoid WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The redundancy only occurred when you added them back to the team article. The fact that similarly-sized national teams do not have an article is an irrelevant argument. Because someone hasn't done something shouldn't mean I automatically can't do it either. Also, as a side note, it is commonly believed that this association will become a member of CONCACAF at next month's congress so the amount of matches played and perceived relevance will great increase.--Gri3720 (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to spin off a separate results page for the 9 matches they've played ever. The main article is a stub anyway, so perfectly fine having all 9 results in the main article. So WP:REDUNDANTFORK applies here. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - looks like the content is already there anyways. Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2021 (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.
Saint Pierre and Miquelon have only played seven matches which isn't enough to justify a standalone article. Article is now a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as all of the content is contained within Saint Pierre and Miquelon national football team. The national team article is of a reasonable size so there are no problems as far as article size is concerned. Also, per WP:FOOTY convention, notability for lists of national football team results articles is limited to members of FIFA. Similarly sized national teams who are not members of FIFA include Tuvalu national football team which does not have a standalone results article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Perhaps I am just missing it but I do not see anything in WP:FOOTY about notability for lists of results. I removed the results from the team page because some of them are now almost a decade old and the convention is to keep them for only 12 months. The results were removed from the team article once the list article was created to avoid WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The redundancy only occurred when you added them back to the team article. The fact that similarly-sized national teams do not have an article is an irrelevant argument. Because someone hasn't done something shouldn't mean I automatically can't do it either. Also, as a side note, it is commonly believed that this association will become a member of CONCACAF at next month's congress so the amount of matches played and perceived relevance will great increase.--Gri3720 (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to spin off a separate results page for the 7 matches they've played ever. The main article is a short start class article anyway, so perfectly fine having all 7 results in the main article. So WP:REDUNDANTFORK applies here. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Nfitz (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2021 (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.
Although they meet #9 of WP:NBAND (having won Popstars Italy), this does not guarantee them notability - without that, they have no in-depth coverage from reliable sources and no notable releases. – DarkGlow • 14:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:SNOW, and consensus from editors that this is a bad faith nomination, along with several others made by the same nominator around the same time. (non-admin closure)Haleth (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fails wp:nblp and wp:anybio the coverage is largely based on interviews and press releases and there seems to be a lot of ref bombing going on here Ferkingstad (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Obvious pass of WP:GNG (mainstream media coverage specifically about him and his YouTube channel, cited in the article), one of nine likely bad-faith nominations in reaction to the deletion of the nominator's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIDA Select. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sixth-largest Twitcher. Large YouTube following. And, more importantly, plenty of coverage in reliable sources.--Eostrix (🦉 hoothoot🦉) 09:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Part of a batch of dubious nomination from the same user who claims there's some sort of Taliban gang creating articles (see [14]). pburka (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2021 (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.
Does not satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN. No coverage on his career that would allow the subject to meet WP:BASIC. – DarkGlow • 13:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable holding company. Most of the sources are either primary or stock exchange announcements. Fails WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 16:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:30, 24 August 2021 (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.
Almost eight years after prior AfD, still no evidence that this novel is considered more notable than other Trek novels (in fact, no sources at all). DonIago (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Trek novels would seem like the thing to do iff reliable sources cannot be found. I have concerns about doing this on a case-by-case basis, due to apparent lack of sources and clear absence of people interested in improving or maintaining similar Star Trek novel articles. It might be better to hold off and take the time to make a bigger decision about Star Trek novels in general? -- 109.79.78.46 (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"assuming it survives instead of being deleted itself" that is exactly why I think a planned coherent approach needs to be taken to the Star Trek Novels in general. I'm no fan of deleting articles but it would be better to delete with a coherent and consistent plan across the category instead of making piecemeal deletes here and there. The three relatively recent Khan books by Greg Cox seem like they would be more notable than many other Star Trek novel articles, surely there must be reviews from reputable critics somewhere? I can't be sure I'm even looking in the right sorts of places. -- 109.79.81.95 (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Older novels may have reviews that are not well digitized yet... but in the end, the responsibility of securing such sources rests on the creator. If they can't, then such novels don't belong on Wikipedia (but fortunately, they all have entries in Memory Alpha/Beta: [15]). Interest people can improve the fan wiki entries, and if good reviews or such are found, the article can be restored here (undeletion is a thing). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I'm not sure if we've established yet that there are no sources, or just that no one is even interested in trying to find them. -- 109.77.210.114 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2021 (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.
Promotional CV style piece about a person not yet shown to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies of living people. All of the sources appear to be from publications close to the subject, none of which are listed on WP:RSP there is no indication of WP:ANYBIO the only accolade they have is a mention in a listicle for variety magazine. The entire page is essentially built on marcomms puffery. Therefore, this article is nothing more than puffery. Ferkingstad (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC; the article is written in a neutral tone and multiple independent sources are listed as reliable at WP:RSP (i.e. WP:VARIETY, CNET, VentureBeat) and WP:VG/RS; more from Variety based on her recognition as a 2018 Variety 500 Honoree is here. Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Appears to pass WP:GNG per independent and in-depth sources already in the article. One of nine likely bad-faith nominations in reaction to the deletion of the nominator's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIDA Select. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep on a procedural basis as the nomination rationale has no merits. Refer to the nominator's talk page exchange with User:StarryGrandma, they are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Suggest an administrator snow keep this nomination and perhaps sanction or warn the nominator for their disruptive behaviour. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above reasons. LaryFoxBoy (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2021 (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.
Article lacks multiple independent references demonstrating significant coverage. Not clear that this subject meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV or WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE. 4meter4 (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2021 (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. – bradv🍁 01:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP lacks independent coverage by independent sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the age of the company, it's likely that there are enough independent Norwegian language articles about its corporate activities in the Norwegian business press to provide the necessary notability, so I think we'd be better to let the article be improved over time. I imagine that sooner or later a Norwegian speaker will do the necessary digging to bring this article up to scratch. RomanSpa (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say, but - speculation about sources that might exist does not demonstrate notability. Based on the above RomanSpa comment, perhaps this article is WP:TOOSOON. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the sources on the Norwegian version of this article. They do not support notability for this topic at this time on the English Wiikipedia. Sorry. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CaliViking, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and you've mentioned a lot of things above which I will comment on in the context of the guidelines. Be aware that of course you have a !vote and it makes no difference if you created the article or not. Also be aware that there are two types of reference - ones that support a fact within the article (must meet WP:RS) and ones that help to establish notability (must meet NCORP).
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc.
So, you've said above that "there is not a lot of public information beyond the products". Since the article is about the company, not the products, this isn't a good sign that we'll find "multiple references" that meet NCORP. You've also said "there is significant company coverage in Norwegian", which is great, but then you go on to say "as all Norwegian companies must make their financials public", which is bad. A company's financial information is not "Independent Content" since it was produced by the company, so that type of reference can be used to support facts and figures within the article but doesn't assist in establishing notability. By all means if there are Norwegian language articles which meet NCORP requirements, please post the links here, but please don't post links to articles that rely on company financials, company announcements (including articles that "reword" the announcements but are still entirely based on the announcement), financial results, product reviews (the topic is the company, not a product), etc as these do not assist in establishing notability. HighKing++ 10:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGIND says nothing about interviews, and interviews of company representatives by independent journalists are perfectly acceptable. In fact, interviews of company representatives by independent journalists are exactly the type of coverage we're looking for because that's how journalism works.St★lwart111 06:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are some Norwegian-language news articles translated into English. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GHITS. If you believe there are good references, post links to the best WP:THREE below and we will look. HighKing++ 10:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Ask and ye shall receive. CaliViking and Eastmain have both added and refined references in a range of languages. They include a couple of references I found, and a fair few I didn't. There are some behind paywalls (especially the Varden ones) and while that doesn't invalidate them as sources, it does make it challenging for editors to review them. St★lwart111 05:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that some editors have provided links, I don't see any that meet NCORP requirements. Can you point to WP:THREE that do? HighKing++ 18:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the news link that Eastmain provided (Thanks!). User:HighKing - does the new content fulfil the requirements for WP:NCORP? If it does not, then please help us identify the gaps so that we can fill them. I looked at WP:THREE (It looks like the page redirects to a user page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RoySmith/Three_best_sources) and believe that the articles in Varden (newspaper), Teknisk Ukeblad, and Telemarksavisa fullfil the requirements for general notability and significant coverage, please let me know if we need more content. Regarding the Norwegian published financial numbers; please be aware that while the numbers do originate from the company (they have to) they are fully audited (Isola's auditor is Deloitte) and are extracted from the Norwegian government records from the Brønnøysund Register Centre, so they are independently verified and not only produced by the company. I really appreciate the work that the WP community is doing to make these articles better, Thanks! CaliViking (talk)
They are in the article and there are more than three. And I agree with the above about WP:THREE being a helpful essay, but nowhere close to a policy. St★lwart111 23:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CaliViking and Stalwart111, the search link added is not a reference to an article, but a reference to a search for the company name. That does not meet any of our requirements as we need links to articles (hence the request to post links to any THREE articles). Be aware especially that WP:ORGIND requires "Independent Content" in order to count towards establishing notability, and although I've posted the definition above, I'll repeat it again - original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So nothing that relies on company announcements (including financial results which is regarded as trivial routine coverage - see NCORP).
Audited Accounts: The fact that a company's accounts are audited (independently verified) and centrally filed makes no difference - most every company can chose to file audited accounts in every country in the world and in some countries it is mandatory to file audited accounts but that does not make those companies notable nor are those filings regarded as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. So the gap which still exists is "Independent Content".
References: You say that you "believe" that the Varden newspaper articles fulfill the requirement for "general notability" (I assume you mean WP:GNG which is not the appropriate guideline, it should be WP:NCORP) and "significant coverage" but it plainly isn't "Independent Content" as it is based on an announcement/interview with "connected people" with no independent opinion/investigation/analysis/etc *about the company* (and not the product). The next article linked in the search results returns one from Finansavisen which merely mentions the company name, no in-depth information. The next link is from "Teknisk Ukeblad" which also relies entirely on information and data provided by the company and is mostly about the product (solar panel) that the company. I'm not going to go through all the links - any ones I've checked fail the criteria for establishing notability and mostly because they either don't have "Independent Content" or don't talk about the company but about the product.
WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND are required in each reference: Getting a company's product profiled in a well-known prestigious reliable publication does not meet our requirements if the article simply regurgitates company-produced information and data without any "Independent Content" *about the company*. Similarly, a brief opinion/fact check/analysis that meets "Independent Content" but fails to provide sufficient in-depth information on the company also fails our requirements. This is a deliberate high standard for companies/organization for a variety of reasons.
Some examples of good references include analyst reports - perhaps the company is recognized as leader/innovator/notable in a particular field and has featured in an analyst report? Or perhaps a journalist was impressed with the longevity of the company and wrote an article on its history and included sufficient "Independent Content"? Or perhaps a journalist/author was impressed with the company growth or revenues and wrote an article containing sufficient "Independent Content" rather than reacting/writing an article because the company made an announcement? HighKing++ 16:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been through the references that have now been included in the article? Many of them are exactly what you're asking for. They are more than enough for me to believe the subject easily meets our WP:GNG, let alone subject-specific criteria (which do not supersede GNG anyway), so you're unlikely to sway me with vague appeals to guidelines. Instead of pointing to policy that most of us are familiar with, would you like to address some of the specific references now included and tell us why you believe that (combined) they don't rise to the level of our GNG? St★lwart111 04:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response And so we get to the point in the AfD where variations of "Have you looked hard enough at the references, you must be mistaken because I think and am sure they're OK." Or "I don't like NCORP because it's too strict and makes it impossible to find references". Or "I much prefer GNG and I'm sure the references meet GNG" Or "I don't care what you say, I'm entitled to my own opinion and I'm not going to change my mind no matter what". Fine. I'm sure that like me, the closing admin has seen this many times before. But nevertheless I will try to answer your questions.
Yes, I've looked not only at the references in the article but I've also searched online for other references and while I think a good case can be made for an article on the founder, Harald Thiis-Evensen who was awarded the Kongens_fortjenstmedalje - a Norwegian award of Merit - in 1988, and while reference 4 provides some information on the company, we need multiple references and to date it is fair to say that nothing has been found. This isn't surprising. For most of this company's life, it was a building materials company but remained private, never listing on any stock exchange, but most recently has launched (with great fanfare) their range of solar powered roofing products. Just about every reference is in relation to their solar powered products as you may have noticed. The article as it stand is WP:REFBOMBed - you don't need 18 references to support the fact that the company sells products in Sweden, Denmark, UK and Germany.
You say that that a subject-specific guideline doesn't supercede GNG. The GNG and the SNG are both guidelines with the same "weight", one doesn't explicitly overrule the other, although it is a general rule of thumb that the SNGs provide more explicit guidelines and should be given more attention. This is reflected in the WP:SNG section of GNG itself. Note the last sentence in particular: SNGs also serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. Some SNGs, for example the ones in the topic areas of films, biographies, and politicians, provide guidance when topics should not be created. SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies.
Finally, you request specifically why the references (combined) don't rise to the level of GNG. That is because we don't combine references when establishing notability and this is made clear in NCORP which says An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability.
I don't intend to continue to respond in circumstances where no new references are being produced. Clearly you have a different interpretation on the criteria for notability of companies, preferring GNG to NCORP, and I'm satisfied we both understand each other's position. HighKing++ 11:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't prefer one over the other and haven't (above or anywhere else) expressed a preference for one or the other. Nor a dislike for one or the other. I'm simply of the view that if a subject meets one, it is not also required to meet the other. And I remain of the view that the references provided are enough for the subject to meet WP:GNG. Notability is necessarily reflective of combined sources, because we require multiple reliable sources; one isn't enough and only by a combination of those multiple sources can we assess notability. Of course they must individually be independent, reliable sources, but combining them is what we do. St★lwart111 02:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's fine and thank you for clarifying your position. But I will point out that our guidelines don't agree with your opinion. The WP:SNG section of GNG explicitly points us to the NCORP guideline for establishing notability. NCORP explicitly points out that *each* source must be the guidelines and that multiple sources (where *each* meets the guidelines) is required. Combining is *not* what we do - at least when it comes to NCORP. And that "independent" doesn't mean only the interpretation of "publisher and topic company are different companies, not a primary source" but must also include "independent content". HighKing++ 14:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Of course, each source must be independent, reliable, and constitute significant coverage on its own. But a single source isn't sufficient to confer notability, so we rely on multiple sources (and a combination of those multiple sources) to confer notability. That an otherwise reliable source has published positive coverage of a company does not make it unreliable, or no longer independent. If we included only critical significant coverage, we would barely have an encyclopedia. St★lwart111 00:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perhaps, and I'm still not sure - it is your use of "combination" which is confusing. WP:SIRS says "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability. If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability." You agree with that so we're on the same page so far. But. We don't rely on "a combination" of sources to confer notability, we only require "multiple" sources. Don't want to put words in your mouth but perhaps you are looking at all references/sources in an article and believe they must all of the standard to establish notability? We're not saying that *only* sources that meet NCORP can be referenced in an article, we're not saying we can only reference "critical significant coverage" in an article. Of course you can have lots of references and to be clear, we only need a minimum of two sources that meet NCORP - the rest have nothing to do with establishing notability but may be important for supporting various facts or information. We're still trying to identify two sources that meet NCORP. HighKing++ 16:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my using synonyms will make it any clearer for you, so I will leave it at this: the multiple reliable sources cited by other editors are sufficient for me to believe this meets the threshold of notability. Misinterpretations of guidelines are unconvincing. St★lwart111 06:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn’t meet WP:NCORP as far as I can see. Not convinced by the sources (some are primary sources such as the company’s site or websites selling the company’s products). When the references are the longest section of the article it raises the WP:REFBOMBING alarm for me. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all the links to resellers and distributors as it is perceived as having negative value and being WP:REFBOMBING, the intent was to provide a reference, not to provide noise - sorry for the confusion.
I disagree that articles in Teknisk Ukeblad relies entirely on information and data provided by the company: Teknisk Ukeblad is an established and independent publication with journalistic integrity. The article is referencing Institute for Energy Technology and SINTEF which are both internationally renown research institutes, it is hard to find more reliable sources in Norway.
As the company is not public, it is uncommon to have financial analysts covering the company. There is however significant information from analysts in trade related magazines that cover the building material companies and their businesses. Take a look at https://www.bygg.no/search/?q=isola&sort=date&date=0 - I can provide links to articles about changes to the organization, new chairman of the board, the impact of raw material pricing during Covid, that the company had record revenue in 2020, that the CEO of Isola was the chairman of the building material industry organization in Norway and has recently stepped down, that the company has invested in environmental documentation, there are more than 100 articles written about the company (I know that the number does not matter, but there is a lot of content), its products, and its business. Please let me know if you would consider any of these articles as valid material and I will be happy to add them (just want to make sure that I am not WP:REFBOMBING).
Regarding the audited financials; I have no problem with this information not being a factor of consideration. The information was provided to show some insight into the process to create financial transparency in Norway and to provide information about the company size, please feel free to ignore it. I assume that it cannot be negative that this information exists.
I added a reference to Isola's investments in the door and windows production in Røros
There is now only one reference to the company website (corporate structure), all other references are external. I'll be happy to remove that one reference if it makes the article better.
I am here to make WP articles better, please let me know how I can help
Comment please add a signature to the above post. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 13:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice that HighKing has gone over all of the above with advice on how to determine what are acceptable sources. The most recent post is essentially a regurgitation of the same type of sources. For one thing, they are routine information about the company or its products, and is considered trivial coverage.
There are lists and descriptions of trivial coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH if anyone cares to look. Also, links provided such as this [16] amount to company announcements (not independent coverage) and are more routine information. For example, new salesman, new executives, building space, revenue record and so on. And without significant independent coverage this also contravenes WP:GNG and NCORP. Also, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion of this company.
Lastly, Calviking previously acknowledged the lack of significant information available on this company in. I think continuing to post unusable references in the article and at this AFD is beginning to amount to bludgeoning and is a waste of everybody's time. In other words, I know I don't have time to characterize or explain every specific source.
As HighKing noted above, the best way to learn about acceptable sources is to read the notability criteria on the appropriate pages. Thanks very much. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still working on improving the article and added one more reference that meets WP:NCORP. The article[1] in Finansavisen meets significant coverage (the primary topic in the article is Isola and the limited profitability over 10 years), is independent (There is no relationship between Finansavisen or the author of the news article and Isola. The article covers investigation and analysis done by the author which leads to the authors published opinion that "there are only profit crumbs left from roofing" - translated from "Tjener smuler på tette tak"), it is from a reliable source (Finansavisen is a mainstream newspaper, and the article is written by Anders Horntvedt who is one of their journalists), and it is a secondary source (it provides the author's own analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of the input from the primary source). CaliViking (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main thrust of the Delete !voters are that none of the references meet NCORP. Your !vote mentions "improvements" since deletion but can you point to any reference that meets NCORP? HighKing++ 14:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, run-of-the-mill company with no secondary analysis in the run-of-the-mill coverage. Abductive (reasoning) 06:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG. It is just a run-of-the-mill company with run-of-the-mill coverage, which is why its reference section is longer then the text of the article. There is no sustained independent WP:SIGCOV to be found. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2021 (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. ✗plicit 13:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does not pass WP:GNG. The only sources currently cited are not independent or not reliable. Searching online only yields trivial mentions. The only source I found is this short Screen Rant article, but even if that qualifies as a reliable and independent secondary source it doesn’t meet the expectation that “multiple sources are generally expected.” The show won some awards that might qualify it for WP:WEBCRIT, but even WEBCRIT asserts that qualifying articles generally have significant coverage (i.e. "In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful … meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website." The hosts/puppeteers, producers/studios, and the muppets might pass WP:GNG, but the show does not WP:INHERIT that notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a 34-episode series that Time magazine hailed in its list of 25 sites "we can't live without", leading off the article with a photo from the show. (see footnote 6). Because of the age of the show, I don't think a Google search is adequate. We should not delete this unless someone goes to a library and searches hard-copy sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers:The Time article is actually for Rotten Tomatoes and mentions Statler & Waldorf as an afterthought of an afterthought. I'm not sure why it got a picture at the top when Movies.com isn't even listed let alone Statler & Waldorf specifically. Here is the relevant content, "Rotten Tomatoes: Gathers movie reviews from far and wide, and reports box office and other stats; flicks receive a critical average on the 100-point "tomatometer." Movies.com also gets a nod for streaming episodes of "Statler & Waldorf: From the Balcony," an Ebert & Roeper spoof starring those lovable muppet-curmudgeons." I understand your rationale though. Perhaps a merge would be better? TipsyElephant (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look good to get defensive about your AfD nominations. You make your argument at the top, and if people disagree, then move on. This is a detailed article. Merging it would be destroying a lot of content. Let's see what other people think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that this was the case and was recently introduced to the concept of WP:BLUD. I apologize for the inappropriate response and I'll refrain from responding to others in the discussion. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, if you have more information and evidence to add you can, of course, advance it support your position, but it is up to the community to judge which sources are most persuasive. And, of course, you can answer any questions of commenters and engage in discussion regarding the facts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Webby award win. matt91486 (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 13:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Award-winner. RomanSpa (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per RomanSpa Idunnox3 (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2021 (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 13:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has about 5 more sources than the previous version so technically not eligible for speedy deletion, however, concerns around WP:GNG have not been addressed and another WP:BEFORE search still only yields trivial announcements about this youth tournament which do not establish notability. Does not pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. New source assessment to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-ITS A NIGHT MARE DUDES I FOUND ALL REALATED SOURCES YO WANNA MORE VIDEO TALK ..I CAN T UNDERSTANDTHE REASON THIS TIME CODING IS LESS STRESSFUL THEN WIKI
This is about Indian minifootball in general and contains very little about this youth cup
✘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}}.
-ok so i need one website coverge the selection of the host or about the event in, generale ?
There need to be multiple sources, independent of the organisation, covering the event in detail (not just short, routine announcements). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the source assessment above demonstrates that it doesn't pass WP:GNG. As this was deleted 22 days ago and then re-created, I believe that salting is appropriate, to stop repeated re-creation. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2021 (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 13:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a collection of articles that serve as race reports for the Formula Regional European Championship. For context, this is a junior motorsport competition at the Formula 3 level for young drivers in Europe. The series itself is notable and that is not what I am disputing. However, these articles are not. While the season may receive significant coverage, each event unambiguously does not. All of these completely fail basic content policies: the only coverage I can find is from Formula Scout, a specialty source which I do not believe can be used to prove notability given its obscurity and extremely limited scope. It is routine coverage and does not provide any greater analysis other than a recount of the basic going-ons of each round (i.e. the results). Other sources used are primary, typically results tables. In fact, the articles consist almost exclusively of results, with negligible prose. There is no prospect of expansion for these articles because such little coverage exists. Simply because the series is notable does not mean each individual race warrants its own article: notability is not inherited. Not every open-wheel series receives attention requiring F1-style coverage. Per WP:GNG, WP:NOSTATS, and WP:NSPORTSEVENT, these should all be deleted. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The majority, if not all, of these should probably be deleted. It's possible that certain rounds of a series at this level may be notable enough to warrant their own article if something unusual had occurred, but unless somebody can show that that is the case for any of these events then there is unlikely to be any notability for individual rounds. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that individual rounds can in theory pass notability guidelines, but I do not believe any of the rounds included here have done that. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent example I can think of of an ordinary event at this level (ignoring Macau Grands Prix and other special events) that would unambiguously pass GNG would be the European F3 round at Monza a few years ago where the last race of the round was cancelled due to poor driving standards, and even then I'm not sure if we have an article on that. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If deleted there is no reason we couldn't have brief reports of each round in the relevant season articles, in particular mentioning whatever is important! A7V2 (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that is how it should be done. Season articles should not be championship standings and calendars. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:45, 23 August 2021 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 20 August 2021 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
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, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no sources are currently provided on the page. Of the ones I did find, which are all books, the software gets at most a short paragraph [17], and at the very least a passing mention or quick citation with a short descriptor [18], [19]. Although it seems to carry significance in academia per a Google Scholar search, the software fails WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 20 August 2021 (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. Closing as 'keep' because when one discounts the sockpuppet nomination, there are no remaining arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be the article have no valid sources or not enghou so it need to link it with a notable articles and news paper.@JohnrickeJhonricke (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is no requirement for the references to be in the English language Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple sources already cited. Why are these not valid? NemesisAT (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:23, 20 August 2021 (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. MBisanztalk 18:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The equipment used by ZZ Top members Billy Gibbons and Dusty Hill is covered on their respective pages, where it belongs. This article merely duplicates that information. Popcornfud (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a band known for exceptional or unusual instrumentation to the extent that it forms its own separate encyclopaedic topic. That is an incredibly rare occurrence for a rock band so it is no slight on ZZ Top to say that this is not the case for them. In a previous AfD the examples of The Beatles and The Who were offered. I feel that these are qualitatively different from ZZ Top as those bands made innovations in rock instrumentation that have been widely recognised as having a major ongoing effect on rock music while ZZ Top, like most other rock bands, didn't. There is no good reason for there to be a separate article about this. Sure, they had their spinning guitars, and we should cover that, but it doesn't justify an article. The instrumentation and equipment can be, and indeed already is, covered adequately in the articles about the band and its members. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is brief and doesn't have anything on it that couldn't be added to the band's page or the individual musician's page. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last nomination was a Keep and that was just last year so why are we here again? The nomination gives no clue and doesn't even recognise the fact that Dusty Hill has passed while the band plays on. Or that the detailed book about their equipment and props – Rock and Roll Gearhead – was expanded and republished for the band's 50th anniversary. There's clearly a lot of notable content here which easily passes WP:LISTN. The claim that it can be done elsewhere is not a reason to delete as you could say that about anything. And the "where it belongs" argument is obvious nonsense when the band's membership is so clearly expanding and changing. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:DELAFD; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE and none of these support deletion. While the nomination cites no policy at all. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator does allude to a policy, wp:contentfork, which is a reason for deletion. DanielRigal's argument is also convincing, this is not a band which needs a separate article dealing with its equipment solely. Avilich (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there's duplication elsewhere, that's because the nominator has copied information from this page. For example, "move info about equipment from ZZ Top equipment". Once information has been moved in this way, it is quite improper to delete the edit history because this destroys the attribution to the original editor. See WP:MAD for details.
Essentially what's been happening here is that the nominator failed in the previous nomination which was closed with a keep. They have since been trying to disrupt and destroy the article and now they try nominating again, contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome."
I'm not attempting to "disrupt or destroy" anything. Possibly you're referring to my revert of your recent re-addition of a large number of uncited claims to the article. After the last nom (March 2020), I did the work to remove uncited claims from the article per WP:VERIFY. As it has now been more than a year, the article is quite different from how it was during the second nom, the article has not grown or improved at all since I removed the uncited clutter, and because the recent death of Dusty Hill has brought more attention to ZZ Top articles, I thought the time was right to check the consensus again. Popcornfud (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why one would go out of his way to care about copyrights in the internet, but, if this is really a concern, the simple solution is for Popcornfud to undo his edit, and then do it again with the article creator's name placed in the edit summary. Avilich (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only one of the sources appears to refer specifically to the band's equipment. Alan Islas (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2021 (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.
Comment. Looking at topos, I can see there were (and still are) a cluster of buildings around the intersection in the 1970s. Looking at the history of this article, it's clear the wording was recently changed in May to indicate this was a store, but the history of the article does not say that. A 1998 article in the Northwest Florida Daily News states this was a village/town, with a history going back to 1909, when it was named. The GNIS entry calls this a populated place, there are eight references to Codys Corner in this 1957 book, and there appears to be news articles. I'm leaning towards this being a notable place. I'm out of state without access to my paper references, but I think this article could be salvaged. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to expand the article. More work could be done, and likely will need to be done, but sources have noted this community for a century. No reason we should not. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a newspaper mentioned it as a village, rather than simply an intersection or store. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 01:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Sorry, but I'm just not convinced. It's easy enough to see on the aerials what the two buildings which precede the store are: two identical bungalows. Nearly everything else simply testifies to it being a spot on the map. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Pensacola News Journal called it a town in 1998 and wrote quite a long article about it. At a crossroads on route 11. Caught up in a fire.[20]Thincat (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The populated place has been mentioned for many years in various publications. We have a big shelf.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; comparing the revision that was nominated with the current revision, there's only a vague resemblance. It seems that this has been referred to as a town by a number of sources, which I have no reason to doubt. jp×g 21:47, 24 August 2021 (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. Although there is no clear consensus despite 2 relists, there is more strength of argument in keeping the article, which is the default outcome. The rationale(s) for deleting are unconvincing. (non-admin closure)Bungle(talk • contribs) 15:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are refs in two other English-language general histories 1, 2: also a journal article 3, very likely other scholarly sources I can’t track down readily because the name is so common, and I’m not able to search for sources in Gujarati and Hindi. Mccapra (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source found by Mccapra. I'm inclined to agree with the fact there's still actual historic significance and substance therefore enough for an article showing this. VocalIndia (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:13, 20 August 2021 (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.
Speedy keep per lack of WP:BEFORE by the (now indefinitely blocked) nominator, she has an entry in Treccani, the major Italian encyclopedia ([21]), was president of a major organization like Confindustria and president of one of the 7 supermajor oil companies in the world Eni, has been profiled by major Italian publications like Rai News ([22]), La Repubblica ([23]), Il Giornale ([24], [25]) and books (eg. a chapter in Donne d'Italia by Bruno Vespa). Also English-language coverage in Financial Times (1, 2) and Politico ([26]), and some good sourcing in her Italian wikipedia page. I am sure there is a lot more digging (looking for her there are 22,000 articles in Google News [27]). 151.53.87.174 (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Baffling nomination. Furius (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I'll move some of the sources over to the page while we're here. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2021 (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.
Fails WP:ANYBIO due to lack of reliable secondary sources which give significantly indepth criticism and analysis of the subject and their work. Ferkingstad (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ferkingstad is a new editor whose first article was deleted today. He immediately nominated for deletion seven articles by Aranya, the first editor to comment in that discussion. I have asked him to withdraw the nominations. StarryGrandma (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep wrong notability criterion in nomination (should be WP:PROF not WP:GNG), obvious pass of WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited publications) as well as #C3 for the ACM Fellow, and suggestion above that this is a bad-faith nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Obvious pass of WP:PROF, as argued above. Whether or not the nomination was made in good faith, it seems to have been done without due diligence. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Easily meets WP:NPROF. I also recommend that the nominator be taken to WP:ANI for such obvious retribution nominations. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2021 (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 10:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not presumptively notable under WP:NPOL, and I can find no significant coverage that would meet the WP:GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Chairman of the market committee" in a small town is not an WP:NPOL-passing office, and the article neither claims notability for any other reason nor cites any reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2021 (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. Article has been improved since nomination. The "keep" voters proved that the album has received enough coverage despite being unreleased. (non-admin closure)ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased and non-existent album that is little more than a proposed title. Sources indicate that the band announced an album of this title in 2014, recorded at least two different versions, then gave up with no further news after 2018. Some songs were leaked online then withdrawn. This is all relevant to the band's general history and can be described at their article, but the item never became a self-contained "album" that qualifies for an album-specific article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is filled with reliable sources discussing the album by name over the years. "Just a proposed title" feels like a gross understatement. (My apologies to the nominating, I know we differ in our stance of how to handle unreleased albums.) Coverage from Billboard, Pitchfork, Spin, NPR, NME, etc - this album received dedicated coverage from mainstream reliable sources. It meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73msg me 22:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To the bands page, and transfer over any relevant information about it there. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree with Seacactus 13—this information seems more suited to the band's main article. I created the article for the band's preceding album and I was confused at the time why this had an article when it looked like it was not going to come out. I'm usually of the belief that unless an unreleased album has achieved some kind of cultural notoriety due to its long-delayed status it shouldn't have a separate article. This hasn't achieved anywhere near that amount of coverage. On a side note, the article having an infobox with just a label in it looks ridiculous. We're really not offering a lot of information on this article—it's basically just a paragraph. A well-sourced one to be sure, but still essentially just a paragraph. Ss112 08:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You didn't give any reason or rationale. Sergecross73msg me 14:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - Editor has since been check user blocked. Sergecross73msg me 16:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per Sergecross' argument. The sources in the article are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unquestionably keep - it's a significant recording with a unique and well-sourced backstory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.7.130 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep or Redirect: The article is little more than background, and can appropriately be merged to the main article. No official track listing, no release date. There's certainly a cult status to this album, but I wouldn't say it's an exceptionally high-profile project, per WP:FUTUREALBUM. The band has also broken up in the time since this deletion nomination was made, so is there no reason to believe this album will ever be released? The article, however, has no reason for deletion. Οἶδα (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have since added it to the article. Οἶδα (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with User:Sergecross73 above: "Coverage from Billboard, Pitchfork, Spin, NPR, NME, etc – this [proposed] album received dedicated coverage from mainstream reliable sources. It meets the WP:GNG." Whether it is an "album" is not is orthogonal to WP:GNG coverage. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the band. The sources are ok, but would not be out of place in the band article either. Meeting GNG doesn't mean that it necessarily has to be its own article. Geschichte (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My first thought was that an unreleased album obviously shouldn't have a page (that's just silly). But it has more than enough coverage, as other people have pointed out. The article (and multiple reliable sources) also say that the band plans to release the album, it just doesn't have a release date yet. It does have a tracklist and a couple of released tracks (and did I mention heaps of coverage?). I think that makes a pretty strong argument for keeping it. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2021 (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.
I cannot find any secondary sources that give her significant coverage, other than one of the two that are already in the article. The other barely mentions her. I did find a few "listicles", but they are focused on her works. Regardless, they are inadmissible as sources. The best possible source, other than those in the article, is entirely about one of her books. It barely mentions her at all and is dominated by a massive blockquote from the book. All sources published by Tor Books are also inadmissible, as it is her employer and publisher. ―SusmuffinTalk 09:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve: it’s really poor form to remove half the existing citations, chop down the article and THEN nominate it for deletion. I restored the previous version so that reviewers can take a closer look at the material available. It’s not a great article as written, but quality doesn’t correlate to verifiability or notability. WP:HEY may be possible. Montanabw(talk) 14:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the removed citations are primary. Two are interviews, one is a general blog link and the other is a publisher page. The remainder of the article was completely unsourced. Honestly, the citation overkill at the end of the main paragraph makes it look like the creator was trying to make a non-notable subject look notable. ―SusmuffinTalk 14:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) - the nominator made substantial deletions to the article before nomination, but based on the article before that happened 1, additional reviews that could be added, e.g. Kirkus Reviews (Winter Tide, 2017), Publishers Weekly (Winter Tide, 2016), Publishers Weekly (Imperfect Commentaries, 2019), sources that could help expand the article: NPR (Litany of the Earth/Winter Tide, interview with secondary commentary, 2017), The Verge (Litany of the Earth/Winter Tide/Deep Roots, interview with secondary commentary, 2017), and sources noted in the nom: Gizmodo (Litany of the Earth, 2014), The Verge (more than a paragraph discussing and comparing her work, including a reference to The Litany of Earth as "remarkable", 2019), and awards, e.g. finalist for Locus Award for Best First Novel2, Crawford Award shortlist 3, there appears to be sufficient sourcing to support WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR notability. Beccaynr (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr - there seems to be enough sources to base an article on. NHCLS (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existing content and additional sources identified by Beccaynr. The nom could have improved the article instead of simply deleting content. pburka (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2021 (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.
Article about a gamer not yet shown to meet WP:ANYBIO. There is no WP:SIGCOV just routine reporting on the various computer game tournaments that they've appeared in. Ferkingstad (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Appears to pass WP:GNG by in-depth coverage in independent sources already present in the article. One of nine likely bad-faith nominations in reaction to the deletion of the nominator's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIDA Select. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent number of reliable sources already cited in the article, including a print book. Mlb96 (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominator's rationale is noted, but not accepted. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Suggest an administrator snow keep this nomination, scrutinize all others by the same nominator, and perhaps sanction or warn them for their disruptive behaviour. Haleth (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's the problem of this article anyway? LaryFoxBoy (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coatracky CV style article about a run of the mill business person not shown to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NBLP. Most of the sources are either interviews or puff pieces derived from press releases. The subject hasn't one any notable awards outside of the usual listicle style top 50 or top 25 which are all puffery and hardly accolades. Ferkingstad (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Appears to pass WP:GNG through in-depth independent coverage already present in the article. One of nine likely bad-faith nominations in reaction to the deletion of the nominator's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIDA Select. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there definitely seems to be enough independent sources to satisfy WP:GNGNHCLS (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has significant coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [28].--Eostrix (🦉 hoothoot🦉) 09:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Part of a batch of dubious nomination from the same user who claims there's some sort of Taliban gang creating articles (see [29]). pburka (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others have said, there does seem to be enough coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2021 (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.
Promotional article about an organisation not yet shown to meet WP:NCORP most of the sources focus on a single event or routine press coverage most of which has been derived from press releases or interviews. Ferkingstad (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is written in a neutral tone, and independent and reliable sources in the article provide sufficient in-depth coverage for WP:ORGDEPTH, and are clearly not routine press coverage, nor simply derived from press releases or interviews. Beccaynr (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than adequately sourced (BBC, CBC, Reuters, etc.). Written in an adequately encyclopedic tone (any overly promotional language can be fixed with ordinary editing). This may be part of a spate of vexatious nominations. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Where do you think press coverage should be derived from if not press releases or interviews? Rathfelder (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:NORG, has independent and reliable sources. Deus et lex (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Massively sourced. Canadian and British BBC's, CNN, Newsweek, APNews (the best) and much more. Where is the rationale that these are worthless and don't pass Wikipedia policies. Passes WP:ORG. scope_creepTalk 12:16, 21 August 2021 (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 subject has only had one mayjor label release therefore WP:SINGER isn't met and there is not enough in depth independent press coverage for WP:NBLPFerkingstad (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is sufficient reliable sources coverage for GNG.--Eostrix (🦉 hoothoot🦉) 09:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG per sources provided by Spiderone and Beccaynr. -Xclusivzik (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Part of a batch of dubious nomination from the same user who claims there's some sort of Taliban gang creating articles (see [33]). pburka (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The main reason for my vote is that the subject is one of the most influential figures in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. He used to be the head of the Ukrainian chapter of Wikimedia. In my opinion it is not fair to write about the people who rule the project. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable published sources about his role with Wikimedia Ukraine, then it's possible that he meets WP:GNG, but I've not seen evidence of that. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, a person's involvement in the Wikimedia Foundation is not necessarily a reason to avoid having an article about them in and of itself — but it is a reason why we need to be especially careful to rely on reliable third party sourcing rather than unsourced or poorly sourced insider information. But the sourcing here isn't adequate, and depends too much on primary sources that aren't support for notability and/or simply using his own writing as circular metaverification of its own existence, which is not how you make a person notable. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write something better than this using more reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2021 (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.
Youtuber that fails WP:ANYBIO there's some mainstream press coverage but it focusses on a single event. There certainly isn't the in-depth criticism or analysis of the subject to provide enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NBLP. Ferkingstad (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure what "single event" is being referred to in the nomination. Pearce is an established journalist with a history of notability; the majority of sources are specifically about her (i.e. not passing mentions) and cover several events in her career. It's not a particularly long article, but that doesn't mean it warrants deletion. – Rhain☔ 12:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment A paid editing gang from India created this page for money. They get their money by going around nominating pages for deletion then contacting the subject of the page for a nominal fee. I have contacted the subject of this page and offered to help them in exchange for information on this Indian paid editing operation who use child labour and are financing the taliban.Ferkingstad (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? You nominated this article for deletion, not some Taliban-supporting cabal. Or are you explaining that this is why you nominated it? This is very strange. Furius (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a serious personal attack on another editor, asserting that they are a member of " a paid editing gang from India". Unless you have any evidence, please retract it. PamD 11:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - there is clear WP:GNG notability based on multiple independent and reliable sources in the article providing in-depth coverage focused on her and her career; and per the nominator's statement above, WP:SKCRIT#2d appears to apply. Beccaynr (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clear pass of WP:GNG, possibly a vexatious nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Profiles in major international news sources like The Guardian give her an easy pass of WP:GNG. One of nine likely bad-faith nominations in reaction to the deletion of the nominator's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIDA Select. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced and well written article, clearly meets GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep on a procedural basis. As noted by other editors, this article clearly meets WP:GNG. Looking at the nominator's talk page exchange with User:StarryGrandma, it's clear that the nomination is made out of spite because an article they wrote got deleted. Suggest an administrator snow keep this nomination and perhaps sanction or warn the nominator for their disruptive behaviour. Haleth (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is referenced like a tank. Plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 12:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Not a close call in terms of notability. Clearly meets notability guidelines for the reasons that others have pointed out and the sources cited in the article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obvious keep, doesn't need to say anything if why. LaryFoxBoy (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no proof that it should be deleted 216.87.237.181 (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2021 (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.
Subject fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMIC all of the sources used are primary, ie interviews with the subject or content based on press releases from the subject or the organisations that they work for. There is no in-depth independent coverage offereing both the criticism and analysis required for a Wikipedia article. Ferkingstad (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Appears to pass WP:GNG through in-depth, reliable, and independent coverage of the subject already used as references in the article. One of nine likely bad-faith nominations in reaction to the deletion of the nominator's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIDA Select. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is sufficient sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain a encylopedic article on Umolu. I have some concerns over the repeated use of the same text (apparently based on a press release about the Serpentine Gallery appointment) : "I am eager to partner with the Serpentine’s team, its audiences, and artists to envision new forms of creativity and community building that can shepherd us through the profound change facing our city and the world at large." in [34],[35] and [36], but it is common practise for news media to refer to statements from the subject of their coverage. As long as the cited source is not a quick rewrite of the press release, it isn't necessarily wrong to use a press release as the basis for a news article. We reject standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, but the coverage of Umolu is not trivial. There exists critical commentary on her curatorial work and her writing that has not been cited in the article, https://www.artforum.com/architecture/david-huber-on-the-2019-chicago-architecture-biennial-80969https://hyperallergic.com/594683/this-is-what-i-know-about-art-by-kimberly-drew/ and https://hyperallergic.com/267908/six-west-african-artists-mine-the-material-world/ for example. Vexations (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG based on coverage on reliable sources.--Eostrix (🦉 hoothoot🦉) 09:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Part of a batch of dubious nomination from the same user who claims there's some sort of Taliban gang creating articles (see [37]). pburka (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2021 (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. RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails cricket guidelines having only played in non-notable matches, and while there is coverage, it is mainly trivial and I don't think enough to pass GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about this deletion tag, Suganesh Mahendran who played for Team India (Physically disability cricket team) in 2019 Cricket World Cup which is held in England and he is vice captain in that tournament for team India, you can know here 12, Thank you and I requested to decline this deletion request as Suganesh Mahendran is caped player. Dhaneesh 🙃 Ram 14:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third relist for some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple articles discussing the subject such as in The Times of India. If I'm reading the sources right, his team are world leaders in disabled people's cricket. NemesisAT (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2021 (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. Seddontalk 00:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the only source provided "SRF 3 honors aspiring musicians from Switzerland. One act is in focus every month." She is one of a number of people to be named best talent and the description itself notes she is "aspiring" which means she doesn't meet WP:NMG yet. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some additional sources. I believe this singer is notable per 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works'. Math1985 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A voter above added several sources but I find them to be generally suspicious, using terms like "classic" for a song that was just released or "rising" which is a typical term used by an artist's promoters rather than journalists. Those sources are overwhelmingly promotional and only show that she has a management team that knows how to get PR releases onto fancy looking websites. That does not equate to the significant and reliable coverage from impartial journalists that is necessary here. If her songs hit the charts that may change. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 18:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TOOSOON and @Doomsdayer520. She is in the early phase of her career and there is nothing noteworthy or significant about that career or its coverage at this time. If her career actually takes off in the future, the article can be recreated, but most aspiring musicians go nowhere so that is WP:CRYSTALBALL for now. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2021 (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.
Long-discontinued webcomic (it seems that it was taken down after two or three years), with only one 2006 AsianWeek article dedicated to it. Very little content can be found nowadays about this comic, besides Bad Webcomics and TVtropes commenting on its quality (or lack thereof) and offensiveness. Otherwise, there is no indication that it was ever notable or popular. The print magazine which published a few strips of it does not seem to be that notable either. IMHO, it fails WP:BK, WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Psychloppos (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm seeing three sources in the article that write about the comic. Seems over the GNG bar. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: actually, there's only two, or one if you consider that the Northwest Asian Weekly article has long been offline (no idea if it's even that notable as a source). The San Francisco Chronicle gave it only a passing mention. That leaves only the AsianWeek article. Psychloppos (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC) (Correction : actually, the AsianWeek article is also offline and archived)[reply]
Archived doesn't matter. And SFC has 6 paragraphs focused on the comic and author. I'm good with the three sources. Hobit (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this one passes. There are some good sources there. The fact that the comic is "long discontinued", or that some of the sources now only live on Archive.org is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an index of current websites. The sources on "AsianWeek.com" and the weirdly similarly named "Northwest Asian Weekly" are exactly the kind of sourcing you want for an article about a comic. ApLundell (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- this seems to pass GNG for better or for worse (perhaps the latter, since so much of its legacy seems to be based on how it wasn't very good). I am willing to change my opinion if offered a good argument either way. jp×g 09:06, 24 August 2021 (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.
Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing of substance was found in a WP:BEFORE that could help support notability. DonaldD23talk to me 01:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep: I've found some very brief coverage in a variety of sources, that may help towards establishing notability, or at least point editors towards the right direction. The film appears to have been shot in 2004, premiered on television (BET) rather than theatrically, and was released on DVD shortly afterwards. Most reviews I've found have been brief and underwhelming. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"DEJ is the primary producer on urban drama "Back in the Day,'" starring Ving Rhames and Ja Rule, Giancarlo Esposito and Tatyana Ali. It's the most expensive project yet for DEJ with a budget in the range of $5 million - $10 million." - Netherby, Jennifer (March 26, 2004). "Blockbuster eyeing big score on 'Monster' DVD". Daily Variety. Vol. 282, no. 65.
"DEJ is currently prepping a potential theatrical release for "Back in the Day," an urban drama featuring Ving Rhames. The project is its most expensive to date, with a budget of more than $10 million." - Kipnis, Jill (April 17, 2004). "'Monster' deal". Billboard. Vol. 116, no. 16. p. 54.
"No Original Gangstas in this movie, but plenty of unoriginal ones, even some downright hackneyed ones. In a nutshell: How did such a ridiculous script lure so many talented actors" - Kronke, David (May 14, 2005). "BET Fills The 'Hood With Unoriginal Gangstas". Sun-Sentinel.
"Ving Rhames and Ja Rule in a "tale of love and redemption." Aww. They're so mushy." - Wheat, Alynda (May 9, 2005). "Tonight's Best TV". CNN.
"In concept, Back in the Day doesn't differ much from a dozen or more urban crime dramas we could name. But it shapes up as a high-end release in this genre on the basis of above-average star power and production mounting. In some respects, Day is a throwback to the old Warner gangster films, with accommodations for contemporary market demands vis-a-vis language, sex and violence. One can easily picture Cagney or Bogart in the Rhames role, with one of the Dead End Kids taking the Ja Rule part. Director and co-writer Hunter puts a nice spin on the material by allowing for some ambiguity. The viewer can't be sure whether Reggie fired the shot that killed his girlfriend's father (played by Joe Morton), and this generates considerable suspense in the film's second half. Not as hard-core as low-end urban product, Day has more crossover potential than most titles in the genre, largely because of the cast" - Huls, Ed (April 18, 2005). "Back in the Day". Video Business. Vol. 25, no. 16. Reed Business Information. p. 16. ISSN0279-571X – via Gale General OneFile.
I've added some of these refs to the article, and changed my comment to Keep. Additional offline newspaper or magazine coverage likely exists. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third relist for some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, improved significantly since nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been fixed up a lot and there looks like enough sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is improved with good sources. Sonofstar (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2021 (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.
Fails WP:NFOOTY as the subject has not played in a fully-pro league and fails WP:GNG as he has not garnered sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If a football club in Iceland has hired an Australian player, perhaps it should be considered fully professional. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: Clubs all around the world hire foreign players. It is not necessarily an indication of professionalism. If you have evidence to support the Icelandic league's pro status, the place to bring it up is here. JTtheOG (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails relevant notability guidelines. The Icelandic league is definitely semi-pro, per this (it's from 2018 but I can't see any evidence that anything has changed in the last three years) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the creator of the article has erroneously placed the following comment on the talk page of this AfD rather than on the AfD page itself. I move it here for the purposes of completeness.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Player has played 6 games professionally, 4 different sources verifying this.
Delete fails WP:GNG. He played 14 matches with Hvöt in the Icelandic fifth-tier last season and has appeared in 6 matches this season for Keflavík in the Icelandic top-tier which is semi-professional. The only sources I can find in the Icelandic media are mostly routine signing articles and mentions in match reporting. This is propably the best article I could find. All in all, he lacks the significant coverage to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that there is no evidence of a GNG pass here Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not met any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2021 (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.
Non-notable fictional character. Article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, and does not cite any sources. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a fan Wiki for every TV show ever made.TH1980 (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be built on secondary source coverage which is entirely lacking in this case. We are not Wikia, and now that Wikia exists we have no reason to pretend that we are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete - I found no coverage to suggest that this character meets WP:GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Changing my vote following the sourced improvements. Thanks to JuneGloom07 for the work and Piotrus for the ping. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Did some searching and found a few sources for the character, including two award nominations. Rather than delete the article though, it would be better to merge it to an appropriate list, such as List of Sunset Beach characters, allowing the references I found to be kept. - JuneGloom07Talk 00:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've since found more coverage, including an award win for the actor, and I believe the character now passes WP:GNG. - JuneGloom07Talk 00:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was originally nominated on the basis that it cited no sources. It now has reliable, secondary sources being added. Not every fictional character is notable but I think this passes.Rainthe 1 19:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Improvements made to the article since nomination have shown that the character meets GNG, with lots of in-depth coverage in RS. – DarkGlow • 21:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To consider the HEY improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2021 (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.
Non-notable fictional character. Article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, and does not cite any sources. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Wikipedia is not a fan Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is much improved now.TH1980 (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keepDelete - seems from my searches that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Changing as per Piotrus; this is not the article it was before - in a good way. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In regards to the two main reasons in the nomination. I removed all of the unsourced content consisting mainly of in-universe plot summary. I have started to add sourced content.Rainthe 1 22:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But have you found evidence that this character meets the notability guidelines? Still seems to be a stretch as a somewhat minor character from an old soap opera. Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After improvements made by Raintheone, subject satisfies GNG with in-depth coverage in numerous reliable sources. – DarkGlow • 21:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to appropriate character list. Article now has secondary, reliable sources. - JuneGloom07Talk 21:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep since this has been totally rewritten by Raintheone. The discussion should be restarted from zero, given we now have a totally new article than the one that was nominated (assuming anyone wants to restart it). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:18, 22 August 2021 (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.
Comments from these users should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
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. – bradv🍁 01:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable Human Rights Organization. Was created by an individual affiliated with the organization in an undisclosed COI, and recreated under several names by that individual in an attempt to avoid deletions, following a previous AFD. A review of provided sources does not suggest notability, nor does a broader search; while the organization is semi-frequently quoted by a limited number of sources, there does not appear to be any content about the organization as a whole - and notability is not inherited. BilledMammal (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this claim doesn't seem accurate. The organization is quite well-known, and it issues joint statements with major international human rights institutions and its publications are always quoted in international media.
The sources and citations on the page may not be up to date but this does not mean at all that the page should be deleted. It just may need to be supported by other, more notable sources.
--Anassjerjawi (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC) user with less than 500 edits not allowed to edit in this topic area. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. So many problems here. The editor above hasn't properly declared COI on their page, though they did on talk. The article was recreated despite many deletions. As for the merits of the subject, besides COI and previous deletions, the organizations get a few mentions of what it says every so often but sources satisfying the heightened requirements of WP:ORGCRITE are lacking which indicates deletion.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello all. In fact, I think that deleting the article is unacceptable, because the organization is one of the most prominent human rights organizations, especially that the organization's logo is used in all international forums and is also a symbol of the human rights portal in copying Wikipedia, and through the Google test and search for the organization we see that it deserves An article on the English Wikipedia, and we see that the article achieves notability, and we believe that the article is encyclopedic, and that the organization is one of the most prominent human rights organizations in issuing human rights reports! Also, the organization specializes in all global issues and does not focus on a specific region, The organization has influence in Europe, where it works to send periodic messages to European ministers about human rights from all over the world, and regarding the argument of "conflict of interest", I do not see it as a convincing reason, and the person who wrote the article did not promote the organization, but wrote in a neutral and unbiased manner biased. He attached all the required references.
And a message to my dear (BilledMammal) I don't know why you are targeting articles that accuse Israel of being an occupying country! what is your problem ! I wish you to be a neutral person!
Greetings --Osps7 (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 20:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wasn't able to find much that would help this meet WP:GNG or any of the organisation-specific notability criteria. I have significant concerns, too, about neutrality. The only reliable independent sources I could find were passing mentions in the context of the organisation's own press releases and comments about events or reports produced by the organisation itself. The only independent secondary-source commentary I could find, a. confirmed the organisation exists, b. confirmed it is headquartered in Geneva, and c. asserted that it was outlawed by the Israeli Government in 2016. This means that any article we retain about the organisation could include these three facts and not much else. Anything else would be heavily reliant on primary sources. Again, I don't think it meets our notability requirements and I think it should be deleted. But I would caution those who want it retained (especially those with a conflict of interest) to consider what that might mean. We require organisations to meet our notability criteria for a range of reasons, and being able to factually cover the organisation in a neutral manner is one of them. St★lwart111 00:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a lot of the puffery and added citation tags in a few places. I don't think it will help (and I still think it should be deleted) but it might help editors to understand just how little we could retain anyway. St★lwart111 01:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've looked at the ten sources provided by Anassjerjawi and Osps7, but unfortunately none of them contribute towards GNG. I won't do a detailed assessment for the moment, but to sum up: the first six provided by Anassjerjawi don't constitute significant coverage of the organization, as while they reference statements by the organization, they don't cover the organization itself. The seventh, meanwhile, is a list of publications by the organization, none of which cover the organization itself, making this source both not significant and not independent.
The first by Osps7 doesn't constitute significant coverage of the organization; it is just a summary page on the Libyan Observer's website of the six times that it has referenced statements by the organization in their reporting. The second is the parent page to the seventh provided by Anassjerjawi, with the same reasons apply to it. The third is a link to the organizations LobbyFacts page, a page which is autopopulated with information from the EU transparency register, and in my opinion doesn't constitute significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even reading the article as it currently stands suggests that GNG has been met. Although this is not a major NGO, it is quite well known, they have been invited to address the United Nations HRC here and here, it's reports are cited in reputable sources (books, eg (Escaping the Escape: Toward Solutions for the Humanitarian Migration Crisis, https://books.google.es/books?id=pPp4DwAAQBAJ p.179),(The Palestine Strategic Report 2016-2017, https://books.google.com/books?id=XMl6DwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y, pp 253, 460, 478, 489), the newsorgs above, it produces many and frequent reports and analyses in the hr area and although not critical, its worthy of note that it's board of trustees includes several well known personages. The vitriol directed at this organization by Israel and its defenders is almost sufficient for notability by itself. I think it is also worth noting a recent effort to delete an obviously notable article.Selfstudier (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writing many reports, having a board full of well-known people, and being disliked aren't really things that confer notability, unless those facts have been the subject of significant coverage. Being invited to address the UNHCR, however, is a very different story. If they have - indeed - been invited to do so, I would think that is enough for the organisation to be considered notable. Those two articles you cite certainly confirm they addressed the UNHCR, but doesn't say how that came about. Can anyone show up and make a speech?St★lwart111 00:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just show up, there are some rather complicated procedures to follow (Euro-Med has produced a guide for NGOs in that regard). Per what I wrote on the talk page some refs are in the orgs prior naming eg Euromid Observer for Human Rights was one of the NGOs consulted for Report of Gaza inquiry commission HRC 29Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They could have changed their name a dozen times and it wouldn't make a difference to us, but I appreciate the information. Being invited by the UN to address the UNHCR, to my mind, would be like being cited in a high-quality academic journal. You're notable when people care what you have to say. In this instance, though, they weren't invited (according to their own guide book); they applied for a particular status and then opted to speak. That's very different. If I filled out the right paperwork, I could speak, so that status doesn't really confer notability, I don't think. St★lwart111 11:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a)You are not an NGO b)You apply, they accept (or reject), seems like an invite to me. You don't "opt to speak", you are given a time slot, usually 1 or 2 minutes max. Anyway, this discussion is not particularly germane to notability.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be an NGO, just affiliated with one, and showing up and asking to be included is absolutely not the same thing as being invited. The guideline itself says that you can chose to present in one of x ways and then you ask for a spot. That's very different to a significant organisation taking note of your body of work and asking you to address one of their key councils (which I think would confer notability). St★lwart111 00:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have given your opinion several times by now. Repetition doesn't make it so.Selfstudier (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? My question was a genuine one and I was trying to clarify your assertion. I was ready to change my !vote. St★lwart111 01:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to make you change your vote, I just don't want a prolonged discussion about something not directly relevant to deletion.Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, I think something that would make the organisation notable (and, if true, would likely see this nomination withdrawn) is worth discussing. But okay. St★lwart111 01:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor NGO. Some of its reports were mentioned by others, but the NGO itself has not been covered in depth as an organization by reputable sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Free1Soul (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a Swiss organisation and likely notable. They're is likely better references out there. It needs slimmed. scope_creepTalk 09:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after following the discussion between Selfstudier and Stalwart111, I came to the conclusion that the article deserves to be preserved.--౪ Santa ౪99° 04:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments As an advocate for all things "Human Rights," I am supportive of organizations that work towards that goal. I am struggling to find significant "independent" coverage (what other people have written) about the organization, as opposed to content "from" them, to advance encyclopedia notability. There are hundreds of such organizations worldwide that do not reach that criterion. There are around 80 in the "Euro-Mediterranean" area including the similarly named Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EuroMed Rights or EMHRN), most of which are connected or affiliated with lobbying.
What is concerning is the lack of NPOV. Allowing such content as "My friend was banned from travelling to visit his dying mother. This is the price of occupation." is newspaper crap just adding citation clutter and adding political propaganda content. WP:Balance is disregarded by the one-way slant. That is a problem with covering world events in an encyclopedia from one perspective. If any content is to be covered there is an apparently not so well-known fundamental principle (part of Wikipedia's "five pillars") that have to be adhered to. Otr500 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and @Stalwart111. It's just a minor NGO and a review of the article's talk page reveals a slew of conflicts of interest that only heightens the core issue, the lack of WP:SIGCOV of the organization. Wikipedia isn't here for free webhosting or to give your group the veneer of stature. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting that my opinion "not a major NGO" gets an approving nod but that my other opinion "quite well known" doesn't. Sounds like picking and choosing opinions to fit a predisposition. Anyway, by "minor" I mean not yet obtained consultative status (I added a statement and ref about it). As for well known, the parade of wikilinked trustees ought to suffice for now. I have added in a few bits and pieces to improve the article. Idk about the "newspaper crap" or who added it but why does the complaining editor just not delete it? It doesn't seem relevant to anything on a quick glance. At any rate it has nothing to with the bar for deletion which is pitched high for a reason, the only part of the latest comment that is at all relevant to GNG is NPOV and the article is tagged for that already so it will probably get fixed with time.Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:44, 4 September 2021 (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. Without precluding reorganization or a merge proposal. Eddie891TalkWork 15:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author is very notable, as is much of his work. I can't, however, find any real evidence that this one short story is notable in its own right. The article discusses its influence, but this appears to be OR with no citations to independent reliable sources. Even if the currently identified points of influence could be cited, it wouldn't added up to meeting the GNG. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a prominent story in the genre, and has improved since this nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it now has twice as many refs by the author. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Langford - Can't find enough in-depth coverage about the story to show it passes WP:GNG. I agree with Randy Kryn that it should be notable, but absent independent sourcing, can't !vote for anything other than redirect. Onel5969TT me 17:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The BLIT story seems frustratingly difficult to find references for, but at least one of the follow up stories has won a Hugo, which should probably count for something. Possibly this article would be better off pivoting to cover the basilisk stories as a whole? Artw (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basilisks has a section in the author's article, also not well-sourced. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the tag on the article. Is that section the particular area of concern? Artw (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A little, more the "Non-fiction and editorial work" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. Offhand if I can't find enough for this to have its own article, I'd support this turning into an article for the series since there's most likely enough to justify a series page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see this saved, but what I am seeing is not much. Landford himself discusses the story for a few paragraphs in his book here, but obviously, this fails the requirement for the coverage to be independent. He does note that Kevin McLeod used the term (in some commentary?) "the Langford hack", but this term is not used elsewhere. The other examples (Stross, Egan) are fascinating, but it's either OR is not independent :( A passing sentence in a footnote in [38]: "The Basilisk first appears as a science fiction concept in the short story “BLIT” where it is a “Berryman Logical Image Technique,” an image encoded with “Gödelian “spoilers,” implicit programs which the human equipment cannot safely run” (Langford 1988). And that's all I found in my GScholar/GBooks query :( Unless we get something else, I'd have to say 'redirect', as the best WP:ATD. PS. The idea of brain hacking is an interesting sf trope and may deserve its own article (if the sources come through), and then this story could be mentioned in such an article. In fact, half of the reception in the currently discussed article is really an ORish discussion of this concept, which is being claimed (without a source) to have originated with this story. PPS. I see [39] mentions the story in another passing sentence; sadly I can't access the source (not in Z-library). But such a passing mention, failing WP:SIGCOV, doesn't help us much here - although this snippet does suggest we may be able to mention the story in an article about "brain hacking" or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've found enough to where I think it could probably pass notability guidelines now, but to be honest... a page for the BLIT series as a whole would be best. The story is mentioned, but there's also mention of the stories and concept as a whole to where I think it would be more informative and effective as a series page. The term "basilisk" could also be covered there as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to sources I and ReaderofthePack found. Plus the influences on other writers, which are mostly primary sourced, but certainly not a hoax. PS. I found an independent source: SF Encyclopedia: "A similar rationalization of mind-destroying fractal images in "Blit" (September/October 1988 Interzone) and related stories by David Langford proved mildly influential in sf circles, and is explicitly acknowledged in Greg Egan's Permutation City (1994), Ken MacLeod's The Cassini Division (1998) and Charles Stross's Accelerando (fixup 2005) and Laundry series." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Piotrus, Onel5969, QuiteUnusual, and Randy Kryn: Would everyone be OK with the idea of my turning this into a page for the series of stories? I think that there's notability here, but it seems to be a kind of group notability so to speak and would do well as a page that expanded on the four short stories that made up the series. The main thing I'm running into is what to name such a series page. It could just be "basilisk" if we use the subheader in the main page or we could just expand the sequels section and include pertinent information and leave the short story page as the main entry. I wanted some sort of consensus before I really do any live work. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with calling it "Basilisk" is that this would sort of turn into a page for the term rather than the series per se. I'm leaning towards just expanding the current article with information about the term and the other pages. It'd be the far easier option. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack I think the story is borderline notable, per my week keep above, so I would keep it as it is (focus-wise). As for the series, what exact series do you refer to? I note that per the SF Encyclopedia source I found (link above), the concept of 'basilisk' in SF ('brain hack', etc.) may have stand-alone notability (as it exists in SF encyclopedia as a stand-alone entry, and perhaps more coverage could be found). Is this the series you mean? Or did Langford wrote a 'BLIT' series or sorts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theres several sequels, including one Hugo winner. Artw (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is as a notable story and summarize the related works, per ReaderofthePack. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, though thats on the basis of some sourcing that is not as strong as I would like it and a Hugo winning sequel. Renaming it and organising it to be an article on the series of stories or merging to the basilisk section of the Langford page also acceptable. Artw (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reorganize per the above. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with David Langford. Although sources aren't the strongest, the work is culturally relevant for the introduction of the basilisk to the genre and the subsequent influence the image has had on other works. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2021 (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. Opinions are divided. While the "delete" side would honor Ms. Liu's deletion request reported by the nominator, the "keep" side argues that Ms. Liu is notable and that no reason for deletion has been advanced, either in terms of Wikipedia policy or by Ms. Liu herself.
Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, to the extent relevant here, "discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Given that there is no rough consensus here, I must decide whether to delete the article in application of this policy or to let it be kept by default in the absence of a consensus to delete.
First, I must decide whether BLPREQUESTDELETE applies at all. Because that policy is intended to be applied by the closer, I am making this determination myself rather than following any consensus about this issue in this AfD. I find that Ms. Liu is indeed "relatively unknown", in part because she has not been the subject of media coverage as far as I can tell. I next must decide whether Ms. Liu is a "public figure" in the sense of BLPREQUESTDELETE. That phrase is a term of art in U.S. constitutional law, and means, according to SCOTUS case law, "a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs", or "those who have 'thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies'" (see Public figure#United States). Because Wikipedia is mostly written by Americans, and that particular U.S. case law has had a worldwide influence, I am interpreting BLPREQUESTDELETE's phrase "public figure" in accordance with it. Seen in this light, I am of the view that Ms. Liu is not a public figure because none of the aforementioned criteria apply to her. This means that the requirements for the application of BLPREQUESTDELETE are in principle met.
But I still need to decide whether or not I should delete the article, because BLPREQUESTDELETE provides that the article "may" be deleted, not that it must be. Although BLPREQUESTDELETE does not provide directions about which criteria should inform this decision, it implicitly requires that there must at least be some rational basis for deletion beyond the mere desire of the subject. If it were otherwise, BLPREQUESTDELETE would provide that articles must be deleted at the request of their non-public figure subjects, but it does not.
But in this case, no real reason for deletion has been advanced. In particular, Ms. Liu's notability is not contested. There is speculation that Ms. Liu may want the article deleted to prevent harassment, but this is not borne out by the article's history, which is short and unproblematic. Because I read BLPREQUESTDELETE to mean that I must not delete an article in the absence of a policy-based or at least rational reason for deletion, I decline to apply BLPREQUESTDELETE and the article is kept by default. Sandstein 10:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject, Fang Liu, has been in email contact with me and wishes the article to be removed or, if it cannot be removed, to be reduced down to a stub with the bare minimum of information about her. Despite repeated requests on my part, she has not provided any more information on why she prefers not to have an article about her. I disagree with this request: I think she is clearly notable, through WP:PROF, by multiple criteria: #C1, highly cited publications, and #C3, fellow of a major society for which this is a significant honor, the American Statistical Association; note that unlike GNG, PROF does not require independent sourcing (although in a sense the citations to her publications provide large numbers of independent sources). More strongly, I would like it to be the case (as it is for several societies in related areas but not yet for the ASA) that we have articles on all female ASA fellows; instead, deletion of this article would create a long-lasting or permanent hole in our coverage, and I oppose it. Therefore my opinion on this AfD is to keep the article. Nevertheless, it is within Liu's right to request a discussion of this deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, so I am initiating this discussion. Because this is a BLPREQUESTDELETE discussion, if it ends in no consensus the result may be deletion rather than a no-consensus keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom (which is a phrase I don't think I've ever used in a deletion discussion). She certainly meets WP:NPROF by being an ASA fellow, and in the general sense I agree that expanding our coverage to include more articles about women in STEM is beneficial to the project. The only information I see that is outside of the scope of her work is in the one or two sentences about her childhood and her parents' influence on her choice of undergraduate major, and as that is sourced to an interview with her, I feel that the "bare minimum" aspect of her request is reasonably met. --Kinut/c 03:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sureDelete at subject's request. She works in a strategically sensitive area and gives no reason for wanting deletion. Otherwise I would keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. there's no personal information, and the area doesn't seem sensitive in the military-secret sense or the anti-government sense. (there have been one or two scientists in those areas which I've been willing to handle differently).If I'm judging wrong, she could send a confidential email to oversight, or to me directly as an oversighter, DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the world needs statisticians and she passes the threshold for notability, and no pressing reason has been given for deletion. There's nothing in the article that she herself hasn't already put in the public domain. If she's worried about specifics, like the attitude of her parents to her career, then although it's referenced, I would be sympathetic to its removal (it's not essential material). But mostly a comment that we should not be deleting articles because their subjects work in a sensitive area. WP only contains information that can be referenced, and is therefore, by definition, already in the public domain; if people really want to remain under the radar, they've got to keep out of the public eye long before things reach the Wikipedia stage. And in any case, since when has WP embraced censorship? Elemimele (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as others have said, clearly meets WP:NPROF, info seems to be publically available elsewhere anywhere, and no real reason given to delete. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, she's notable, but she's not a high-profile public figure. It's perfectly reasonable for private individuals whose jobs happen to make them notable to request that they not have a user-editable page about their life featured on a prominent website. I'd also like it if women who are fellows of scientific societies all had articles, but that goal doesn't outrank the desire of any specific member of that group not to participate. As for her request not giving a reason, it might defeat the purpose of wanting privacy to disclose the reasons for wanting privacy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the reasons are private, she should be directed to confidentially contact an oversighter - no need to make the reasons public. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Opabinia, who delineates the issue clearly. Women should not, against their will and without good reason, be forced to have a BLP on Wikipedia, a public forum where they are open to attacks by trolls and bullies . Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Though I don't have examples at my fingertips, this sort of situation has arisen before: a woman is notable by some guideline like WP:PROF, an article is created, and she requests deletion even though, to a bystander, the article seems to contain nothing that wasn't already in her faculty profile website. It's worrisome. I'd prefer not to have holes in the encyclopedia's coverage, but I also don't want the encyclopedia to make innocent people's lives worse. XOR'easter (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing personally identifying about her in the article, other than very basic biographical information that could be gleaned by anyone who looked up her name. I do not see reasonable grounds for deletion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I would certainly !vote keep in the absence of a request from the subject, as the citation record looks like a (possibly weak) pass of WP:NPROF C1, and the ASA fellowship I believe to be enough for WP:NPROF C3. However, at this stage of the subject's career I think that notability is sufficiently marginal to honor a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE request. I make no judgement about potential later career notability. I share XOR'easter's concern about deletion requests from female academics. (Possibly it can be explained by a combination of the enthusiasm of WP:WIR and the social pressures placed on women?) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which does not appear to require a subject to explain in detail to our satisfaction the reasons for their request, nor an amount of sensitivity of their work or a certain amount of personal information in the article. The sources in the article suggest the subject is low-profile and only recently became an ASA fellow, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE appears to favor honoring this request. I also think WP:BLP supports deletion, i.e. the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment and The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material - I am not convinced by this discussion that the burden to keep this article has been met at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. She is not so well-known that we must have an article on her and we should accede to her request. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without more detail of her concerns, she is notable due to her contributions and expertise, and WP desperately needs better coverage of notable women. Sidenote: it would be great to have more detail on what public health research the award referred to. The article is well-written, statements are sourced, and nothing is immediately apparent as sensitive. Of course, different things are sensitive to different people, so I would say that if she gives more detail about her concerns, to cut that material from the article with appropriate reminders to editors not to add it back in (unless the concern is something like threat to her wellbeing, in which case I'd very strongly argue to do whatever she asks). --Xurizuri (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2021 (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. This discussion shows just how complicated discussing something for which you have a connection can be and in this discussion everyone, on all sides, including those who say they are not part of any movement, and including myself have a connection to the topic being discussed.Does a movement exist? Who knows; one side says it's a self-evident yes and points to the various ways a movement is defined and used, one side says no and points to the lack of reliable independent secondary sources using the term in significant ways. Is peer reviewed research good enough to establish notability? Who knows; one side says "yes, because we place a premium on the reliability and importance of those sources" while the other side says "No, because all the peer reviewed research are by people who are not independent and thus the research does not convey notability". And on and on the discussion goes.It is clear that there is not a consenus to be found at the moment. Given the already extensive discussion and large number of sources presented and the fact that anyone new who would weigh in would be just as connected as the rest of us, it does not seem that more time would lead to a consensus either. So I am closing this as no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This "Wikimedia movement" seems not to exist in independent reliable secondary sources, as of my brief skim. This was mentioned by others at Talk:Wikimedia_movement#If this article was about anything else..., and it was suggested the article be deleted. The sources are literally all mailing list entries or other WMF/Wikimedia primary sources. The opening sentence has an unresolved {{Citation needed}} tag. Secondary sources only talk about the "Wikimedia movement" within the quotation of a Foundation official; they don't describe any such 'movement' in their own voice. That means a policy-compliant article cannot be written.
Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. A basic news search returns articles in "Mint", "TheTower.org", "ISRAEL21c", "Dialogos" and "Legal Insurrection". Of course, the "-wikipedia" in that search is kind of an issue: removing it brings up this Forbes contributor article, this The Verge article (which quotes WMF staff), thesetwo Slate articles by Stephen Harrison. None of them are primarily about the "Wikimedia movement", as separate from the Wikipedia community and the WMF, and I'm not sure such a thing really exists. This page has had a long and illustrious history: it was created in 2005 as a redirect (at Wikimedia") when that page was moved to "Wikimedia Foundation". On 2016-04-22, it was moved to "Wikimedia movement" (with rationale ""Wikimedia" sometimes refers to WMF; renaming to Wikimedia movement to be clear about purpose of article"). It's not clear to me that it was created to be about the "Wikimedia movement", and it's not clear the "Wikimedia movement" is, as the kids say, "a thing". To make an analogy, we can imagine referring to people who build rat rods as "the rat rod movement" in an article about them, or to Debian users as "the Debian movement". This doesn't mean that "rat rod movement" or "Debian movement" are viable subjects for their own articles separate from "rat rod" and "Debian". As far as I can tell, the sources that exist are mostly using the phrase "Wikimedia movement" in this incidental fashion, rather than demonstrating the notability and existence of it as a thing separate from Wikimedia/Wikipedia/WMF. jp×g 03:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only does this article fail to demonstrate notability through independent sourcing, it actually fails to provide credible evidence that anything resembling the supposed subject of the article actually exists at all. As I noted in the edit summary mentioned above, where I added the 'citation needed' tag [40], the claim that the many diverse contributors to multiple multi-language worldwide projects constitute a single 'movement' or 'community' is sociologically untenable boosterism. I could probably extend this argument further, and suggest that describing contributors to even a single project (e.g. the English-language Wikipedia) as a 'movement' (or arguably even a 'community') is questionable, but that isn't what is under discussion here. 'Movement', if it means anything, implies common goals, shared by all. It is self-evident, from looking at even a single project (e.g. the English-language Wikipedia as an obvious example) that not all contributors share the same goals. Some may have some sort of abstract attachment to ideas of 'free knowledge', but nothing I've ever seen in the way of research suggests that all contributors do. How is it possible to have a 'movement' of editors, if 'anyone can edit', but many cannot (e.g. for language reasons, across the diverse projects) necessarily even communicate with each other? What sort of 'movement' consists of 'anyone'? Some time ago, I got somewhat involved in discussions over an article on another 'movement' - a rather odd political group - that seemed regularly to claim an implausibly-inflated membership. When questioned on this, they stated that their figures were based not just on people they'd signed up, but on people who visited their website. The article under discussion here doesn't go quite that far, since it seems not to include people who just read articles etc, but it seems to me to be working from much the same premise. Wikipedia quite rightly won't accept such self-serving humbug from obscure political organisations, so why should it do so here? Without credible independent sourcing to suggest that the term 'movement' is more than a nice-sounding buzzword thrown around when convenient, this article can only constitute wishful thinking at best, and is probably better described as fiction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AndyTheGrump. The only truly independent source cited here doesn't even refer to the "Wikimedia movement". --Metropolitan90(talk) 03:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We just had a Wikimania at which there was the usual variety of Wikimedia activity – volunteers, chapters, projects and so forth. There's clearly more to it than just Wikipedia and the WMF and there are plenty of sources which discuss and detail this cloud of related activity and organisations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of wiki activity and legal entities besides the WMF. See Wiki#Communities for much more of this kind. As there's lots of this stuff and plenty of coverage Wikimedia should not be a red link. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Responding to Is it a thing? (something which I also saw pop up among the reactions to the idea of a "movement charter") - To me, "Wikimedia movement" is just the simplest and most common way to talk about the large and diverse group of activities, outputs, attitudes, people, organizations, and ideas that began with Wikipedia and has some roots in/overlap with some other "movements" (see below). I don't think it should be at all controversial that there is a "movement" that includes people who share, organize, and encourage other people to share all sorts of knowledge for free on Wikimedia projects. That doesn't mean that everyone who does anything on Wikipedia needs to identify with said "movement," but a lot of people do. What other term is there that includes not just the article writers on the English Wikipedia but the people mobilize others in their town to contribute to Wikipedia, people who work with museums pitching them the virtues of donating images or adding to Wikidata, people who contribute to Wikipedias or teach other people how to at risk of political persecution, groups who write Wikipedia as a way to preserve language or culture, dozens of nonprofits and groups engaged in small and largescale community organizing around the world focused on Wikimedia projects, the large conferences attended by people with many of the same interests and values despite working on very different tasks, and the people/groups who participate because of various overlaps with the other "movements" like the open-source-software movement, free-culture movement, free software movement, etc.? In other words, it sounds better (and is used more often) than "the communities, activities, and attitudes related to Wikimedia projects." Is it notable? Well that's the real question, of course. I would certainly think the underlying subject, whatever it's called, would be notable. The term appears in an awful lot of scholarship, books, and international press. The issue here is that its meaning is typically implied or taken for granted, so I get the original research concerns here. I think Common Knowledge (Jemlielniak) and Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness (Tkacz) go into a bit of detail as to why it's a movement, but I don't recall if they specifically use the term "Wikimedia movement" in doing so. I suppose it's possible that the concept itself is too broad to get much coverage, and what gets the in-depth coverage is already covered at existing articles like Wikipedia community, Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimania, and articles about the various individual projects. Anyway, I've already written too much with scant sources and no !vote. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AndyTheGrump. Psychloppos (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without WP:THREE sources attesting to the term "Wikimedia movement" to meet WP:GNG, having an article about it violates our WP:NOR policy. As a redirect, "Wikimedia movement" is unnecessary; the existing redirect Wikimedia, which currently targets Wikimedia movement, should be retargeted to Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone typing in "Wikimedia" into the search bar will get to the WMF article before they ever type out the word "movement." This is kinda bad because it's WP:CITOGENESIS and rather intentionally so: it's the WMF that is trying to coin the term "Wikimedia movement," and maybe they'll coin it, maybe they won't, but we certainly shouldn't help coin it by making a mainspace article about it. We must have multiple reliable independent secondary sources using the term first, before we have an article about it. Levivich 15:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: It's ... reallly not WMF trying to coin the phrase ;) One of its most long-term and widespread uses is by community members and groups to articulate the movement that predated and is supported by the Foundation, and on whose behalf the Foundation maintains the projects, protects the marks, &c. That the Foundation continues to support that usage is a healthy sign. – SJ + 16:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sj: If what you say is true, you should be able to provide a source that uses the phrase "Wikimedia movement" that pre-dates the establishment of the WMF. I say no such source exists. Levivich 16:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We used to say "community"; 'movement' language (w/o searching the lists) I remember first from 2008 and became more popular around 2010 -- largely to articulate the individual and federated nature of the movement, and to avoid the misidentification of 'Wikimedia' primarily with a central org. – SJ + 17:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I notice that a couple of edit summaries for the Wikimedia redirect imply that not knowing/caring about "Wikimedia Movement" is a "very american viewpoint". Maybe a foreigner could explain that and point out some foreign-language sources we're missing? ApLundell (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The French WP article has 5x as many sources as ours. Most of the editors of the Wikimedia movement page on meta are not from the US. Not so surprising -- Most movement organizations, formal and informal -- doing partnerships, outreach, and grassroots organizing -- are outside the US. And editing and coordination on Meta, which is in large part 'the wiki of the extended Wikimedia community/movement', have been predominantly multilingual and international. The implications of 'movement' vs 'community' vary by language; over the years the former has become more popular, and is what we've used throughout our communal planning + strategy work since at least 2009. – SJ + 16:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that I haven't gone through all 73 sources, but I've struggled to find any that meet GNG with regards to the movement; many don't mention it at all, and those that do either don't mention it in this context or don't cover it "significantly". Could you help me with WP:THREE that meet GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
? Do y'all also intend to delete Wikipedia community for similar reasons? i.e., neither of these things exist? I don't exist? (confused) Is this just an indictment of the media for their failure to cover us? Or an indictment of ourselves for failure to organize our anarchy? wbm1058 (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia community" passes GNG. Show me three GNG sources about "Wikimedia movement" and I'll change my vote. Haven't you been here too long to be arguing WP:OSE? :-P Levivich 02:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm thinking that I've been here too long. We all know that only Wikipedia is notable, that's why the Foundation wants to rename themselves. None of their other operations are notable. wbm1058 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We've both been here long enough to know posting [1] [2] [3] is more persuasive than an assertion that something is notable because something else is notable. Levivich 05:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a dozen sources:
Strategy as a Practice of Thousands: The case of Wikimedia
Wikimedia movement governance: the limits of a-hierarchical organization
Open strategy between crowd and community: lessons from Wikimedia and Creative Commons
A taxonomy of knowledge gaps for Wikimedia projects
Thanks for Stopping By: A Study of “Thanks” Usage on Wikimedia
Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy: a case of Wikimedia influence
DBpedia commons: structured multimedia metadata from the Wikimedia commons
Early onset of structural inequality in the formation of collaborative knowledge in all Wikimedia projects
Cluster approach to the efficient use of multimedia resources in information warfare in Wikimedia
Wikimedia and universities: contributing to the global commons in the Age of Disinformation
Librarians as Wikimedia Movement Organizers in Spain: An interpretive inquiry exploring activities and motivations
Biblioteche e Wikimedia: strategie comuni per l'accesso aperto alla conoscenza e la costruzione collaborativa del sapere libero
The second is written by a Board Member of the Wikimedia Foundation, which makes it a question of whether a publication by a company employee counts towards GNG (for any other company we would say no). It fails independence.
Third one doesn't contain "Wikimedia movement"
Fourth one is a preprint, and it's written by the research team at the WMF.[41] It fails independence.
Doesn't contain "Wikimedia movement" and fails independence anyway; it's written by the WMF, and one of the writers is a high school student.
Doesn't contain "Wikimedia movement"
I'm going to stop there and save myself some time, having not found a single usable source in the first six. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, and that's why it's WP:THREE and not WP:TWELVE. If there were three, someone would have posted [1] [2] [3] (links, not titles... who posts titles without links?!) and this discussion would have been over already. Honestly I don't know why folks bother with "keep" !votes that don't have hyperlinks in them. Levivich 13:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the sort of thing you might do if you just want to dismay people with a long list of names and titles, but you also want to discourage them from actually checking what's in there. ReykYO! 16:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Koerner, Jackie; Reagle, Joseph (October 13, 2020). Wikipedia @ 20: Stories of an Incomplete Revolution. MIT Press. ISBN9780262360609. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing three books (from their titles at least, focussed on 'Wikipedia' rather than the broader subject of the article under discussion here), each running to several hundred pages, while giving no page numbers. Even ignoring the issue as to whether these are actually third-party sources (which is questionable for at least two, possibly all three), it clearly isn't possible to verify whether the sources you cite actually support the specific claim being made without reading the entire volumes. Do you really think that is appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First one is written by a WMF Trustee. Second one is written by the founder of OCLC's Wikipedian-in-Residence program. Third one is written by WMF employee. None are independent. Does any RS written by someone who is not part of the "movement" call it the "Wikimedia movement"? Levivich 16:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to bee pedantic, but hey, that's what we do here. :) The co-editor of Wikipedia @ 20 was not a WMF staff member at the time the book was produced and published. Ckoerner (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich I suspect you're misunderstanding WP:THREE. Might I suggest you read User:RoySmith/Three best sources/notes? And @ProcrastinatingReader, while I agree with almost everything in your analysis of the first 6 sources, I do feel the need to object to one of the writers is a high school student; that's not a good reason to reject a source. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: it’s an additional consideration. While it’s entirely possible for high school students to do legitimate useful research (and I know some who have), it also has to be considered in the context of the ‘padding’ that goes on these days for the sake of college admissions, including getting names onto research papers. It warrants a closer look. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation" is a ludicrous suggestion. I have no connection to the Wikimedia Foundation. Frankly I don't really care to be associated with them. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this article appears to be to associate everyone who contributes to any of the projects with a WMF-led 'movement' whether they like it or not. Or indeed, whether they have even heard of this supposed 'movement' or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the most bizarre assumptions of bad faith I've ever seen at AfD. As far as I can tell, neither the creator nor any of the top contributors to the page are WMF staff. It's one thing to view WMF activities on meta cynically; quite another to throw good faith volunteers into a grand conspiracy to force you to be part of a larger community against your will. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well the same 'bizarre assumptions of bad-faith' are routinely employed as legitimate arguments in AfDs all the time. The requirement for third-party sourcing to establish notability is based around assumptions of 'bad faith', though people are generally polite enough not to say so explicitly. As is a lot of other en-Wikipedia policy. And no, I'm not saying that people are being forced into a 'community' against their will. I'm saying that claiming that they are part of one is a falsehood. Clearly, not everyone making such claims has the same motivations for doing so, since as I have already pointed out, people have all sorts of motivations edit on the various projects, which is one good reason why trying to describe all those that contribute to the many WMF-hosted projects as a 'movement' is such a thoroughly wrong-headed idea. And remains so regardless of the motivations of those who chose to use the WMFs own material to engage in this wrong-headedness. I am perfectly willing to accept that the article may have been created in good faith, despite its obvious failings. Lots of articles are. Lots of people do lots of things on en-Wikipedia and on the many other WMF-hosted projects in good faith, only to have them rejected. Rejected, because not everyone thinks the same way, and doing something in 'good faith' isn't always sufficient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF does not lead the movement. The movement is led by various stewards, bureaucrats, administrators and arbitrators. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The movement provides services to the WMF and operates independently of the WMF. wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to which reliable independent secondary source? Can we keep this AfD focused on sources? This is an article, not a projectspace page. Meta discussion on the "Wikimedia movement" belongs at meta:Talk:Wikimedia movement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my first awareness of this article was this AFD, and my first-time read of the article matched AndyTheGrump's understanding. The article feels like a PR attempt to redefine a large group of volunteers as a "movement" that rallies behind (or at least in the name of) the WM Foundation.
I'm a little surprised and puzzled that Wbm1058 (and presumably others?) seem to have read a nearly opposite meaning into it. ApLundell (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough Wiktionary does not define Wikimedia. Might help to have a consensus definition of exactly what "Wikimedia" is. If we take it to mean "crowd-sourced content" then the next question is who is responsible for creating this content. I take it that the Wikipedia community is responsible for Wikipedia but the other WMF-hosted sites magically write themselves. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't define words by consensus, we follow RS. Which RS have defined the term "Wikimedia movement"? Levivich 14:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already know who is responsible for creating content. 'Anyone'. As in 'Anyone can edit'. Including people who have no idea that they are supposed to be part of a 'community'. Generally speaking, they only discover this when they do something that someone else disagrees with, who then informs the poor misguided 'anyone' that 'the community' doesn't agree with what they are doing. Who actually constitutes 'the community' is of course a very open question, since nebulous concepts like this are much more useful in such contexts if you don't try to define them. 'Community' is a weaponised word on en-Wikipedia, gaining most of its utility as a weapon through its ambiguity. Try to define it too closely at your peril... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a glance at the thousands of blocked IPs and registered accounts belies the idea that 'Anyone' can edit. Any so-called RS that parrots that WMF public-relations line is obviously not reliable for that "fact". They have been blocked by movement leaders who have been granted blocking privileges. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, the 'anyone can edit' claims made on WMF-hosted websites shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value, in the same way that their assertions that contributors to each and every project constitute a single 'movement' shouldn't. As for your assertions about those with blocking powers being 'leaders', do you have a source for that? A third-party one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirecting to Wikimedia Foundation, which does not lead/run the movement. Keeping, deleting, or even redirecting to a larger/more significant part of Wikimedia (such as Wikipedia community) would all be preferable. (Another possible option: Move to "Wikimedia", which might have more coverage? Haven't found any from a quick search, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The international volunteer Wikipedia community is a thing. Definitely not something that should redirect to WMF, which is the owning entity, akin to a corporation. Carrite (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest for those looking for reliable sources that they turn to academic research on Wikipedia — there are scores of papers on WP editing and many of them (most of them) accept "Wikipedia movement" (or alternative phrasing connoting the same thing) as an axiomatic and fundamental component of their studies... Carrite (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would, if that was what the term 'Wikimedia Movement' is supposed to indicate. The WMF seems to use the term in another sense, as e.g. in "A [Code Enforcement Officer - final name to be determined] is a volunteer or a staff member of the Wikimedia Movement who possesses training and technical rights, and whose duties are the prevention, detection, investigation, and enforcement of violations of the Universal Code of Conduct" [42] The 'Wikipedia community' doesn't have staff members. The WMF does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here is a reliable source (academic article on "Wikipedia: community or social movement?"). COI admission: the article has been written by me. As a sociologist of social movement specializing in Wikipedia, I am quite familiar with this topic. The good news is that Wikimedia movement is relatively well written, it correctly defines the topic as 'above' the community. The term has been used by few other scholars: [43], [44]. I certainly acknowledge that sometimes we have an inclusinist bias to topics related to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but in this case I think the stand alone article is justified, this is a notable concept that is not the same as W-community and should not be merged there. (For laymen who did not study social movements, the difference is that social movement is composed of social movement organizations as well as wider "community" - we are all activist in Wikimedia movement, even if some of you may not think of yourself as such, doesn't matter, in scholarly terminology we are, end of story). PS. Many more sources use the term Wikipedia movement, as many scholars often forget that Wikipedia is part of something bigger. Whether this term should redirect to the Wikipedia community as it currently does I am not sure, and I'd suggest retargetting it back to the Wikimedia movement instead. Anyway, my point is that many scholarly works which use the term "Wikipedia movement" refer to "Wikimedia movement" more than to "Wikipedia community", as the key term here is movement (as in, social movement), and Wikipedia is a synonym for the more correct but less widely used term Wikimedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick read/skim of the source you linked to, the case seems strongly made that if there's any "movement" involved it is the Wikipedia movement, correctly redirected. You wrote the paper, and I intend to fully read it at some point soon, it's well written and seems very interesting, yet what am I missing if you say it backs up a keep in this case and even a redirect which seems fine as is and can actually be backed up by your paper? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, from a brief skim of your article, I'd have to say that the second paragraph of your conclusions (p.224) seems a little equivocal over whether a “Wikipedia social movement” fits within current definitions, or whether such definitions need to be "stretched" to include it. And, without wishing to in any way cast aspersions regarding your academic credentials, I'd have to suggest that as someone who has been editing Wikipedia since 2004, you probably don't qualify as a third-party source in this specific discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus published his article not as an activist, but as a scholar. His experience only allowed him to make an academic point. Pundit|utter 05:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the first paragraph of the conclusion to Piotrus's article: in particular the last sentence. Piotrus is making academic points, but he is also expressing a personal wish about influencing Wikipedians, and creating "a new WikiProject centered around free culture and seeing Wikipedia as a social movement". Piotrus is of course entirely entitled to express his opinions regarding such matters, like anyone else involved in any of the projects, but he is doing so as a Wikipedian, as well as an academic. Hence my suggestion that his isn't a third-party source in the sense that Wikipedia AfD discussions generally use the term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump The paper is a bit old in either case, but anyway, in social sciences, particularly sociology, it is totally normal for scholars to research what they care about and make personal comments, or wishes. It's pretty normal, and to say that someone who is involved in Wikipedia movement is not reliable due to that connection would be strange (first, it doesn't seem to be backed up by any policies - if you think such an article is not reliable, I'd like to see the WP:RSN discussion; second, if you start dismissing work on scholars interested in topic area X as biased, you'll be left with next to nothing. In social sciences in particular, but also often in other sciences, scholars research what they want, and what they care about, sometimes quite passionately). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I stated that your article seemed to not be a 'third-party source', per Wikipedia convention. I made no comment about reliability. This is an AfD discussion, where the need for third-party sourcing seems to be a primary concern, in an article that lacks it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are academic sources describing Wikimedia movement for a reason. Just like FOSS has both a technical and an ideological part, Wikimedia is both a collection of websites and a social movement aimed at making everyone have access to the sum of human knowledge. Additionally, it is a specific social movement, organized in a particular way It is of course just my opinion, which I expressed also in academic publications - but my point is, it is a scholar opinion that is expressed, not just by me, and the readers definitely may want to know what can a "Wikimedia movement" mean. With hundreds of results of a direct phrase, it is quite clear it exists in academic discourse. Pundit|utter 05:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Wikimedia is both a collection of websites and a social movement". I'd tend to agree with you. But with one very important proviso. I don't think that everyone contributing to the 'collection of websites' can reasonably be described as participating in any sort of overarching 'movement'. Even ignoring the vandals, promoters of all and sundry, and righters of great wrongs, there are, to my mind, clearly vast numbers of contributors who do so to 'fix something wrong on the internet' because they see it, to write about their hobbies, interests, etc in a public place that lets them, and to give themselves something to do they find personally fulfilling - whether it is finding spelling mistakes, replacing hyphens with n-dashes, or adding flags to tables. Wikipedia (and the many other projects likewise) is both a medium, and a 'movement' of sorts. And it is my contention that not everyone using it as a medium (because it is there, and because they can) is doing so as a part of any 'movement'. Not without stretching the term so far that you might conclude through similar reasoning that there is a 'Twitter movement' or even a 'Netflix movement'. With all due respect to Piotrus, and other academics, my limited qualifications in the social sciences (BSc Anthropology) lead me to be a little sceptical when I see suggestions that writing on a website or two makes you a part of an all-encompassing global 'movement', and only slightly less sceptical that writing on a single website makes you a part of a 'movement' even for that website only. Not when the content of the website includes everything from lists of Simpsons episodes and characters to articles on individual species of Thripidae. I just don't see enough evidence of common purpose to conclude that contributing to Simpsons articles because you like watching the episodes makes you at one with someone writing on Thripidae because they have been your life's work. Wikipedia is a medium. A place where 'anyone can edit'. And where people do, for all sorts of reasons, on all sorts of topics. If you want to call that a 'movement' the term becomes stretched almost to the point of meaninglessness. A movement that includes 'anyone' or even everyone who types stuff into an edit-box on a website? Sorry, no. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump I addressed this in my first post above. Many people don't think of themselves as activists, but they are recognized as such by scholars. From my perspective as a scholar who researchers Wikipedia, every person who contributed to Wikipedia by editing in good faith is part of the movement. Of course, there are degrees of activism and whatever, and such a gradation is sometimes important - but for our discussion here I think it's not really relevant how we define a member of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia movement (that's a topic to discuss while reviewing a specific academic work or when trying to propose a better definition - off topic here). And there is no such thing as Twitter of Netflix movement, as those are not based on volunteers. Well, Netflix, certainly. Twitter, which is based on user-created content, takes us to the issue of prosumerism and such. But Wikipedia (Wikimedia...), being non-profit, is very clearly a type of a social movement. Now, you may have some issues with this term, and such - that's perfectly fine, and there is big body of literature in the field of sociology of social movements where scholars discuss specifics (is "x" a social movement) and generalities ("how to define a social movements", etc.). But again, this is not really relevant to us; the point is that reliable sources discuss the concept of a "Wikimedia movement" in depth and this makes it notable, hence the article discussed here is fine (if in need of expansion). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we could continue this debate at length, but since I don't think it would be either appropriate, or productive, I'll just state that I disagree with your perspective with regard to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, and I'm fairly confident that I could find scholars who agree with me. But whatever, what we need is sources, rather than assertions that sources exist. If appropriate sources exist to justify the claim in the article under discussion - that "The Wikimedia movement, or simply Wikimedia, is the global community of contributors to Wikimedia Foundation projects" then my opinions on the matter are beside the point. It is, however, necessary to provide such sources explicitly. And to ensure such sources comply with the normal requirements of AfD discussions. How about some complete citations, together with a brief quotation or two, so we can get some sense of what scholarship has to say on this nebulous movement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nope, nope, and maybe. People keep posting non-RS or non-GNG sources and claiming they are GNG sources but they're not:
The Forbes piece is a Forbes contributor piece, not RS as it's listed red at RSP, see WP:FORBESCON.
The Journal of Organizational Change Management piece is written by a WMF trustee. Not independent.
The Warsaw School of Economics Press piece is written by a WMF grant recipient. Not independent.
The Polish one is in Polish, which I don't speak, so I can't really comment. Maybe that's one GNG source? But if so, it's the only one so far. Do we have a second? Levivich 16:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but a "WMF trustee" is not a "Wikimedia movement trustee", and a "WMF grant recipient" is not a "Wikimedia movement grant recipient". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes them not independent is that they are affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation, the owner of wikimedia.org. They've received money from the WMF (or are a trustee), and the WMF gets its money from donations to "Wikimedia" (or "Wikipedia", a subset of "Wikimedia"). They are part of the movement and thus not independent of the movement. It's like citing editors; it's not independent. Levivich 18:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Mabbett, your sources (assuming they actually are independent) certainly confirm that the phrase "Wikimedia movement" has been used, but is it always describing the same 'movement'? I suspect not. If the conclusion of this AfD is that there are sufficient independent sources on the subject of a 'Wikimedia movement' to justify an article, I'd have to suggest that they are also sufficient to demonstrate that the simplistic assertions regarding what this 'movement' is that the article currently presents readers with may not be justified. Both within this putative 'social movement' and outside, perceptions as to what it is, and what its limits are, seem to differ greatly. As one would expect them to, if a multilingual cross-cultural global 'movement' consisting of anyone and everyone who writes stuff on any of the websites of one specific non-profit organisation really is a thing at all. As for 'agenda-pushing', would you care to enlighten me as to what the agenda is, and what exactly it is pushing against? And to enlighten me as to where in Wikipedia policy it states that one isn't entitled to ask oneself exactly what it is one is participating in, or to disagree with others when they offer their own perspectives/agendas on the topic? Or is offering any opinion at all the problem, because it leads to uncomfortable questions as to our own individual motivations? A final heretical thought. If it is in the end concluded that there is sufficient independent sourcing to meet policy requirements for this topic, maybe it might be best per WP:IAR not to have the article anyway, on the basis that any participants in the process of creating it are inevitably too involved to do so neutrally, and that we should leave discussion of the topic to such outside sources as wish to offer their own diverse opinions on the matter. Or at least, not present our own conclusions as to what the 'movement' we are participating in is as some sort of independent tertiary source on the matter. That, in my opinion, is intellectually dishonest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the reliability of most sources in this discussion has been easily disputed, there is at least one source above that is likely not reliable (on independence grounds andWP:SCHOLARSHIP grounds), but it seems that discussing the connections of the author with this 'Wikimedia movement' would violate OUTING provisions, which makes it more difficult to assess & discuss the independence of the source. But it'd be quite a shambles if a non-independent source may be considered independent due to Wikipedia rules prohibiting discussing the connection. It's not enough to meet WP:THREE anyway, but the general note still has to be made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1. I wrote my book and the cited article before becoming a trustee, it is a red herring. 2. You seem to be forgetting that the role of academic peer review (which we put a lot of trust into on wiki) is exactly making sure that the author's bias does not cloud the outcome. All cited articles underwent a review and the "movement" part was not contested. Pundit|utter 05:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t referring to yourself or Piotrus actually, and yours is a good book generally, but while we’re on the topic, Piotrus’s paper says there have been few attempts so far to analyze it as a social movement. It does really have to be questioned, per Wikipedia:Independent sources, whether there’s a problem when every source making the rather exceptional claim is either on the WMF payroll, is in governance of the WMF or an affiliate, or is an esteemed Wikimedian and holds (or once held) positions of high stature in the described movement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On peer review: firstly, there is (AFAIK) no issue with having a COI and writing an article, although it is usually declared, so COI articles still get published. And also, the effectiveness of peer review in this regard does seem dubious. [45][46]ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the academic peer review process is designed to address 'notability' through third-party sourcing as the term is understood within Wikipedia AfD discussions. What Wikipedia might do with such material simply isn't a concern during such assessments. A source being peer reviewed is accordingly not something to be taken into account in that specific regard.AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have editors writing about themselves and then pointing to their own works as evidence of their own notability. That is obviously ridiculous. Ain't no such thing as a "Wikimedia movement" until a non-Wikimedian uses the term. We literally cannot find a single RS example of a non-Wikimedian using the phrase. Levivich 10:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia movement with appropriate edits. The discussion shows that 'Wikimedia movement' is not a "thing" but 'Wikipedia movement' is (see the paper discussed above which is claimed to back up "Wikimedia movement" but actually shows, as a main source, the existence of the Wikipedia movement). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons and reliable sources indicated above. Article easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew, Pigsonthewing, Pundit. Gamaliel (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - speaking of independence and COI, it'd be great if all the editors who have voted here and who have ever received money for being a Wikimedian (whether as a WMF employee, grant recipient, wikimedian in residence, reimbursement for expenses, or in any other form) would disclose that. (I have never received money.) Levivich 17:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This would make sense if the article was about the Wikimedia Foundation and not the Wikimedia movement, which alas does not send anyone a check for their volunteer work. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the money is donations that goes through the WMF, which solicits those donations by promoting "Wikimedia movement." If an editor has ever taken a dollar of donated money, or have had the job of being a "Wikimedian" (for the WMF or as a Wikimedian in residence for another institution), and is now voting to keep "Wikimedia movement", based on sources written -- exclusively -- by people who have also received donated funds... that's a huge COI multiple times over. To misquote Upton Sinclair, it's very hard to get a person to understand something when their salary depends on their not understanding it. I'm noticing a pattern amongst keep voters here and how many have at some point benefited financially from the "Wikimedia movement". Levivich 17:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to benefit financially from the Wikimedia movement. Based on the US minimum wage I estimate I am owed about $241,280 USD for my volunteer work. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the WMF... solicits...donations by promoting "Wikimedia movement."" – {{citation needed}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Here's a citation: the front page of www.wikipediafoundation.org which solicits donations and touts the "Wikipedia movement," specifically saying that the projects are at the core of the movement. Also like a kajillion other WMF solicitations. The WMF invented the term "Wikimedia movement" and use donated funds to promote it. On their website and elsewhere. Levivich 18:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not an independent, third-party source – which is something y'all keep reminding us we should have. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be childish. It's an WP:ABOUTSELF source to verify the statement, not to be confused with a GNG source to establish notability. Of course you know this already given your tenure and perms. Levivich 19:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With several books on the topic, it's so obviously obviously notable I'm not going to waste time explaining why. Which is entirely a different question of what and how things should be covered. I.E. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What books? They are about Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (first priority) or redirect (second) per nom, jpxg, and Levivich.
I'm not clear on what makes this a "movement". Generally a "movement" suggests a plurality of entities working towards a common goal with varying degrees of collaboration and organization (from "none" to "centrally coordinated"), not a term promoted by an organization in the direction of its customers and affiliates (cf. rebranding).
The graphics given in the article suggest that the center of the "movement" is actually the WMF,[47][48] which AFAIK wasn't set up as the coordinating body of a broader movement (eg. in a congress of Wikipedia chapters).
Note in the first graphics entities like Wikileaks, OpenStreetMap and Memory Alpha, two of which use a wiki model despite not being part of the "movement". We shouldn't mix the concept of a wiki with the particular implementation of the WMF and its network.
I'm not clear on whether a redirect would comply with WP:POFR or not, but am keeping the option open. François Robere (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party, independent, reliable source The Verge quoted a Board statement: “Harassment, toxic behavior, and incivility in the Wikimedia movement are contrary to our shared values and detrimental to our vision and mission,” said the board in a statement. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we know that the WMF likes to use the phrase 'Wikimedia movement'. Coca Cola likes to use the phrase 'Real Thing'. Red Bull likes to tell us that their brand of expensive fizzy-stuff 'Gives You Wings'. We don't have articles on fizzy-drink slogans, so why should we have one for the WMFs? As evidence for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a supposed global 'movement', resorting to third-party sources quoting the WMF looks like desperation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a list of slogans. Describing them as such. Not an article treating a single slogan as an independently-notable thing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and looking at the List of Coca-Cola slogans article, it suffers from much the same problems as the one being discussed here. Too much reliance on primary sources (i.e. the sugar-water vendor's own websites): starting with a lede consisting of a claim to notability sourced to said fizzy-drink supplier, and to an advertising-agency blog . As WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments go, that doesn't look too convincing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking, right? Quoting something doesn't mean the source is saying it in their voice. Otherwise WP:INTERVIEWs would be facts. And that's a passing mention. Does the source describe in its own voice what the Wikimedia movement is? The Verge can't be used in the article at all because the quote you provided cannot possibly be used to cite any fact. This nomination isn't about some kind of notability procedural trick, it's about the real problem of being unable to write policy-compliant articles about subjects that don't meet GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC) e: 18:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:N. Wikimedia.org web pages aren't "sources that are independent of the subject". Not when the article infobox lists wikimedia.org as the 'movement's own website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't believe Wikimedia, which runs Wikipedia, is notable enough to have an article about itself on Wikipedia? DreamFocus 19:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia is, but not because of any relation to Wikipedia (WP:INHERITED) but because they are independently notable. There would have been a point where they were not, and an even earlier point where Wikipedia should not have had a page on Wikipedia. (It did; I checked out of curiosity a while back, never imaging I would use the information here, but that is due to a different use case for the page, and weaker standards of notability). BilledMammal (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a publically well-known topic whereas Wikimedia isn't. Wikimedia funds and hosts its major league horse, Wikipedia, and rides it well, but then confuses itself that it has run a mile-and-a-half. As I mention above, the page should be renamed Wikipedia Movement, edited to form, and thus reflect the reality of wide common knowledge and common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikimedia, and restructure. I think there is enough independent sourcing to justify an article on the umbrella entity of wikimedia. That article could contain a section on how the various Projects under that umbrella entity can be viewed as being part of a broader “movement” (the issue of independence is less crucial when sourcing a section). Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This would be fine with me, if we can find sources defining what "Wikimedia" is? According to the current article, it is short for "Wikimedia movement" (ergo the same issue). So do we have sources that give it a clear, different definition to what the article currently says? According to Wikimedia Foundation, "Wikimedia" is short for "Wikimedia Foundation". A dab page at Wikimedia might also be a workable solution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously titled Wikimedia:
at 10:08, 22 April 2016 Dreamyshade moved page Wikimedia to Wikimedia movement ("Wikimedia" sometimes refers to WMF; renaming to Wikimedia movement to be clear about purpose of article)
The etymology of the term is given in the article lead. It's a compound of wiki and media. Wikipedia is the most notable example of wikimedia. The movement creates and maintains the wikimedia. The Foundation, which is part of the movement, provides financial and technical support to the movement. The movement is not a part of the Foundation. — wbm1058 (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per Piotrus, Andrew, others. Some folks may just be playing a silly political game here. Please don't waste people's time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For those who asked for the page numbers in Reagle and Koerner for "Wikimedia movement" they are 239-240, 243, 246, 248. More importantly, the book takes the academic view of a movement engaging a wide variety of people in a whole constellation of activities, e.g. different projects such as Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, WikiProjects (e.g. on Wikipedia), affiliates such as Chapters, thematic organizations, separate organizations such as the Internet Archive, ArbComs (on several projects), etc. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers are all very well, but as has already been noted, what is required for this article (like any other aricle being discussed at AfD) is third-party sourcing. It would seem self-evident that the chapter you reference does not meet Wikipedia standards as a third-party source when discussing the 'Wikimedia movement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andy - you seem to be saying that anything written by anybody who ever worked for a related employer is not an independent source. That sounds like a made-up policy. How about anybody who was ever considered part of the movement? Nope, don't think so. This is a peer-reviewed paper in an academic publication. You can disagree with it's content (which you appear to do) but to say that it's not an independent view? Nope. Now this is about the 16th time you've cross-examined somebody you disagreed with on this AfD. Why are you pushing so hard? Please take a step back. You might even want to read the rest of my comment above. Maybe even try to consider that people other than you have something to say here. And quit wasting people's time with this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So asking for in depth coverage of article content in third-party sources in an AfD discussion is a waste of time? Fascinating. Even if the source you cite were WP:RS, all it really indicates is that people use the phrase 'Wikipedia movement' without really defining it.
For the record, I didn't start this AfD. I don't think that nominating it for deletion without further discussion of the obvious issues was the wisest move, since the outcome was inevitable: a messy AfD discussion based around personal perceptions of what the term 'Wikimedia movement' is supposed to mean, rather than a cool-headed discussion of the broader issue of if and how Wikipedia should be describing itself and its contributors in an encyclopaedia that presents itself as a tertiary source. The article was nominated though, leaving me with little choice but to make my objections to this specific article as it stood, and its lack of use of independent sourcing in particular, plain.
As for disagreeing with content of that specific source, I've not really looked at it in depth beyond the chapter you cited, and even that only to the extent of confirming that the material on the pages cited isn't really very useful as a source for the article we are discussing. From a quick further skim I certainly don't disagree with at least one central premise of that chapter though. Aspiring to "build a Wikipedia that reflects the full breadth and depth of humanity" would seem a thoroughly worth objective. As would be tackling the marginalization of individuals and communities, and challenging the status quo. Which, to my mind, is best not done by making glib statements about a supposed 'movements' based on the prior perceptions of a single WMF project that has no authority whatsoever to speak out for others, as the article under AfD discussion here does. The English-language Wikipedia purporting to be a tertiary source on itself is questionable enough, but doing so in a manner that seemingly asserts its right to define a the motivations of every single contributor to each and every one of the WMFs many diverse projects as a mere extension of its own 'community' is worse still. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that argument would be equally valid to initiate the deletion of the articles Human and Earth, I guess. --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Maybe we can coax this guy into writing our human article. I hear he's a reliable, independent source. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that WP:GNG has been met with WP:THREE sources. If three sources that each meet GNG can be provided, I will happily switch my !vote - ping me. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching Google News I get plenty of results talking about the Wikimedia movement. Also, agreeing with Pundit and others. To be honest, I am surprised this isn't Snowball-closed. This doesn't mean the article cannot be improved. --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Denny; could you link three of those so that I can assess them for my own !vote? BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those search links seem to mostly bring up articles where the phrase "wikimedia movement" only appears in direct quotes from the Foundation. Could you link some of specific articles you mentioned? ApLundell (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quote I'm seeing is On 6 April 2013 Wikimedia France, the local chapter of the Wikimedia movement that runs Wikipedia, released a press statement that it had allegedly been contacted by the Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieure (DCRI), France's domestic spy and security agency, which was unhappy with an article about Pierre-sur-Haute, a military radio base run by the French air force. Nothing in that source supports the idea of a "Wikimedia movement" as a social movement; it's used as a synonym for "the Wikimedia organization". I'd also call it a passing mention that fails to be significant coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreeing with Pundit and others and adding one more source to those already mentioned. --Kritzolina (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to analyse the source: It's a conference paper as part of a larger volume, and I found the specific piece here on Springer Link. The single author is "John Andersson, [email protected]", who is the "Executive Director of Wikimedia Sverige", a WMF Chapter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many of the keep !voters have provided sources where the term is used, but virtually all of them only illustrate that the term is used by the Foundation to refer to its own volunteers. If "Wikipedia Movement" is only notable as a PR term used by the Foundation, it might as well just be a redirect to the Foundation. I believe this would have been uncontroversal for any other non-profit. ApLundell (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a term that the WMF uses in its own marketing, not an independently wiki-notable concept. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smallbones, wbm1058, and others. I've always pictured the movement like, well this picture. The movement extends a little outside just the Wikimedia community to encompass the overlap with other folks working in free knowledge. Ckoerner (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That graphic, which doesn't even mention Wikipedia, not only is a long way from the mental map of this place that I carry around but explains a lot of why the Wikimedia foundation, where you work as a Movement Communications Specialist, thinks it can impose something called Code Enforcement Officers on Wikipedians, and would even think of that name as a serious position. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of WP:FORUMing this, that graphic concerns me, not least due to the level of overlap of "donors" with "philanthropic actors", and lack of overlap with "readers" and "editors" - the last could be for clarity, but even so... BilledMammal (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed two graphics from the article. As an informal organization, it can't be described with org charts, bubbles or anything of that nature. I suppose the section about the Foundation could be expanded to describe the Foundation's official view of the movement, if they have one. I'm bothered by my increasing perception that the WMF seeks donations on the premise of supporting the yellow stuff, but then in a sort of bait-and-switch spends money on the blue stuff. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, long history and clear secondary notability. The term and concept predate the Foundation, and WMF doesn't "own" the movement in any way. Among other things this is why the Wikimedia community logo is not trademarked. – SJ + 16:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to doubt someone who was on the board of trustees, but ... do you have a 3rd party source for that? I don't think anyone has actually proposed one yet. ApLundell (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even read the article before you comment here? The name "Wikimedia" was coined by American author Sheldon Rampton in a post to the English-language Wikipedia's mailing list in March 2003, three months after Wiktionary became the second wiki-based project hosted on Jimmy Wales' platform, and three months before the Wikimedia Foundation was announced and incorporated. This is primary-sourced: Rampton, Sheldon (March 16, 2003). "Wikipedia English-language mailing list message". Archived from the original on November 1, 2005. Retrieved July 11, 2017. but as I was reminded above, independent sources are only needed for notability, not to prove facts. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having the etymology for the word "Wikimedia" isn't the same as having evidence of an actual social movement. Inferring the latter from the former is synthesis, at best. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What "movement"? Keep !votes need to be based on something more than the fond belief that we are part of something grand. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at the first "redirect" vote for a possible solution. Noting the December 2005 page move, we could move the Foundation article back to Wikimedia. That opens the door to covering the three topics Wikimedia, Wikimedia movement and Wikimedia Foundation in the same article. Or if there's too much material for a single article, then Wikimedia Foundation could be a summary-style subtopic of Wikimedia. Debian covers both the software and the project; Debian Project redirects to Debian as there is no need for a separate article about the Project. And nobody questions whether "the software" is a thing. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is a notable entity that meets WP:NORG. It should have its own article. We can't hijack the article of a notable thing (the WMF) just to be able to cover a non-notable thing (the Wikimedia movement). While I'm open to discussing other solutions, any solution that does an end run around our notability or core content policies should be a non-starter. I would also really appreciate it if any such proposals came with independent reliable sources to support, and if those sources were presented in a very clear manner (ie, not linking to search results or providing long lists of [questionable] source titles). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW everything valid here is already covered in Wikimedia Foundation, unsurprisingly:
So then your position is that all references to a "movement" should be removed from the Wikipedia Foundation article, as there is no movement, and "movement affiliates" are really Wikimedia Foundation affiliates? wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point was that a) the content here is already covered elsewhere (thus there is nothing to merge); b) the conclusion of this AfD cannot be to hijack and repurpose an article about a notable thing because some don't want to delete an article about a non-notable thing. But since this AfD has lost focus several times, I should've kept my point more simple and just said: this is AfD where we decide whether articles are deleted or not, and the page title of Wikimedia Foundation can be decided via WP:RM on its talk page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you're OK with the Foundation hijacking the movement, but not OK with the movement hijacking the Foundation. wbm1058 (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in debating any internal project issues regarding the Wikimedia movement. I'm interested in discussing an article that is currently in mainspace violating our core content policies and misleading our readers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're not interested in discussing another article that is currently in mainspace violating our core content policies and misleading our readers by claiming it supports and participates in a movement that no sources can be found to confirm even exists. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2021 (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. This is a messy discussion, with several issues bound together. Furthermore, since this has been moved back from draftspace after not-very-substantial improvement, the arguments from the first AfD still largely apply, and I am considering them together. The first issue is that of due process. It's quite clear that Wiki N Islam has not respected consensus here, and I will be leaving them a warning. The second issue is that of notability. Several editors have provided evidence that the concept of knowledge in Islam has been covered by reliable sources, and this has not really been rebutted. However, the third, and most critical, issue is the state of the article. While it is true that AfD is not meant for cleanup, that principle is intended for imperfect articles (ie most articles), not content that does a disservice to the reader. There is long-standing precedent for deleting an article that is full of egregious policy violations, and starting over, if that is justified. In this case, there's several editors discussing problems with original research that also have not been contested. As such there's clear consensus here to delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is essentially unchanged since 9 May 2021, when a deletion debate was closed with Draftify. It was then moved to draft space by closer User:Tone, and was moved back to article space on 11 May 2021, which was move warring against the consensus as found by the AFD. It was then moved back to draft space on 11 May 2021by User:Nearlyevil665. It was then moved back to article space on 19 August 2021 by User:Wiki N Islam. Rather than continuing the cycle of move-warring, I will let the community decide again. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article contains an unclear passage, which says, "According to Islam, every Muslim must have a basic knowledge of Islam. However, a group from every community or country must be a scholar of Islam, otherwise all must givean explanation to God in the Hereafter. God says in Quran, 'If it were not approved by each group of them, they would agree on figs and vow their people if they returned to them.' [Surat At-Tawbah, verse 122]" However, this alleged quotation from the Quran doesn't appear to match any version I can find; see [49], for example. Even if the quotation were accurate, it raises more questions than it answers. --Metropolitan90(talk) 04:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
nearlyevil665 is a party to this. It doesn't appear that anything has been done to the draft at AfC and the talk page for the article is almost empty. The AfC/draft approach does not seem to have been productive and so what is to be gained by repeating it? Draftication is not backdoor deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing productive has come out of the previous AfD because the author of the page sneakily recreated it three months after without addressing any of the concerns raised by the community in the initial AfD. This article was and is still today not in any shape or form ready for mainspace, by any standards. nearlyevil665 18:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Draftification of a highly notable topic is not the wiki way, as we are supposed to work on topics in main space, where everyone can find them and contribute. This is clear policy per WP:IMPERFECT which states that
Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.
And, per WP:NOTCLEANUP, AfD is not part of this editing process. If there are disputes about the content then they should be resolved by talk page discussion and RfC.
The main trouble in this case is that there is a huge amount of material to go through and such theological topics are not straightforward. A reading list follows but AfD can't be expected to work through this and resolve all the issues in 7 days.
The Concept of Knowledge in Islam : And Its Implications for Education in a Developing Country
Islam: Source and Purpose of Knowledge
Producing Islamic Knowledge: Transmission and dissemination
Women and the Transmission of Religious Knowledge in Islam
Classification of Knowledge in Islam
Knowledge and Education in Classical Islam
The Politics of Knowledge in Premodern Islam
Knowledge Triumphant: The Concept of Knowledge in Medieval Islam
Polymaths of Islam: Power and Networks of Knowledge in Central Asia
Delete Earwig finds extensive copyvio, including big blocks from a source that predates the article's creation by over a decade, so it's clearly not reverse copyvio. The text overall is deeply and inextricably POV. It also seems to be synthesizing topics from theology to medieval history to modern higher education, as though every subject in any book that has both "Islam" and "Knowledge" in the title is fair game. The sources are a grab-bag of the tangential and the unreliable, from an online dictionary entry for the word "science" to a book self-published on Lulu.com. We already have the articles Education in Islam, Islamic philosophy, and many more. This is not even a good starting point for another. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was already indicated in the previous AfD, "In what seems like an attempt to save the page from being sent to draftspace the author has copy pasted entire paragraphs from other Wikipedia articles, and potentially sources outside of Wikipedia as well (I haven't checked if all content comes from other wiki pages)." But this page wasn't deleted and was instead draftified to AfC where precisely nothing was done to address this. The basic problem here is that there's no collaboration – just a gauntlet of inspectors who do nothing to help. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD discussion is a collaboration, and if it results in a page being deleted, well, stopping people from trying to salvage the unsalvagable is helping. There isn't a well-defined, "highly notable" topic here; there's an amorphous blob with a title that makes it sound important. The closest approaches it makes to actual encyclopedia topics already have their own articles. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article seeks to be more than a mere "fork" on philosophy or education in Islam - this is (or should be) a much more focused topic of Islamic epistemology, which we need but don't have (only a small para under Islamic philosophy) .--౪ Santa ౪99° 03:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Firstly, this is a total abuse of the AFC process. The creator User:Wiki N Islam needs to be immediately banned for subverting the process by removing deletion tags[50], moving draft to mainspace immediately after AFD conclusion[51], repeating again[52]. Mr. Davidson, in good faith, argues "The AfC/draft approach does not seem to have been productive and so what is to be gained by repeating it? Draftication is not backdoor deletion." Well, it didn't work because the process has been abused. And about "backdoor deletion?" In my view, this is backdoor entry to mainspace, without an AFC reviewer's oversight. This is in itself a reason for deletion. Secondly, No editor has addressed the issues highlighted in the previous AFD. It was pointed out by several editors that the article suffers from WP:OR. The whole article is an written like a magniloquent essay with citations directly/indirectly quoting Quran and long paragraphs of unverified interpretations of Quran. On top of all that, there are so many assertions which are derived by WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia must provide objective and factual representation, and not a reproduction/interpretation of holy ancient texts to their readers. The "reading list" provided by Mr. Davidson is a fatuous argument because nobody is denying that the subject of the article is notable. One can create an article titled "Knowledge in Christianity" or "Consciousness in Hinduism" or any such broad theological topic, lace it with some quotations from a holy text and some reliable sources selectively chosen to match an interpretation that suits the editor. This cannot be allowed. - hako9 (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify again. This page was draftified after an AfD three months ago. In the meantime, the article creator made minimal edits to the article that didn't really address the reasons why the article had been up for deletion, and nobody else provided improvement either. After three months of no activity, the article was brought back to mainspace without further improvement. If people want to collaborate on this page, then they can do so in draftspace. --Metropolitan90(talk) 23:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that Wikipedia doesn't have articles titled Knowledge in Christianity, Knowledge in Hinduism, Knowledge in Buddhism, Knowledge in Judaism, or "Knowledge in ..." any other religion. That's not to say that those other articles should or shouldn't exist. I'm just saying that the omission of this article would not leave a gap when compared to coverage of other religions in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90(talk) 15:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It is complete time-waster for everybody involved. The ref's are complete mess and whole thing is junk. scope_creepTalk 12:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- between the long history of copyvio, the inherently WP:SYNTH nature of the content, and the article's owner being willing to neither accept the result of the last AfD nor improve the article such that the last AfD becomes moot--- it's quite clear that this is a hopeless case. If it is draftified it would also need to be greenlocked to stop the owner from sneaking back in three months to move it again. ReykYO! 15:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If other editors wish to recreate, it is better served to start over. I would also salt to prevent the above behavior from simply returning. Onel5969TT me 13:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - at first glance I wavered between “Draftify” and “Delete,” but I was drawn to Andrew Davidson’s deep conviction, expressed above as “speedy keep,” and after re-reading his eloquent reasoning in a well-written post, it swayed my final decision to go with a "strong keep". I immediately moved away from "Delete" mostly because I've never been in favor of "AfD" proposals, where articles clearly have the potential to say something and be informative, just because they have a number of different weak but fixable points - and this is one such article.--౪ Santa ౪99° 03:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may have been moved by Mr. Davidson's passionate reasoning, but, with all due respect, this is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. - hako9 (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got the facts on your side, pound on the facts. If you've got policy on your side, thump the policy. When neither facts nor policy are on your side, pound the table. ReykYO! 12:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The articles that "have the potential" to be informative despite their "weak but fixable points" already exist: Islamic philosophy, etc. This article is all weak points. The "fix" is deletion. And while "eloquence" is a matter of taste, I have to admit that copying titles out of the first couple pages of a Google Books search doesn't do it for me. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2021 (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.
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
