Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 24 December 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to D. C. Douglas. Closing as "redirect" rather than "delete" given that no arguments have been made against redirecting specifically; however, there is consensus that a standalone article isn't appropriate at this time, and any re-creation would need to be backed by substantively better sourcing. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duck, Duck, Goose![edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG—No references or coverage. Picked up by minor film festivals. I'm not seeing anything that would suggest notability. BriefEdits (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Found this [1] at Film Threat DonaldD23 talk to me 17:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG—No RS - lots of film festivals mentioned, but otherwise not secondary commenting. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to D. C. Douglas (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I support a redirect to the article for the director of the film where the film is already discussed. Preserving the history will allow for a selective merge and for the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG—No RS. The only listed source is IMDB, which being crowd sourced, could have been posted by the film's creators. There's no sourcing to indicate this as notable or even credible as a real film short. — Maile (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to D. C. Douglas per nom. While the source provided above is good, we need more than one to show notability. Link20XX (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to D. C. Douglas KylieTastic (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keibu Keioiba[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination as the outcome of the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 7#Keibu Keioiba. This article about a character from Manipuri folklore was created in 2017, and then boldly redirected in May 2021 to Meitei folklore. Given the current absence of any relevant content at that target, there's consensus that the redirect is not appropriate. So, is the topic notable? Should the article be kept, merged or deleted? – Uanfala (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors who have recently been involved with the article or the redirect: AFreshStart, Lenticel, Aervanath, TrangaBellam. – Uanfala (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Hi, AFreshStart, your statement reads as if you're under the impression that this is a discussion about a redirect; would you mind clarifying whether you believe the article Keibu Keioiba should be deleted or not?--Aervanath (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right; I was mistaken. I think the article should be deleted (the sources don't seem reliable to me) and the redirect should not be recreated. Thanks! AFreshStart (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now due to reliable sources issues unless someone well versed in Meitei folklore can create an article sourced from Indian references. --Lenticel (talk) 23:30, 31 December 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 speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 13:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atak Domain[edit]

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

Web hosting company does not seem to meet WP:NCORP- appears to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL web hosting company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Styyx. I am happy for the AfD to be closed so that a G5 can be done, or just let this AfD run its course. Whichever is easiest for the admins involved. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:29, 26 December 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 redirect to Squid Game#Episodes. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Light, Green Light (Squid Game)[edit]

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

this section of the Squid Game's article doesn't need being duplicated. This article can either be deleted or return into a redirect Dr Salvus 19:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Dr Salvus 19:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Squid Game#Episodes --Whiteguru (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most likely all of the episodes received enough secondary coverage to justify standalone entries, but source collecting and expansion are needed. If editors decide an independent article is not needed at this time, redirecting is more appropriate than deleting altogether because the redirect serves a purpose and the edit history should be saved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Squid_Game#Episodes. I am unable to find sourcing that discussed it in enough depth to warrant a standalone article. Star Mississippi 01:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I think we've generally moved on from assuming individual episodes are notable. Even with the attention this show got, there's no need to have a standalone page to duplicate the plot summary. Reywas92Talk 07:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Series released in bulk rarely see one episode gain individual notability. If anything, only this shows sixth episode with the marbles game has been discussed in depth but even then zi don't know if it would qualify. --Masem (t) 15:32, 29 December 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Inlet Aerodrome[edit]

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

Non-notable microstub on an abandoned airport. Existing refs do not establish any notability, and from a before search I could not find anything more than passing mentions. The airport existed, but isn't notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:43, 25 December 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 redirect to List of airports in Newfoundland and Labrador#Defunct airports. ✗plicit 00:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Falls Aerodrome[edit]

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

Non-notable abandoned airport microstub. I found nothing beyond "it exists" from a basic before search. This should be redirected to List of airports in Newfoundland and Labrador#Defunct airports. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:33, 25 December 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 redirect to List of airports in Newfoundland and Labrador#Defunct airports. ✗plicit 00:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelin Falls Aerodrome[edit]

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

Non-notable microstub on a defunct airport. I found literally nothing from a before search, let alone significant coverage. This should be redirected to List of airports in Newfoundland and Labrador#Defunct airports. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I couldn't find sources either. - Headphase (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom to the list article. MB 04:09, 26 December 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consultadd Inc[edit]

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

Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent RS. Fails WP:NCORP MB 16:26, 25 December 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kimber James[edit]

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

Fails GNG and ENT. Sourcing is below the standard required for a BLP. Spartaz Humbug! 14:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 25 December 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 redirect to Freddie and the Dreamers. ✗plicit 00:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Crewdson[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Been reverted twice from redirect. Completely non-notable. scope_creepTalk 13:21, 25 December 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Malik[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician. A lot of pr I can see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Packistani/Archive. Maged El Sadat (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In its present state, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. BBQboffin (talk) 01:00, 28 December 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 13:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor Ravi[edit]

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

Failed a before search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 13:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find a credible reference. Just a TOI link, which talks about him being in a season of Big Boss. Is this a sign of notability? I don't think so. AKzinc (talk) 18:10, 25 December 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 00:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepthi Sunaina[edit]

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

Non-notable actress/youtuber. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, and no significant roles in notable productions to meet WP:NACTOR. Ab207 (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, large number of followers on social media or subscriber count on YouTube is not a valid requirement for satisfying notability. Mujinga, please see criteria no. 2 for WP:NACTOR as well as WP:NYOUTUBE. Also, Wikipedia has not mentioned it anywhere that articles created by new editors shouldn't be taken to AfD. A 7 months old registered account (knows how to misuse userpage is not a newcomer). TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. DMySon (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article needs a little clean-up by removing the Videography and Music Videos section. Other than that, the rest of the sources seem reliable, including the ones indicated by Mujinga. The article is far from passing WP:NACTOR since she only appeared in a movie so far, but since she's a YouTuber, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Superastig. Most references are either from gossip sites or related to Bigg Boss show. Can you pick WP:THREE to support that the subject passes GNG? -- Ab207 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant roles and not enough coverage to qualify for GNG. BASIC could be considered if the coverage was not as much routine or sensational and actually discussed and critiqued her work. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a). Reality TV contestants are not notable. b). The subject has played minor role in a film, says IMDb. 3). For YouTube, it clearly lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not feel this meets WP:NACTOR and there's lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources. So a complete GNG fail. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue (TV series)[edit]

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

Article about a television show, which is completely unreferenced and has been tagged as such for over a decade. To be fair, at the time this was created in 2010, we did hand television shows an automatic presumption of notability, regardless of the state of sourcing in the article, as long as it was possible to verify that the show existed -- but that rule has since been tightened up considerably, and a television show's eligibility for a Wikipedia article is now much more clearly tied to whether it clears WP:GNG on the sources.
But there are no footnotes here, and I can't find anything better on a Google search, and even in Derek Conway's article his hosting of this show was referenced solely to a YouTube clip from this show, which is not a valid or notability-supporting reference and had to be stripped from there too. And for added bonus, the article is so poorly maintained that the show is apparently still in the same second series it was already airing eleven years ago.
As I don't have access to any databases in which I could retrieve archived British or European media coverage from 11 years ago that may not have Googled, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to such resources can find enough to salvage it -- but we don't keep unsourced articles just because it's possible that better sources might exist than anybody has actually found or shown, we keep poorly sourced articles only if better sources are demonstrated to exist. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From a quick search I found a couple potential sources for this article. [2] and [3]. None of them are very in depth coverage of the programme though. The articles are more about the scandal of a British politician appearing on an Iranian state owned TV channel than the show itself. The article itself seems to be error prone, it says it started in 2001 but is on series 2 (presumably in 2010?) thats a long first series, I assume 2001 was a typo and they meant 2010 but there are no sources I can find to confirm Eopsid (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ken Livingstone#Unsuccessful election: 2008–2014, where it's mentioned and critically talks about the effect of them hosting the show, while to the uninitiated this text reads as a simple book review programme where someone unfamiliar with Iran might wonder why this has an article. Nate • (chatter) 19:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 25 December 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 numerically even, but the "delete" opinions are considerably stronger. The criteria that could apply here are WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:ANYBIO. No evidence of the subject meeting GNG has been presented. References are made to WP:CREATIVE, but that part of the guideline makes no reference to awards at all. Significant awards are instead mentioned in ANYBIO, which is not directly referenced, but I will assume that that is what is meant when this person's awards are mentioned. No evidence is provided that the "WBNS 10TV Walter Cronkite Award" is in fact a significant award; as one editor points out, it is not the same as the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism. Similarly, the concern that a regional Emmy is not sufficient for individual notability has not been rebutted. In sum, no convincing evidence of notability has been provided. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Heath (news anchor)[edit]

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

I'm struggling to figure out if he meets the WP:GNG and leaning toward "no". The description for the 2013 Cronkite award to WBNS did not mention Heath ( [4] ), and the Emmys are all regional and do not confer notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello. This notice was a surprise, I've been a supporter of Wikipedia for over a decade and believe in its amazing work. My name is on the WBNS 10TV Walter Cronkite Award, and I was present at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. to accept it. I have photos from the event if that would be helpful. In addition, my interview with presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2012 made national news, including being immortalized in the book Double Down: Game Change by Mark Halperin. As for the Emmy Awards, it is true they are regional, but as your own article on Emmy Awards states: "Regardless of winning on a national or regional level, all recipients are Emmy Award winners." [[5]] Let me know if there is any other information you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHeathWiki (talk • contribs) 03:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - well one thing we now know: the article is an autobiography (which Richhoncho suspected way back in 2007), and JimHeaathWiki is a sock of Beachanchor. I also wonder how many of the contributors to the page, with very low edit counts and only have edited this article are also socks: BenignTumor27, FellowesGray, WPDE TV, NortInwol4, AArontrpro23, and Notrisp (who also edited another article, but only to add Jim Heath to it) are just the first half dozen of about 20 of these SPA accounts. If the article does end up being kept, then it should be protected so that only autopatrolled editors can make changes. Onel5969 TT me 11:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Having made my spiel above, the Emmy's and Cronkite award are more than enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 TT me 11:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry User:onel5969, but, regional Emmy's and this specific Cronkite award don't count towards notability (he did not win the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism). The two Emmy's he won are from the Ohio Valley. Other than that, I'm not seeing anything else that really qualifies the subject for a Wikipedia article. It's either passing mentions (i.e. [6][7]) or WP:NOTNEWS situation that brought on venom from the metal scene[8][9]. He did get interviewed on C-SPAN for his book and he was also the feature of this paywalled article, but, the book was not reviewed in any notable publications. I'm not seeing how this subject meets our notability guidelines at this time. Missvain (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Regional Emmys are Emmys. It is a well-known and signifcant award. He won them and that's notable. If we want to change the policy and say "regional awards don't count, only national awards do", or "there has to be WP:SECONDARY and WP:SIGCOV" of the award win itself", we could make that change too. But until those changes are made, a sourced Emmy win is itself notable by our guidelines. The Romney question and the Dayton metal spat are secondary events that overcome WP:BIO1E. If there are pictures of the Cronkite Award win from the National Press Club, and they are uploaded to Wikipedia Commons with CC0, I can add one to the article. Too bad there's all this sockpuppetry; it disinclines me to want to help the article.BBQboffin (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From my observations of other RFDs, where journalists are awarded regional emmy's for local TV stations (in this case a local Ohio award) they are not regarded as notable, in the same way as a National Emmy. Jim Heath notes his name was on the Walter Cronkite award - correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem he didn't personally win the award, it was awarded to the channel or program? If so, that really doesn't qualify as him winning the award in the sense of adding to his personal notability. Looking at the references, as far as I can tell, none of them discuss or feature him in a secondary way that establishes notability. IN addition to the fact the article has allegedly been added to by Jim Heath himself, using a sockpuppet!!....hmmm.... Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Ohio Valley region" includes 13 news markets in the 4-state region of Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Indiana.[10] It's not a "a local Ohio award". NATAS has 20 regions for the US so on average, there's >10M people in each; that's the population of Sweden, Portugal, or Belgium. If he won the top national journalism award 3 times in Sweden or Portugal, would we be questioning his notability? Since his market is <50% of the US population, he's ineligible to be nominated for a national Emmy here. The rationale is that if there's an earthquake in California or a hurricane in New Orleans, an Ohio journalist would not be able to create similar content for comparison. When a station is given an award, everyone named on the nomination gets the iconic statuette. We should have some set standard since there are hundreds of winners each year: maybe we say that when you've won 3 or them or 5 of them then they count (and ignore mere nominations). But counting them as worthless (when it's the highest award that a non-national journalist could possibly win, and they won multiple times) doesn't seem the right policy. BBQboffin (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Choroideremia Research Foundation[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable advocacy group with the references being either its own publications or the announcement of its programs. promotionalism is promotionalism regardless of the worthiness of the cause DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Totally agree with the above. Good cause, but not WP:N and so not relevant to this encyclopaedia - Such-change47 (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:PROMO standards not met for reasons stated above. Article merely promotes the organisation, rather than adding value to Wikipedia.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:01, 25 December 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Obi[edit]

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

I will be glad if this article survives this AFD, but I honestly can't see anything compelling about her career as an IT entrepreneur. Even her app website is throwing an error as at today 1. Fails WP:GNG. HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just noticed there was a previous AFD that ended in a delete. I am now more persuaded that it should be deleted. As nothing significant about her has happened in 2021.HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete  – Sourced to sponsored posts. A BEFORE brings up more sponsored posts.Princess of Ara 14:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Same statement from Princess of Ara. She’s correct.--Tcgchv (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The previous AfD was somewhat adulterated by the voting of User:SwisterTwister, a frequent editor of the AfD pages before being blocked for sockpuppeting. But the core conclusion hasn't changed - there are too many promotional articles and there doesn't seem to be enough WP:RS articles to support notability. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fiachra10003 (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Azekwoh[edit]

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

Young promising artist that fails WP:GNG HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:44, 25 December 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. The "keep" opinions are weaker. They are based on the supposed academic importance of the journal as per WP:NJOURNAL, a page that has essay status - that is, it does not reflect Wikipedia community consensus. The "delete" opinions, on the other hand, stress the lack of reliable independent sources that cover this journal. This is a very strong (and unrebutted) argument, because it reflects WP:V, a core policy. Sandstein 13:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (journals) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: None of the indexing services mentioned are selective in the sense of NJournals, being held in some libraries is trivial, being peer-reviewed or not is irrelevant to notability, and concerning authors being notable WP:NOTINHERITED applies. That leaves the number of GScholar citations, which looks like a decent amount at first sight, but over 1000 of those citations are for a single article. If these citations mean anything, why has, say, Scopus not yet picked it up? --Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Randy said, we have to remember that NJ is subordinate to GNG. Did you find any WP:SIGCOV of this journal? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just ran this search an advanced search in Google scholar, on publication title. That gives me 977 articles from "Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History" in Google scholar. I looked through just the first six pages, and all of the individual articles from the journal were cited... by between 6 and 40 other articles. I then ran an additional search on JSTOR - and found 311 article/books that had cited work from it. This definitely would appear to meet WP:NJournals "Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources". criteria 2. 2 (c) allows for using worldcat as a measure to see if the journal is listed in a number of libraries, which it appears to be.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If those citations are really that substantive, then why has not a single selective citation database picked up this journal (GScholar includes everything, so being included in there is as significant as being indexed by Google)? And I disagree with #2(c) as WorldCat is notoriously unreliable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 2 of WP:NJournals simply refers to a journal being regularly cited, which there is ample evidence of in Google Scholar. Your question about selective citation database indexing refers to a different criteria (Criteria 1b), which it doesn't meet - however it does meet criteria 2, so it does meet the requirements for WP:NJournals. As for Worldcat, it is specifically mentioned as a valid measure by WP:NJournals."For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries when evaluating whether C2 is satisfied. This information is often available in Worldcat" Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, NJournals does not give any indication how many citations suffice for #2. You think it's enough, I disagree. As for WorldCat, in my experience it is all too often unreliable. It may list a certain library to have a journal, but if one then checks the catalogue of that library itself, that turns out to be incorrect. Also very often journal-related info (such as publisher) is incorrect, too. NJournals should be adapted, but even though it's just an essay and not a guideline, that's almost impossible to do. (Look at its history, many editors find it too lenient, but equally many find it too restrictive). Unless something clearly meets #1 (which can be verified by independent sources, I prefer to go with WP:GNG, which this journal fails by a mile. --Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think at this point, it's probably best we agree to disagree, but thank you very much for the discussion -cheers buddy. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, let's see what other editors think. Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A journal, published by a university press, will almost inevitably consist of peer-reviewed articles, which are likely to be regularly cited. Unfortunately, history is rather less well-covered by various citation indices and abstraction services, whose focus tends to be scientific. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: being peer-reviewed does not mean that a journal is notable. And if you look at Scopus, for example, you'll find dozens of history journals (and journals in other academic fields). Of course, even if you were correct that such journals are not or less well covered, that would just reinforce the case for deletion: if a subject is not covered by reliable sources, we cannot have an article on it. --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would tend to agree with Peterkingiron on scopus - I'm a University Librarian, and while scopus does cover the arts, its rep is more around science. You can see on their documentation their coverage of history is a lot less than science Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "History" is a much smaller field than "science", so of course there are fewer history journals in Scopus. From the link that you gave, I don't see that history is covered less extensively than science (there's one table that might suggest that, but that table is an example analyzing research output in Australia only). In fact, most of that document reports on how well they are actually covering the humanities and social sciences. --Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD reviewer comment - I am recusing myself from reviewing this due to a conflict of interest. Missvain (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Deathlibrarian's analysis is persuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we go by sources not our own research, and no sources cover this journal. It is not indexed in any selective databases, and does not have any coverage that would meet WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:49, 25 December 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Langdon[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:NAUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:31, 25 December 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 11:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Bahadur Sapkota[edit]

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

WP:UPE spam; fails WP:GNG anyway. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:27, 25 December 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. After much-extended time for discussion and robust participation, there is a reasonably clear consensus to keep this article and merge University of Toronto School of Public Policy and Governance into it, no support for outright deletion, and no reason to expect that further relisting would change that result. BD2412 T 01:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Munk School of Global Affairs[edit]

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

Non-notable sub-entities of the University of Toronto. The Toronto Star source is currently the only independent reliable source that covers the Munk school in some detail. The CBC article is WP:ROUTINE coverage of a new director. I searched Canadian Newsstream (Canada newspaper database) and while I could find many quotes in articles from people who work at the Munk School, I couldn't find anything from independent reliable sources about the Munk School itself aside from WP:ROUTINE coverage of directors/professors being hired there. Many press releases though. For the SPPG, I could find no sources on Newsstream either that don't fall into "press release" or WP:ROUTINE coverage of people being hired to teach there. While I didn't dig through more than 4 pages of search results by relevancy or so (the professors get quoted A LOT), I didn't see any evidence of notability in the sample I took. Per WP:NORG, these sources fail WP:SIRS as I could only find one that passes the test for the Munk school. Also note WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, subentities of a university generally aren't notable on their own unless they're especially significant. These seem like somewhat above average public policy programs. While the articles make claims about the competitiveness of the schools and their low student population, I'd rather see a reliable source mentioning how good the school is rather than a primary source being WP:SYNTHed with the original research that good schools have low enrolment to prove that the Munk School is good. The enrolment numbers could be low for other reasons. I decided to bundle these nominations as the schools were merged in 2018 and the SPPG article, despite the name, appears to be mostly written about the merged entity and not the historical entity of the SPPG that was merged with the Munk Centre. I would ask for a delete or redirect because there's really not much sourced content to merge here other than fluff about its history and overwritten puffery about the program. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note the other page to be deleted is University of Toronto School of Public Policy and Governance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, I know notability isn't inherited and all that, but take as an example this article, on a laboratory at the Munk School: Citizen Lab. There's an article that in-depth on something that is just part of the Munk School. For another in-wiki comparison, the school is part of the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs; nearly every member school here has its own Wikipedia page (the ones that don't are almost all in non-Anglophone countries). Compare also the list of partner schools for the MPP program (all with their own articles). As the nominator says, experts from the school are frequently in Canadian media, or the school partners with them outright, example: [12]. Yes, that kind of coverage isn't "independent" in Wikipedia terms, but that seems to me more a guideline designed to prevent self-published puff pieces from being used as major sources. The school's experts are frequently cited in national media, because they are the school's experts. How does that fail to establish the fact that this is a notable institution? If this school were independent of the University of Toronto it would unquestionably be notable, like other major public policy schools; it's in the press more often than most Canadian universities. Here's Maclean's specifically mentioning the Munk School as a particularly acclaimed part of the University of Toronto in its ranking of school reputation: [13]. This isn't some nothing corporation trying to game Wikipedia with a bunch of advertisements and press releases. It's a major Canadian institution. -- asilvering (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment: I'm new here, my first time jumping into one of these discussions. I'm jumping in because I have an interest in the topic of global affairs and (at risk of throwing in opinion and original research) the Munk Schoool is obviously important to me, from a common sense perspective of someone who follows global affairs. Also, I recognize that my personal opinions on the matter are based on my human experiences and not wikipedia rules, so if it's more helpful, I'd be happy to try and find quality sources and add them to the article? Would that be helpful, or is this the wrong time to do something like that? CT55555 (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 This is exactly the right time to try to improve the article! Many articles are vastly improved during the AfD process. Avoid doing something that looks like a WP:REFBOMB - that doesn't do the article or anyone else any favours. -- asilvering (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Not sure how to categorize and substantiate this AfD. So, I'll refrain from voting. Pinging DGG and Timtrent for an expert's call. -Hatchens (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We've been very reluctant to make articles for individual academic departments and institutes, but fairly liberal about quasi-independent med and law schools. The question is what's the nature of this one. The nearest analogies are business schools, where we have sometimes but not always accepted separate articles. I think the key factors are the degree of independence, the extent to which it is widely recognized internationally in its own right, the standing within the ranks of similar schools, the number and prominence of alumni, the extent to which there is encyclopedic content, not just a list of programs and courses, the possibiltles for a non-promotional article, and of course the extent to which references discuss it separately, In this case I notice that over half the content is a mere listing of degrees and courses, and that the university seems to treat it as being capable of merged with other departments. But I also see a controversy of encyclopedic significance, the sort of content about the role of the funder that is likely to attract sources. (I notice however that the section is presently inadequately sourced especially for something inherently politically controversial, with no attempt at NPOV. And the issue arose over 10 years ago, so I'd expect better by now) I see no information about notable faculty or alumni, no information about reputation, no 3rd party sources about anything other than the funding issue and executive transitions. ,
So at this point I think itshould be merged tothe university,withthe possibility of future expansion. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Both to University of Toronto: I note DGG's merge opinion. I am not sure whether they saw the nomination of the second article or not, but it matters little. The Munk article suffers more from being pretty much an advert for a load of courses than does the UoTSPP&G , but neither should exist outside the parent article. Schools/Deparrtments are very unusual if they carry sufficient notability to have separate articles. My view is that they do not FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I'm just going to redirect the SPPG article to the Munk School if this gets closed as keep. This is because the SPPG article isn't really about the former SPGP, but is mostly about the Munk School in its present state. That's also why I bundled it in here. Chess(talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess: I do think it is a good idea to merge and redirect SPPG to the Munk School. I think they essentially share a notability claim. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cosigning this. I see no reason to keep the SPPG article when it can be merged into the Munk School one. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've just gone through the SPPG article and moved everything that seemed relevant in to the Munk School article. The only possibly-relevant thing I didn't transfer was the stuff about admissions requirements, which just didn't seem encyclopedic. The things I did transfer would also benefit from some further pruning, sourcing, etc, but seem reasonably useful. If this AfD closes as keep for Munk, I think SPPG should redirect to Munk. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen Lab which I have opened today as an adjunct to the discussion here. It was obviously far too late to include it in this discussion in any valid manner, but it is a laboratory within this school, within this university FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It feels a little like non-Canadian editors might assume that if they have not heard of a school, nobody has heard of it, but when something is important in Canada it is important in real life. The University of Toronto is the single largest and most influential school in Canada; it is collegiate university whose sub-schools are often larger and older than full-fledged universities. It is by its nature an unusual school, and therefore not surprising that it might contain many constituent parts which are more notable than similar programs elsewhere, as with the thirty-nine Colleges of the University of Oxford and their halls that all have their own articles. I especially think it is worth paying attention to the frequent and widespread coverage of the Munk school's directors. For example, Globe & Mail 2010, Globe & Mail 2014 with an interview feature, CBC 2019. The nom calls this coverage WP:ROUTINE, but national news organizations like the CBC and Globe & Mail do not routinely cover every new department head for U of T's English department (which I would say is not notable compared to the Munk school); they do not even routinely cover every new dean for smaller universities like Trent University. The fact that the director of the Munk school is considered a consistently newsworthy topic, not just in student papers or local news but nationally, shows that people well outside of the Munk school are taking note of it.~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify after some discussion above, since there are 2 articles nominated for deletion-- I support keep Munk, redirect SPPG to Munk. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's still WP:ROUTINE coverage for other organizations and I don't see why we're applying a different standard here because WP:ILIKEIT. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t assume I like the Munk school. My argument is that, although these articles discuss “the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel”, they exceed routine coverage because they are not “standard notices, brief announcements”: even when ordinary professors get hired to the Munk school, the event is covered with independent reporting (not reprinted press releases) of several hundred words. This is also just one kind of coverage that the Munk school has received. There are also the articles about its founding and the Munk donation, and constant coverage of individual research activities and events within it.
Also, for more clarification about U of T as a collegiate institution— U of T literally contains multiple independent universities inside it which grant their own separate degrees, University of Toronto Mississauga and University of Toronto Scarborough. It’s a bit like UNC Charlotte and UNC Chapel Hill? So it applies a false standard to consider UTM or, I argue, the Munk school as being a “department” of U of T. The profs are not called U of T profs (unlike eg the profs in the English department), they are called UTM or Munk School profs. It’s a weird system for sure! But that’s why I think unusual school outcomes would apply. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that you like the University of Toronto or the Munk School over other universities, but that you're applying a different standard here than for other similarly situated entities because it's a university. The coverage you've provided is pretty much a textbook example of WP:ROUTINE. In fact, routine/trivial coverage is explicitly mentioned in WP:NORG as encompassing coverage "of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel". I'm not really seeing a cogent reason as to why we should ignore that. You've said there's "independent reporting", but the first source you provided is an interview (not independent) & a primary source. The second source reads like a paean to the Munk School/Dr Toope, especially the last few lines in the online version: [14] "Dr. Stein, who will take a sabbatical before returning to teach at the Munk School, describes Dr. Toope as a rare combination of scholar, leader and fundraiser who can excite civil society about a university's work." Is this writer truly neutral/impartial with a line like that? Not to mention it's still just trivial coverage of a staff change with a bunch of flowery prose added about how great the person in question is for the great job at a really great school. The third source you've provided is the same as the first source; not as in that it's also an interview but it's the same interview. And the fourth (CBC) source you provided is just a reprint of this [15] press release.
You say that articles about the Munk School itself that aren't routine coverage exists. I still have not seen any. Where is this "constant coverage" of activities at the Munk School? Because I haven't seen much unless you mean Citizen Lab and the Munk School doesn't WP:INHERITORG notability from that. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
on the connection to Peter Munk: discussed in a bookfront page G&M as mentioned in book[16][17][18][19]
other coverage of founding: [20][21][22][23][24]
analyzing the school: [25]
coverage of school activities/programs: TIFF partnershipjournalism programdirect diplomacy project another donorwater program[26] partnership with Delvinia SSHRC grant conference talkdual masters
the book prize they award: [27][28][29][30][31][32] <-- I stopped but there's coverage every year, always mentioning the talk the winner gives at the Munk School
heads of school: [33][34][35][36][37]
professors hired: [38][39] [40][41]
brief mentions: [42] ("the Centre for International Studies... will be absorbed by the expanding Munk School of Global Affairs") [43] history of a building
There is more. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, some more I had open in tabs: [44][45][46][47] ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And from MacLeans: [48][49][50][51]~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LEvalyn. The internal affairs of the Munk School get coverage by RSs in ways that other similar institutions don't. In addition, there was national news coverage of when the initial Munk donation was made and protested by students. Similarly, Citizen Lab, which is also notable and under the Munk School has multiple RS about its activity. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:INHERITORG. Parent entities don't inherit notability from sub entities. I don't doubt Citizen Lab is notable, but that doesn't make the Munk School notable. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks you, I'm familiar with INHERITORG. What it actually says, is " A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries" [emphasis added]. This means that if the only coverage by reliable sources a parent entity (i.e. the Munk School) gets is in the context of a notable sub-entity (i.e. Citizen Lab), then the parent entity doesn't automatically become notable on that basis alone and should probably redirect to the sub-entity. This is especially true if such coverage doesn't even bother to mention the parent entity. INHERITORG does not prevent coverage from reliable sources in the context of its connection to the sub-entity from being used to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Citizen Lab is usually referenced in context of its connection to the Munk School [52][53][54]. Other aspects of the Munk School also get non-routine coverage, from the elevated treatment of its leadership changes detailed elsewhere in this AFD as well as the controversy over its name, which got coverage in reliable sources then and still gets coverage in academic publication decades afterwards as an example of inappropriate corporate influence in Canadian universities.[55][56][57][58][59][60]. Together, this is enough to meet WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LEvalyn. The Munk School is of considerable notability in Canada and should maintain its article. This is especially evident in the fact that Munk School faculty members (where they are referred to as such rather than as UofT Faculty) are regularly quoted in issues of global affairs and policy, in both Canadian and non-Canadian publications. For example, CBC News 2021 Thejacxb (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thejacxb: Please read the WP:NORG requirements on trivial coverage: "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources," do not serve to establish notability. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to University of Toronto per DDG and Timtrent. I think that's a good alternative to deletion, but there isn't enough in-depth coverage of this out there to justify an individual article. I don't think that people from there are quoted in news stories helps either. Otherwise, make specific articles about those people if they are notable enough to justify one. In the meantime notability isn't inherited and we don't have articles for random places that famous celebrities have worked. Let alone random intellectuals. Merging what's usable is fine though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder if an RfC or something is needed to build consensus for a school SNG, more specific than WP:NORG and more binding than WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I have never opened an RfC and don't really know how it works but it seems like there might be a need. For example, I think we all agree that University of Toronto itself is notable, but I can't see how the sourcing on that article is any more satisfactory than what we have for the Munk School: it is all either discussing sub-entities (such as individual programs and professors) which might not be inherited, or it is published by University of Toronto sub-organizations. I think the Munk School passes GNG and an SNG is not needed for a pass, but is there interest in hashing out more school-specific guidelines? If so I don't really know the next steps-- maybe a conversation that should happen on my talk page? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LEvalyn: You might try Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) to brainstorm some kind of policy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To me it's exceptionally strange that we're debating deleting this in the context of (as I see it) meeting the general notability requirements, plus it being the Global Affairs school of what Canada's biggest and most notable university. I realize that this could seem like original research to say that for those of us who work in global issues this article is blatantly obviously notable, but it's also common sense. Even just the naming of the place (i.e. after the owner of Barrick Gold) is exceptional notable for its controversial juxtaposition. CT55555 (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument that since the school is named after a notable person, that it must be notable is extremely questionable. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess Here's evidence that supports my statement: https://www.foreignpolicy.ca/new-page-93 CT55555 (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also highlight the "Canada’s most influential global studies program" bit in there... -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess "even the naming", not "even the name". The controversy itself generated quite a bit of attention in national news and books. (See comment from L above for some more links about that in particular.) -- asilvering (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Planning Excellence[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows notability per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The second AfD had a mention of Plan Baton Rouge being an earlier name, but Plan Baton Rouge is a different article. I found only trivial mentions in Google Books and elsewhere despite the claim of "The organisation produces a range of reports and so is cited extensively in government reports and various news articles.". This article was linked to the same keep, but it's about the founder. Being cited isn't enough if the coverage of the organization isn't much. I wasn't aware of the September 2021 AfD or else I would have waited, but please link to this so-called coverage the third time around since this discussion is here now. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree that some of the references in the 2nd AfD may have been indirect, and this may fall foul of WP:SUSTAINED. Chumpih. (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as per the rationale given by nom. - Hatchens (talk) 06:02, 31 December 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 redirect to Venus in fiction. RL0919 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venusians[edit]

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

This topic seems to fail WP:GNG. The article is mostly unreferenced and the only section of note is 'in ufology' - but that's just a fork of what this already at George Adamski and Nordic aliens. What remains is a poor fork of the (now being rewritten) Venus in fiction. Note that the Earthlings article was recently AfD and redirected to Earth in fiction (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthling). I suggest a redirect to Venus in fiction, which can briefly mention that fictional inhabitants of Venus are called Venusians and cite a few works, just like the written Earth in fiction GA article does now (ideally the etymology section could be sourced and rescued too). PS. Old AfD from 13 years ago, no consensus. Old Merge from 10 years ago, no consensus: Talk:Venusians#Merger_proposal. New merge proposal from last year, stalled: Talk:Venus_in_fiction#Merge_lists_from_Venusians. Also note I boldly removed the mostly unreferenced trivia lists of 'works that mentions Venus/Venusians', per the consensus related to recent AfDs and rewrites of numerous articles related to Template:Astronomical locations in fiction that such lists are not appropriate and are to be replaced by prose analysis (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination) and others). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Venus in fiction is a better redirect target, since Venusians (with an s) are a fictional topic. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Venusian is a disambig already. Venusians, with an S, probably refers only to the fictional inhabitants? Do correct me if I am wrong. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "Venus in Fiction," sure -- that's what I meant to say. --EEMIV (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Redirect to Venus in fiction as a WP:ATD. The portrayal of Venus in fiction includes Venusian aliens.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Venus in fiction. Merging can be done if needed, but it looks like most of the actual non-fringe reliable sources are mostly being used to support that lengthy section on George Adamski, and is already covered on his own article. I would disagree with EEMIV with using Venus as the target, as the actual noun Venusians (with the "s" at the end) actually isn't used in that article, and the adjective Venusian, which is, is already a disambiguation page that correctly directs to the article on the planet. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I would normally support a merge to Venus in fiction, it should be noted that some actual religions, in particular Happy Science, feature Venusians as an integral part of their creation mythos, so I'm thus not sure if Venus in fiction is a completely appropriate target. Curbon7 (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Venusians in religion may need a separate article; if it is created with RS then plausibly Venusians could be converted into a disambig between it and Venus in fiction#Venusians (if such a dedicated section is created; or just the main article if not since it's a given the term will be mentioned in the body). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Until it is shown as anything close to science fact, it is still fiction. And no widely recognized non-cult religion uses Venusians as an integral part. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Venus in fiction, as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have started to rewrite the Venus in fiction article into something that resembles a proper analytical entry, and I created the Venus_in_fiction#Venusians section, so the redirect is totally plausible. But I am not sure there is anything worth merging, considering that the only referenced content in our article is about ufology/religion (granted, one can see religious texts as fiction, just like ufology actually, but what we have here is still very short and poorly referenced IMHO). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:54, 25 December 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. A pure count of heads gives 2 for delete, and one who doesn't explicitly come down on either side. (LEvalyn raises questions about the reasons for deletion, but does not explicitly support either keeping or deletion, and indeed does explicitly say that his intention is more that he "wanted to make sure people were not too hasty with a delete". He makes such points as "I strongly suspect more coverage exists" and "I still think a thorough search might turn up some good sources", but we don't make decisions on the basis of editors' speculations as to what sources might exist: see WP:MUST.) Consequently, although it would have been preferable to have had more participation in the discussion,there is a clear consensus for deletion. As for the suggestion of redirecting, any editor is free to create a redirect if they think it appropriate. JBW (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies[edit]

University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subentity of the University of Toronto. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, generally subentities of a university are not considered notable unless they've made significant contributions to their field. The cited contributions made by this entity don't seem very major, they provided a small amount of assistance on Apollo 13 and received a minor award in an unremarkable press release from a museum. They didn't actually produce Canada's first space telescope on their own; that was a project they collaborated on according to MOST (spacecraft). The only significant contribution appears to be James DeLaurier's ornithopters, which have Wikipedia articles of their own. But I don't believe UTIAS inherits notability just because they created the first verifiably human powered ornithopter (UTIAS Snowbird) or maybe created the first engine powered ornithopter (appears to have been the first remotely piloted engine-powered ornithopter [61]).
In terms of WP:NORG this entity fails those requirements as well. Most coverage appears to be brief and passing mentions of "of non-notable awards received by the organization", mainly the one they received from the Canadian Air and Space Museum for the Apollo 13 thing. Much of the other coverage I could find is for the ornithopter, but aside from brief mentions of who supported the ornithopter the sources don't really cover the institute that much. The remaining coverage either briefly mentions UTIAS or is produced by the school itself, including an entire book length history made by UofT called "Pathway to Excellence: UTIAS, the First Twenty-five Years". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No evidence that a WP:BEFORE has been done. I don't have time for one myself, but since the Canadian Air and Space museum is more than just "a museum" (it is the premiere cultural heritage institute for the relevant topic) and because NASA is not Canadian (making it very unusual for UTIAS to be involved with them!), I strongly suspect more coverage exists than is cited in the article. The book Pathway to Excellence received at least one review, by DG Ivey, so I would not entirely discount it either. UTIAS may have been more notable in the 1970s during the space race than it is now (I am not in the right circles to know) but notability is not temporary. As a collegiate university and the largest institution in Canada, U of T is likely to have more independently notable sub-entities than any other school in Canada. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would discount Pathway to Excellence given that it's written by UTIAS. While I'm sure it's a good book, it's not independent of the subject. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess: Very true, but the review of the book is independent. I was able to turn up the review here. But it looks more like SIGCOV of Gordon Patterson than UTIAS, really, though it refers to UTIAS as "a remarkable institute." I still think a thorough search might turn up some good sources, given the 930 hits I get in ProQuest newspapers for "University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies" -- there sure look like a lot of articles like this one (on my first page), which is a full page on Barry French getting a joint grant with NASA to design the Viking orbiter. That mentions UTIAS a few times, and some of the others might go into more detail about UTIAS as well. But I confess I haven't found any really solid SIGCOV to explicitly support a "keep" yet. In which case, it would be good to identify some merge targets: maybe Patterson's bio? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth noting that Gordon Patterson, per his wikipedia article, was awarded the Order of Canada for founding UTIAS. Yes, that's explicitly a point for his notability, but you get national orders for doing notable things. -- asilvering (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Similar case to Munk School of Global Affairs. Individual/stand-alone page is unwarranted. - Hatchens (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually think UTIAS is very similar to the Munk school-- that's why I !voted a strong keep for Munk, but here mostly wanted to make sure people were not too hasty with a delete. UTIAS is definitely less notable and less widely covered than the Munk school (though I don't have a firm opinion either way on whether that makes it non-notable). I think it is best to consider these AfDs seperately.~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do folks think of redirecting to University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering as WP:ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:51, 25 December 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. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aquapelago[edit]

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

Some papers in Shima (a journal without an article) are trying to make this a topic, but I think it is still a non-notable neologism. The article is more a list of search results than a description of a topic. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it could use some cleanup, the topic in terms of notability is fine. Philosophy2 (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a term that has only gained coverage in a single non-notable academic journal is a clear fail of WP:NEO. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have made a clean-up on the article following quality standards, including, but not limited to, appropriate references to academic journals and removing the references' names from the body of the text. I must disclose I am a member of the editorial board of Shima and note the journal has reputation among interdisciplinary island studies. The journal is also positioned in some top quartiles among other journals (see Scimago Journal Ranking). Further, it must be noted the term 'aquapelago' has become ingrained in academic research (see Google Scholar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcbcastro (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being bold with one more round - anyone else able to share their thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:36, 25 December 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. I can see why nobody rushed to close this one – the arguments here are a bit of a mess. Most of the Keep arguments rely on interpreting WP:NTENNIS as an alternative to WP:GNG, when the overall guidance at WP:NSPORT says that isn't how it works. On the other hand, the Delete arguments seem to demand that the subject be notable either as a businessperson or as a tennis player, but our notability requirements do not impose any such binary requirement. It would be sufficient for him to be covered for any combination of reasons. There's clearly some coverage, including at least one news profile that seems clearly WP:SIGCOV. Unfortunately the rest of the coverage seems arguable or unproven. WP:NTENNIS does at least ask that we give the benefit of the doubt to subjects who meet its criteria, so I am closing this as no consensus with a default of not deleting the article. RL0919 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Crabel[edit]

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

Article subject requests deletion. See VRT Ticket 2021120910009403. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as lacking significant coverage. Geoff | Who, me? 22:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you meet WP:NTENNIS then you qualify, so it would mean to ignore GNG requirements. We can maybe just improve the page to reduce anything about his financial background that cannot be verified. MartinWilder (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per JoelleJay (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is all the coverage from independent sources in the article:

Coverage

1. 'You know what, I have to go out, but I can do this from my car, said Toby Crabel, 43, preparing to respond to a reporter's inquiry on the subject. I'll call you back in three minutes.

Mr. Crabel credits technology with allowing him to run a hedge fund out of his house in the middle of some cornfields northwest of Milwaukee. He has programmed his network of computers so that when he is reading to his daughter Kira, 8, he can be prompted by a digitized female voice that it is time to buy Treasury bonds. Not significant. 3. On the counter-trend side, perhaps the most well-known is Toby Crabel. He manages more than $1.6bn and has written the book Day Trading with Short-term Price Patterns, which can be found on eBay for upwards of $1,000 a copy. Despite the volatility in the markets, Crabel only had two down months in 2004: March was down 0.79 per cent and June was down 0.39 per cent. Such volatility lets one sleep at night. He finished the year with a 3.36 per cent return, less than the yield on a 10-year treasury. His average return per year has been 9.48 per cent and his worst drawdown is only 4.23 per cent. While some don't mind the roller-coaster ride of John Henry, other institutional investors are willing to pay a 3 per cent management fee and 20 per cent incentive fee to have the sleepy volatility of a Crabel. No idea how to evaluate this significance-wise, but it's certainly not encyclopedic info. 4. Can't access. 5. Crabel Capital Management listed in table; trivial mention at best. 8. SIGCOV of his futures trading methods, but not of him.

Still not seeing GNG met, unless someone can find coverage of his tennis career. JoelleJay (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable as a tennis player. Reasonable to presume career would have received coverage if he played as high up as French Open, even if not available online. Jevansen (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tricky. My rationale is—as written—this is a Wikipedia entry about a businessman (a trader, a fund manager, even an author), therefore the criteria we must apply is WP:Basic, and the topic fails. If the entry focused on his tennis career (or said more than five words about it), totally different story.
Simply put, adding "...and a tennis player" (or "...and a former tennis player") to the entry's lead would seem to me disingenuous, therefore I don't agree that this entry should be measured by WP:NTENNIS. Pegnawl (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a general businessman article, not a tennis article. And, regardless of that, significant coverage hasn't been shown. Unless Iffy, Juggyevil, Devokewater, or Jevansen can present such significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG, which all articles must meet when their notability is challenged (particularly when it comes to sports SNGs), then their arguments should be disregarded by the closer as not relevant to the discussion. SilverserenC 23:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. As a Tennis player he qualifies. If you meet WP:NTENNIS then you qualify, so it would mean to ignore GNG requirements. Maybe the page needs to be trimmed down if the sources for his financial background are unreliable. MartinWilder (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is literally the exact opposite of what WP:NSPORTS says. You absolutely do not ignore GNG requirements. The sports SNGs only include a presumption of meeting the GNG, but if that is challenged, then significant coverage needs to be presented to back up that claim of presumption. Do you have any evidence whatsoever of there being significant coverage of this person? SilverserenC 01:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well one of us misunderstanding the guidelines. We both can't be right. WP:NTENNIS says "figures are presumed to be notable if they... etc." One of the terms is if they played in French Open then they qualify. The subject meets this criteria. WP:NTENNIS does not state they must also meet GNG. What would be the purpose of even having WP:NTENNIS if GNG supersedes it? that would mean no matter if you meet anything on WP:NTENNIS then you don't qualify. I am afraid you are the one that is misunderstanding the criteria. In addition, I have now improved the article, added more info about his Tennis career in the intro and its own section. MartinWilder (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you should read both of the AfDs I linked, which were closed the way they were because of the argument I am making here and many others were similarly making in those discussions? I am not misunderstanding the criteria, because my understanding of the criteria is how they are applied and have been applied. SilverserenC 02:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok but he also meets GNG. Check this new article I discovered [62] and if you search Newspapers.com, he has many many citations about his Tennis particption. MartinWilder (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MartinWilder Presumed notable doesn't mean is notable. Why it's worded in a way that can so easily be misinterpreted in good faith, I have no idea. -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am withdrawing my vote, as I just noticed the subject has requested the deletion of the page in the talk page. If he was a major public figure, I would not have withdrawn, but in this case, I wish to not vote at all. I will let others to decide. MartinWilder (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NTENNIS is governed by NSPORT, it is not a separate guideline. That NSPORT is subordinate to GNG has been reaffirmed numerous times in the closes of AfDs spanning cricket (ex: here and here), football, gridiron, MMA, etc.
The newspaper clipping you found does look substantial (albeit local and with a lot of quotes). I do not have newspapers.com access so cannot verify that he has had significant coverage in multiple articles. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep — Easily meets WP:NTENNIS. Celestina007 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Celestina007 and @MartinWilder, NSPORT requires GNG to be met regardless of whether an athlete meets a specific sport's guideline. This is explicitly detailed in several different sections:
    First sentence: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.
    FAQ 1:

    Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
    A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline.

    FAQ 2:

    Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?
    A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

    FAQ 5:

    Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
    A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

    Applicable policies and guidelines section: In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have updated the article with more info about his Tennis career. In fact, he is still quiet active in tennis and ranked No. 1 seeded player in over 65 age range. He also meets GNG, see this article. I have added a few other citations regarding his Tennis career. MartinWilder (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Toby Crabel is the author of a best selling book: "Day Trading with Short Term Price Patterns" plus there has been numerous articles about him in publications such as: The Wall Street Journal, Futures + Options World, Futures Magazine + numerous other financial publications, these articles were around 20+ years ago hence not easy to find today, however if you review Elite Trader can see how notable this person was in financial trading. Devokewater (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you link to those SIGCOV refs? JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that the sourcing isn't up to snuff and the tendency creeping in by a participant here to fling mud around suggest the light to noise ratio will not improve so lets just leave this here. Spartaz Humbug! 00:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D Norton[edit]

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

Individual does not meet notability guidelines and sources provided are not sufficient/reliable to establish said notability. Tinton5 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tinton5 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, improperly sourced and doesn't meet notability. Also seems to be biased/non-encyclopaedic. --JonnyDKeen (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Built almost entirely from primary sources written, spoken or published by the subject himself (WP:SELFPUB). Reads like a self-written WP:PROMOTION. Article doesn't demonstrate the subject would pass WP:Notability (people) or WP:GNG, even if cleaned up. Platonk (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC). Update - Still undecided as to degree of notability, however I am withdrawing my 'delete' vote because I have no time today to further evaluate the article/subject and the article has been massively improved since I placed my original vote. Consider me 'neutral' at this point. Platonk (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Update#2 - I am placing my final vote at the bottom of this discussion. Platonk (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - to the creator ArcticFox55: Today's new version of the article is much better and far more interesting to read. Suggestion, focus even more on Norton's businesses, products or services, and less on some of his personal struggles (ringworm?). See WP:WEIGHT for guidance there. I know it's an article under the person's name, but it will be the businesses and accomplishments that will help pass the notability bar. Reference section is much better. You may yet change my !vote. Platonk (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you SO much for the constructive criticism, Platonk, and not just throwing it away.
Extended content
I will take your feedback and immediately apply it the same exact way I did for JonnyDKeen's. Consider the ringworm part of it dropped. And I'll see what I can do to expand on the businesses.
ArcticFox55 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Seems like the creator of the article rewrote it so I say keep it because the biography of the person has some media attention. HelpingWorld (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
There's some understandable doubt about the sources, but a lot of what they talk about we can verify for ourselves. For instance, the $200,000 Norton raised is publically tracked by Upwork.com. You can see it if you click here: https://www.upwork.com/fl/michaelnorton

His social media following seems real. There's not a single post he makes that doesn't receive engagement from real people. Real people leave often leave comments about how they're inspired by him. I'm even here because of his social media presence. Today, he just released the presentation about his upcoming electromagnetic engine.

Like I responded to JohnnyDKeen's helpful criticism on his page's talk: I believe Norton is worthy of being listed on Wikipedia because his accomplishments as an entrepreneurial scientist are having and will likely continue to have a very positive aspect on society. Judging from his trajectory as a growing public figure, I just wanted to be the first to cover him.

It's not like in any of his claims he presents himself as a billionaire. And even though they're primary sources, it's quite difficult to fake his pictures.

He's like a smaller and growing Elon Musk-like figure. But "smaller" doesn't mean "fake." And he is receiving an increasing amount of media attention.

Out of my personal interest in Norton, my fear here is that we delete his page too hastily, not because he lied or did anything wrong but because I wrote the first draft of his article badly. And then next month this guy ends up getting coverage from something like Forbes. And then somebody else ends up writing his article after appealing after we sat here nitpicking like this :( when it's fair play in the rules that his current fame is not the determining factor of his noteworthiness. There are way worse articles on Wikipedia than his. I know this because I'm editing them.

It's ironic: The TechTimes article lists him as "underrated." And that's exactly what we're doing: underrating him.

ArcticFox55 (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have the following comments regarding the statements:
Extended content
1. Does not meet notability guidelines:

According to the Wikipedia page on notability (quote below), there’s a great degree of subjectivity in determining what is noteworthy and what is not. Michael D Norton has a growing social media presence.

“Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.”

There are several subcategories of notability worthiness, such as "Significant coverage -- addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.”

There is an article by LondonLovesBusiness (LLB) that fulfills this. The article referenced is about him, being more than a trivial mention. Being as though the entire article is about his life story with a moral for its target audience, this exceeds not needing to be the main topic of the source material. There are various articles like the one mentioned above that are included in the references. One of several in particular that is worthy of note in this discussion is the subject of this article's listing in TechTimes magazine.

2. On seeming biased/non-encyclopedic:

I was not paid to write this article. However, I’ve seen other pages while editing articles on Wikipedia with merely a bias warning. If that which “seems” biased about the article is backed by a source that states that, is that still “bias”?

At any time, other editors can come in to adjust the perceived bias.

3. On being improperly sourced:

This seems easy to fix: What is the better way to source it? Is everything improperly sourced or just certain parts of the article? If there are items that should be removed for instance (such as to say that some things are properly sourced, while others are not), then why not simply discuss what those are and then improve the article, rather than resort to the extreme of deletion?

I had reviewed information about social media (such as Facebook) not being reliable sources in most cases. Yet, if a person has a social media presence such as being an Instagram or YouTube personality, wouldn’t it be accurate to use social media for certain information such as their views or statements? I used Jordan Peterson’s page as an example to set up his and reviewed celebrities such as Ariana Grande. On Jordan Peterson’s page, there are broken links using the Wayback Machine references for his social media page that are broken. Yet, there don’t seem to be any penalizations for Dr. Peterson’s page. On Ariana Grande’s page there are references to social media to support statements on her political views.

Both of these people are more famous than Michael D Norton. However, the notability guidelines state clearly that fame is not the determining factor for article worthiness.

ArcticFox55 (talk) 3:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: ArcticFox55 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Note to creator, ArcticFox55: Youtube, Facebook, anything written by Norton are equally unacceptable as reliable sources. If you stripped out everything like that, it might be possible to better to evaluate whether or not the subject is notable. At this point, after clicking on a dozen citations and finding nothing written by someone else about Norton, I'm unwilling to dig further. Platonk (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Performing an edit accordingly.
ArcticFox55 (talk) 4:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin:

All primary sources have been removed, and the article has been shortened to cover only that which was covered by a secondary source.

Extended content
It may read "like" self-promotion, but it is not. I take responsibility as a new Wikipedia article writer for the lack of experience. I know better now.

However, I'd like to bring up Wikipedia's "Competence" rule for deleting posts (as a note to the closing admin):
Platonk states clearly: "At this point, after clicking on a dozen citations and finding nothing written by someone else about Norton, I'm unwilling to dig further."
You guys are more experienced than I am, but that still goes directly against that rule, what's openly admitted here in just not wanting to dig further with the sources.
If you check the edit history of the page, just saying "sources" is not adequate enough for most people to fix it.
In my opinion for the closing admin's consideration: It's needlessly hasty to nominate the entire page for deletion, especially if someone openly admits they don't feel like checking the sources, and especially if I'm new and still working on the article...which is also noted in the rules for nominating pages for deletion.

The primary sources were only added to add depth to the secondary, because I've seen on multiple pages where that's been done without penalization.

ArcticFox55 (talk) 5:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment, I've been taking a close look at the sources remaining on the article, to try and judge whether ArcticFox55 might have a point. Although there are a decent amount of sources provided, I think the problem is that none of them are in themselves particularly noteworthy or reliable. It sort of reminds me of the original Threatin page, which was packed with interviews, profiles and grandiose claims about this supposed mega-band, but none were really substantial and had in fact largely been planted by the subject's promo team. Not to say that's what's going on here, it just illustrates that any random news outlet isn't necessarily a credible source.
The sources given don't seem to be engaging in robust journalism, more promotion, or puff pieces. I'm not suggesting they're acting out of ulterior motives, but the articles report, at face value, a number of outlandish claims made by Norton as gospel. Perhaps everything he says in the profile is true, but the point is, there don't seem to be any checks on the veracity of what he's saying. The profiles in LondonlovesBusiness, Tech Company News and Vents magazine just don't cut it for me as reliable sources. While they might work to flesh out an existing article, they aren't enough on their own. If Norton is as notable as he seems to think, it will only be a matter of time before major, indisputably reliable sources give him some coverage, and then you'll have better grounds for proving notability. JonnyDKeen (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Many thanks to JonnyDKeen for the constructive criticism provided in a just manner. I've completely rewritten the article from scratch with your feedback in mind. Now, it's an entirely different article.
ArcticFox55 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, along with the constructive criticism JonnyDKeen gave me on his page (besides here on this page's discussion), along with his words here: I agree. I understand his point of view. The only thing I can make a reference to, in contrast, is that no news source is "indisputable," no matter how popular or famous it is. While I agree that higher-level sources for Norton are inevitable, and I really appreciate JonnyDKeen's lack of dismissiveness, the rules state clearly that fame is not the determining factor for the validity of a subject's noteworthiness. This makes the nature of the current sources he doubts also subjective.
Maybe Norton is telling the truth on everything. Maybe he's not. That's not for us to determine, which is why secondary sources are critical for the article. Whether anyone respects the source is up to them, largely subjectively, unless there is solid evidence to justify why. A positive bias isn't good, but a negative one isn't either.
ArcticFox55 (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was hoping he'd turn up in a few Gnews sources, nothing found. I get many hits on other "Michael D." people, nothing about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Four things to this (expand to read):
Extended content
Firstly, according to Google itself (their support page), Google News' (if that's what you mean by "Gnews") results are heavily determined based on your personal previous search history and preferences. Gnews itself is not a determining factor for the noteworthiness of an individual as the SERPs (search engine results pages) change per individual who fulfills the query.

Secondly, Gnews shows timed results, regardless of your preferences. I'm pretty sure if you looked for new news on an invention from the 1800s, you're not going to find anything without difficulty...if anything at all. Yet, guaranteed, that hypothetical subject would qualify for a Wikipedia article.

Thirdly, do you know how many people are on Wikipedia that don't show up on Google News? More people than probably you and I can count.

What I do know is that how often a person is searched for is a determining variable. The search stats for Norton's page are 2-3 times higher than people like Russian singers and other noteworthy people who have an unchallenged Wikipedia page. I know this because those stats are in my edit history right now, and here's a screenshot: https://ibb.co/hBBgkm7

Fourthly, he shows up for me. Here's a link to a screenshot of an article posted about him 4 hours ago: https://ibb.co/bPYBqCc
ArcticFox55 (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying to find reliable sources for him, Google News is a quick way of checking coverage in the larger news sources; not so much that doesn't show up there, simply that he doesn't have media coverage. We're looking for mentions in reliable, larger sources, not anything and everything that comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Totally understandable, however... (expand to read):
Extended content
...the Wikipedia search stats are what they are. That's just numbers (which are actually even higher now for the subject than they were in the initial screenshot). The subject is absolutely being searched.

...and Gnews is what it is, with its flaws.

And the Wikipedia guidelines say what they say.

While you are searching for larger, more reliable sources (which aren't really well-defined in this discussion)...can you specify what exactly is unreliable about the current sources as they're being published and I'm continually updating the page as they're released? Besides merely their size/fame?

Specificity is key. TechTimes is a huge platform for its niche, with tons of search traffic. You can use Internet tools to verify the thousands of hits it gets every month.

For instance, CNN is one of the largest news organizations in the world...yet heavily criticized for being unreliable and biased. They're huge, yet they are a running gag in multiple corners of the Internet. Elon Musk himself said on Twitter, quote "What I find most surprising is that CNN still exists" when they misreported on him.

Yet, they are famous. I bet that's the type of source you're talking about, right?

Furthermore, there are viral videos from huge weather stations of so-called credible reports literally faking how bad the wind was during a storm.

None of that is reliable...even though their platforms are huge. And that's why (I respect) that the Wikipedia guidelines state clearly that one's fame (once again) is not the determining factor for their noteworthiness. Nor does it say anything about the fame or size of a source.

It says "poorly sourced" or not sourced at all.

...only, the article is no longer poorly sourced. Even in last week's discussion, JonnyDKeem admitted that there was a "decent" amount of sources, and that was before I even added more before this discussion. And more sources seem to be published at a faster rate now.

So, at first, the problem was with the way the article was written. That was my fault that I take full responsibility for, and have completely rewritten it. That's clear. The guidelines say I have the freedom to do that, and I took advantage of that.

It's not self-promotional, so that allegation doesn't stick. You can take 30 seconds to check the subject's Facebook page to see how active and passionate his audience is. Multiple people are willing to write the article. It's not hard to believe. Almost all of his top fans write in paragraphs in his comments. I was just the first among them. One of his fans even bought him LAND in Scotland! (Can you believe that?) And if this article gets deleted, someone else from his fan base is probably going to write another one. Guaranteed. Because while he may not be noteworthy to you guys...he's noteworthy to his growing audience. He does self-promote with social media advertising, but that doesn't mean he's the one writing on Wikipedia. I merely talk to him and let him know what's going on.

Beyond that, though? In the previous discussion of last week and this one...every single notion against the current sources has been subjective with a negative bias, no matter how peacefully or respectfully that bias was expressed. No one has said anything concrete about why what's presented is unreliable, only personal biased doubt against the subject.

No, the subject is not mainstream (we agree), but he is absolutely noteworthy to a growing audience, and the Wikipedia numbers back that up. It's not just me. Look at the search numbers (such as in the screenshot) that are growing and faster than Wikipedia articles that are unchallenged.

This discussion was relisted for, quote: "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus."

So, I hate writing in paragraphs like this. I don't mean to be annoying. But that's what we're here for: a more thorough discussion.

So, let's do that. Let's have a more thorough discussion.

What is the actual, more objective problem with the subject having an article on wikipedia? What is an actual argument here besides your personal doubt in the subject? And why try so hard (twice even!) to keep this subject off of Wikipedia, when the article fits the guidelines, he's admittedly got a "decent amount of sources" while there are clearly unchallenged Wikipedia pages with barely a fraction of the search results, engaged social media audience, and lack as many references? ArcticFox55 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticFox55 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: If you'd like to find news results quicker for Norton, it's better to type "Mike Norton" in the search engines, rather than "Michael D." I've listed it as an alternative name. ArcticFox55 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is totally against the Manual of style guideline for biographies. Here is what it says "'It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name,[a] it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name. Example:
  • Use: William Henry Gates III
  • Avoid: William Henry "Bill" Gates III'"
      • However Common name says we should use the name the person is most often called by. If that is Mike Norton, than this article should be called that. Of course we already have Mike Norton as an article, so this would have to be given a disambiguation. Also if D. stands for something I believe we should write it out when we do give the full name (see Rutherford B. Hayes, who the article opens by calling Rutherford Birchard Hayes, as just one of many examples).John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Consider as a "common" hypocorism one that shortens in a conventionalized way, sometimes also with a diminutive suffix added, and which is derived from a name frequently used in English-speaking countries, e.g. Liz, Beth, Lizzy, Bettie, etc., from Elizabeth. If it is not conventional, it is not "common" (e.g. Nifer from Jennifer). Short forms that differ significantly from the name may be non-hypocoristic nicknames, depending on the particular case. A few such forms are well-known common hypocorisms, such as Bob for Robert and Bill for William, but most are not (e.g. Reba for Rebecca). Assume that most non-English hypocorisms (e.g. Lupita for Guadalupe, Mischa for Mikhail, Sascha for Alexander or Zuzka for Zuzana) are not familiar as hypocorisms to readers of the English Wikipedia, even if well-known in their native culture.
  • Comment That's a nice try, but... (expand to read):
Extended content
That's a nice try, but it's not "totally against." That's hyperbole.

Look at your own quote: "It is not always necessary..."

It does not say anything like "It is absolutely banned..." or "Absolutely do not..."

It says "It is not always necessary..."

And even if it was, now the argument is just getting petty. He's unworthy because of a spelling?

...seriously?

...............seriously? C'mon. What's going on here is obvious. If you guys have some other motive or reason for why you just don't want the guy to be on Wikipedia...be so good as to own up to it. Don't resort to pedantic arguments now. The Wikipedia administration will save more face in the public eye. All of this is being screenshot. The guidelines warn us all about watching what we say in discussions like these. Once again, absolutely nothing stated here has anything to do with or addresses his search numbers, refutes his references, or even touches the subject's growing social media following.

Also, now that I'm looking more closely: Even in your "avoid" example, that's not how I spelled his name. I didn't even use quotes like that. His actual name, if you even read the article, which it seems like you didn't if that's your argument...actually is Michael D P Norton. That's his full name. I didn't write the shorter style of it in quotes like that as per your avoid example. So, now that I'm looking more closely at this...what are you even referring to specifically?

And ANOTHER point, quoting you: "Also if D. stands for something I believe we should write it out" Do you believe? Or do you know? Which is it? The longer this goes on, the sadder arguments against the subject are becoming. Grasping for straws. (And yes, the D does stand for something. You'd know that if you had actually read. So, you either read and are positioning your argument as if you hadn't, or you legitimately didn't read...in which case, the real question is not about the subject's worthiness for Wikipedia but the worthiness of your credibility to argue.)
93.114.202.147 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin:Lambert edited what he said above, making my extended comment mismatch.93.114.202.147 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignore the cruft - any other thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin:Happy holidays/Merry Xmas. The only other thing I have to add is that the subject's company made some new recent announcements. As new news articles circulate, there'll be even more references likely this week (I'll ask Norton to find out), which will boost the Wikipedia article even more. The guy's new, but that doesn't mean he's lied about anything. His audience is growing. And until there is actual evidence to verify that anything is untrue, it just doesn't make sense to assume that he is guilty before proven innocent. We should be better than that.

EDIT: Our personal views shouldn't be what determines who is noteworthy and who is not. We should just observe the evidence, and fairly, regardless of our personal feelings about him or what he's about. There is empirical, trackable evidence for the impact he's making. And the fact that you can't find counter-sources for the guy could mean that there is no basis for them to exist BECAUSE the story of the article is true. As much as he is dislikable or doubtable, there are pictures, sources/references, and search data on both Wikipedia itself and the articles that mention him. AND the money he's raised is verifiable through Upwork.com, which is a third-party. Therefore, there is way more evidence that would suggest that the subject is real, the story is real, and he's currently impacting an increasing number of lives. Doubt him, hate him or love him.93.114.202.147 (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin:Wait a minute. I just found something in the guidelines that says how if there's no clear consensus...the article should be kept by default and that it is against the rules to continually nominate it for deletion.

This is the THIRD CONSECUTIVE TIME it's been relisted for deletion with no solid consesus. According to the guidelines...it should be kept.93.114.202.147 (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin:Nevermind. It seems like you're (Specifically MissVain) ignoring your own rules. [link to an attack page redacted[

I don't know what this will lead to in the long-term considering that post and the comments. Good luck with your "consensus," and "thorough discussions" but personally know that I will still continue to edit articles besides this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticFox55 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify or delete - There is evidence that the subject may be notable (per Wikipedia guidelines of what is 'notable') but despite cleaning up the article and several other editors searching for evidence of notability, the article just isn't showing it. My recommendation is to draftify the article, have the creator spend some time working on other Wikipedia articles to get some experience of our policies, guidelines, standards and the community's way of doing things. If the subject truly is notable, then at some point there will be some coverage that clearly marks the subject as notable. At that point, submit the draft to AfC. And in case the close decision is to delete, the creator can always have kept a copy of the article code for later re-creation of the article when the subject becomes clearly notable. Platonk (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, Platonk. I don't think his noteworthiness was what started this. Even if he legitimately wasn't, it was telling him or me (creator of the article) to be ignored. That was a declarative command. With "cruft" adding insult to the injury. This isn't about the article anymore, and it's now out of my hands. I don't think it matters what you do with it now. ArcticFox55 (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ArcticFox55: The word 'cruft' above is likely referring to the vast tomes of text and debate that you've added to this AfD (not the article) which is uncommon and distracting. I hope you don't mind I reformatted your comment to the indenting style which we're used to seeing in discussions (as an example). See also WP:AFDFORMAT. Platonk (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per JonnyDKeen. There’s not enough reliable sourcing here to justify this article. Right now it seems to exist to elevate this individual. It can be recreated if more substantial and reliable publications cover him. Thriley (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, all...I don't take any of this personally. Yeah, I worked hard on the article, but like, I could just get more sources and reupload another one in the future. Meanwhile, of course...it would make sense that you'd try to rationalize away MissVain's insult and command. Even if it was the "essays" as you call them, that was still a blatant command to shut me up, when the guidelines state clearly that I'm allowed to defend the article. And the article is the story of an underrepresented minority. So, it ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T MATTER at this point what you have to say to me or the verdict for the article at this point. But hey...keep talking to me as if I even matter at this point. I don't. Do what you will with the page. I don't even think HE cares anymore. I have no idea what he's got planned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticFox55 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 December 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 AfD needs to be put out of its misery. The nominator offers a persuasive rationale, but there has been little substantive engagement with the sources provided over the sources of this discussion, and without independent evaluation of those sources, I cannot accept or dismiss them while closing. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen Alexander Nicholas Fergusson[edit]

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

Predecessor on the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Monisha Shah, was just deleted at AfD. There is more to this article than that one, but possibly still not enough to meet the GNG when you drill down. Take out the biography on the UK government website (a primary source), and what we can verify is that his father was notable, he was a lawyer, is now a self-employed businessman, was a member of the Bullingdon Club at the same time as two notable people, and that his appointment to the CSPL was controversial, but no biographical information about him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse. Thanks for that. I've scanned through this interesting source, been way too distracted by some queries both related and unrelated to this AfD, but certainly would recommend people use it at times. Lawyer related article's were interesting and may be useful, perhaps [63] the best; to me personally Andersen [64]; though in the end I did'tfind the Lawyer article for the result of this event (Fergusson came 2nd I think) [65]. I'm not sure James Delingpole's 2003 piece is usable [66]. Its was useful for looking at Times articles I might have used: [67]; also this article might has been better than one's I've used: [68]. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E requires each of three conditions to be filled, and while some may "feel" like it is a BLP1E case Fergusson fails all three counts: With publicity peaks on the Bullingdon Assoication with future PM's (Waugh 2007) and what seems like criminal actions in 1987 through to the CSPL appointment in 2021. I've expanded the article a little regarding the diversity aspects of that appointment and am seeking the minutes of the July 2021 meeting. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think all three criteria are met. He only has an article because he was blurbed in the news recently. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As part of working on Fergusson's article I became aware the minutes for the 290th meeting on 15 July 2015 seemed not to be published and as a result of a query to the CSPLs public email address earliest today a CSPL secretarial person replied they had just been published at [69] & [70]. (I had also said that if it proved these werer not published - as opposed to me not finding them - I was simultaneously raising an FOI on the reason these were not published at the time - though simple answers such haven't a clue or forgot are available). I had also raised concern with another CSPL document on about December 9 but had a response with allayed my concerns so unlike the 290 meeting minutes there was no change to source information. If anyone thinks I am developing a COI with CSPL please feel free to raise a COIN). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Forgive me for a third round - anyone who is NOT INVOLVED in this article able to review? Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There's not enough provided to demonstrate the subject's notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarchOfTheGreyhounds: Following your recent interactions with the relister and their shouting NOT INVOLVED comment and your recent change of name and with this VAGUEWAVE comment I do not believe you are fully independent. (article creator). Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean yeah, I've interacted with the relister a couple of times. We're both involved in a number of recent AfDs, so it's natural our paths would cross, surely? Don't really see what a username change has to do with anything. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discretion would have meant Special:Diff/1062192020 should likely have been sent privately. I contacted oversighters about that contribution but on Ticket#2021122710000459 they responded: "We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Unfortunately, the edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy ..." Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:51, 27 December 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. Sandstein 17:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Wish I Were Stephanie V[edit]

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

Fails GNG, and N - community tv distribution, no national coverage, weak sourcing Atsme 💬 📧 15:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Artw - I Googled it and didn't find anything that was notable, even if it qualified as a specialty award. If you can find something notable about it, I would not object to withdrawing this AfD. Atsme 💬 📧 18:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The Indiefest Best of Show is worth something, though the article could surely use some expansion though. I have now added some more sources to the article as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I also think the Indifest award, along with coverage in the United States and Australia is mildly notable. This is "weak" because I haven't seen much else, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.--Eastview2018 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passing WP:NF, per received award by international coverage. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam from the films producer. Non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Award is not major, it comes from yet another award farm. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the award is enough to show notability, combined with the coverage. Jackattack1597 (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that award is simply not enough. Indie Fest (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie Fest) is not notable. Their vanity awards (given out multiple times a year in large numbers) are not credible. There is no way known that they could be called a major award. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For those claiming it has sufficient coverage, where is it? There is nothing good in the article itself and no one has identified a single source that provides the film any level of coverage in an independent reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to further evaluate if significant coverage exists beyond the award of questionable significance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sourcing fails to demonstrate sufficient, lasting, third-party independent WP:SIGCOV to warrant an article. ——Serial 14:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM. Lacks independent coverage. Awards were won at minor festivals that themselves fail wikipedia's notability criteria. IndieFest gives out awards three times a year, and is not covered in independent reliable sources.4meter4 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. TrangaBellam has provided useful sourcing here that could show that this topic meets GNG, but its substance has largely not been discussed, and the suggestion of reframing the article as one about the oil field has not been discussed either. Conversely, the argument by FOARP that a standalone page is not viable even if GEOLAND is met is also grounded in policy (per WP:NOPAGE), and hasn't been discussed in detail either. As such there just isn't any consensus here, though the "keep" opinions are marginally stronger. I would suggest a talk page discussion about whether a reframed article is viable before a new AfD is opened. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirpichli, Turkmenistan[edit]

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

Geostub made by Spokane Ball yt who was blocked for creating similarly poorly-sourced stubs.

"Keep" !voters in the recent AfD failed to demonstrate that the article meets WP:GEOLAND, which requires either legal recognition or sufficient SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Comments such as "All settlements are notable" (This editor also cited a Weather.com entry, a source which is notorious for repeating database errors); "A gas condensate field nearby is a source of natural gas"; "At least it was a settlement in 1930s. Very likely it is a settlement now. and two comments stating that it meets GEOLAND with no evidence; are misinterpretations of WP:GEOLAND that should have been thrown out. This guideline has never stated that all settlements are notable, or that demonstrating something is not a hoax is sufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 18:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources unanimously agree that it is a gas-condensate field:

    Кирпичли: Бәxeрдeн paйонындa (Гарагумда) улы оба, гуйы (хәзирки ады Бейик Октябрын 50 йыллыгы); Гарагумда rуюлар.
    — Атаныязов, Солтанша (1970). Туркменистаның географик атларынын душундиришли сѳзлуги [Toponym Dictionary of Turkmenistan]. Ashgabat: Turkmenistan Academy of Sciences. p. 185.

    A lot of details—relevant to petroleum engineering—are available. Redefine the scope of article, accordingly. Also,

    Кроме безымянной станции, распо-ложенной на пути из Нисы в Гургандж, сюда относится крупный форт Бостаншах диаметром 60 м у колодца Кирпичли, бо-лее чем наполовину скрытый песками
    — Muradov, R. G. (2018). "Региональные особенности архитектуры караван-сараев в Каракумах" [Regional Features of the Caravansarais in the Karakum Desert]. Вопросы всеобщей истории архитектуры [Questions of the History of World Architecture]. 10. Moscow: Research Institute of Theory and History of Architecture and Town-Planning: 214.

    TrangaBellam (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam - These are two passing mentions, neither shows either the legal recognition required for a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass, nor a WP:GNG-pass. Gas condensate fields are not automatically notable. Wells are not automatically notable. FOARP (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legal recognition: p. 203 (pdf page 59) TrangaBellam (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
....broken link. To Openstreetmap. FOARP (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam, thanks for providing that. Since you read the language, would you be willing to describe that document and what it says about Kirpichli for those of us who can't? –dlthewave ☎ 13:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.59 of that PDF doesn't mention "Kirpichli". From what I can understand of it using machine translation, it states that the village of Kirpili changed its name to Kerpiçli. Assuming that "Kirpichli" is a romanisation of "Kerpiçli", this contradicts what the article says, which is that Kirpili is a neighbouring village. EDIT: and TrangaBellam knows this because they redirected Kirpili to this page without discussion just yesterday. Interestingly the location given for Kirpili in that old article is empty, open desert in a completely different part of Turkmenistan.
And, just to make sure this is mentioned, we need evidence that this is a legally recognised populated place, which a renaming of locations doesn't necessarily show. FOARP (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of significant coverage that could be used to write an article about the place. (t · c) buidhe 11:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buidhe, the nominator argues the recent AfD failed to demonstrate that the article meets WP:GEOLAND, which requires either legal recognition OR sufficient SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. (My emphases.)
      In my replies to FOARP, I proved that the place is legally recognized. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looked, and there is no "Kirpichli" mentioned on p. 59 of this PDF, which is hosted on openstreetmap, a wiki-like website. Instead this document apparently describes the change in name of the village of "Kirpili" to the name "Kerpiçli". Even assuming that "Kerpichli" is the romanisation of "Kerpiçli", my confidence in the research that went into this article (which describes Kirpili as a neighbouring village, not as the former name of the village...) is not improved. Looking at the location, there is literally nothing at the co-ordinates given in the article but an empty field. Or at those given in the article for Kirpili that was redirected without discussion to Kirpichli yesterday, which shows open desert in a completely different part of Turkmenistan. Google maps also gives another location for a Kirpichli in Turkmenistan that is open desert, with no buildings shown at the location.
And let's suppose it is possible to confirm this place exists and is legally recognised - what actual article can we write here? Isn't redirecting to district level and listing it there a much better way of presenting the same data? FOARP (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FOARP, the document was uploaded by Alan Mustard, former ambassador of USA to Turkmenistan and Chair of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. He described it as Collection of Turkmenistan government decrees and parliamentary resolutions regarding geographic names, from 1992 to 2018. This collection is not all-inclusive. Documents are in either the Russian or Turkmen languages. Do you suspect that a former US diplomat is making up stuff?
    It is indeed a romanization. What is your language proficiency in Turkmen? "obanyň ozalky ady" translates to "old name of the village" (p. 49) while "obanyň täze ady" trasnlates to "new name of the village." (p. 64)
    I do not understand from where you are getting the coordinates - I have not added them.
    I have previously suggested redefining the scope of the article. There exists tons of sources about the oil field: Turkmen Petroleum Institute's "20 years of Kirpili Oil Fields" (1984)—some 175 pages of intricate discussions about initial explorations, surveys, capacities, issues, administration, and niche technical discussions—is a decent one to start with. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The co-ordinates are from the articles themselves, which were clearly created carelessly. It is very apparent that we don't, actually, know where this place is supposed to be. We also don't really know if this place is actually populated, do we? We are simply assuming that a Turkmen obanyň is necessarily populated, but I've seen this situation before with Iranian ābādī and Turkish mahalle (which also translate as "village" but in reality can be just a rural location). Remember we need evidence that the location is both legally recognised and that it is populated, and even then, if no real article can be written, a redirect to district level is just a better way of organising information.
Of course if there are at least two independent, reliable sources about the oilfield this is a refactoring that I'd support. Hopefully these documents would at least identify where this place is supposed to be. FOARP (talk)
FOARP, the Turkmen Government has not conducted any census since 1995, whose data was very strange and is widely believed to be fabricated to various degrees. The next census was held in 2012 (with some pomp) but the data never made it to the masses. The website claimed to be on the verge of releasing the data for about a year before vanishing overnight. So, no: you will not be getting any evidence about demographics of any village.
I have never been to Turkey. Cannot comment upon them.
This settlement developed out of the oilfield (mostly field-engineers etc.) and will stay as long as the oilfield runs. I will be adding the coordinates, based on my notes. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case you think me to be some avowed inclusionist, check my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sansy, Turkmenistan. I have no problems in deleting articles that are actually non-notable, even accounting for vernacular sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say that it passes GEOLAND? What sources have you found that would support that? –dlthewave ☎ 12:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being bold and relisting this - please present sourcing on how this subject meets WP:GNG and/or WP:GEOLAND. Personally, I don't care if it was made by a blocked user (because that's how I roll).....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I believe that the book '20 years of Kirpili Oil Fields' is a non-trivial, in-depth source on the subject. Considering the other sources that TrangaBellam has provided, I believe that even if it cannot satisfy GEOLAND, it can satisfy GNG, as information on Turkmenistan is very sparse, and that the book on exploration is a significant source capable of satisfying GNG.Gorden 2211 (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per User:TrangaBellam and User:Gorden 2211. Sourcing is adequate, and the objections seem nitpicky, not to say POINT-y, especially as it was already discussed at AfD quite recently and kept.Ingratis (talk) 14:42, 26 December 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 leaning towards keep or merge. Opinions are evenly divided between merging/redirecting and keeping with a only a smaller group arguing for deletion. Sourcing for the article appears sufficient to pass GNG based on the comments, and a renomination at AFD is not recommended. A merge or redirect may still be the best the option, but further discussion on that front should be done through a merge proposal as described at WP:MERGEPROP where the issue can be discussed without the threat of article deletion. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Squid Game characters[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, Squid Game is a very popular series as of today, but it has only 1 season with 9 episodes and it has few major and minor cast, it's too early to create another separate article for only few cast and characters of Squid Game. The summarization of the cast and characters of Squid Game is well mentioned in the main article, no need to create another one. Ctrlwiki • 13:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For a 9-episode series that yet to have a confirmed 2nd season, this is far too early. (I'm a major contributor to the Squid Game article so fully aware the lack of potential here right now) --Masem (t) 13:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Season two has been confirmed. [72]
    If you search for it [73] many reliable sources say this and link to the official announcement on Twitter. Dream Focus 17:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But Twitter is not reliable source. Ctrlwiki • 00:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The link I posted is for the reliable sources that do mention this. Also it is a reliable source for information that is not in doubt. Primary sources are fine for that, just not for reliable sources necessary to prove notability for the existence of an article. Dream Focus 01:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Squid Game I made this article based on the Stranger Things character page, but based on the two comments here, I have to agree that it is far too early for a Squid Game one. There is enough information on the characters on the main page for viewers to get enough information without being spoiled. However, this page should become a redirect instead of being deleted, as we have List of Squid Game episodes as a redirect to the Squid Game article so the same should apply here. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect Squid Game is yet to come out for another season this can be merged with the main Squid Game Article for ease of access. Juggyevil (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we can include more details and sources about the featured players, and it is already stated that it is in the process of expansion. Rather than be quick to dismiss it for deletion, we should do something to make it acceptable for viewing. The show is notable and it deserves to have its list of characters and the more specific and precise historic details of their backgrounds, which we may not find space to cram in the main article of the drama --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The series became widely popular and there are some liticles about the characters. I am not vehemently opposed to a merge, but also split into a subarticle is not unreasonable here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Masem. Taking my cues from someone deep in this topic area. I believe that one day the third party coverage might exist to support this article. But for now, it's heavily based on primary sources, and thus may effect editorial bias rather than which characters will truly be significant as the series continues. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect until more RS/coverage for characters.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Squid Game#Cast and Characters. The article seems reasonably well sourced, but I don't see a justification for a WP:SPINOUT at this point for a show with relatively few episodes and characters. This content can fit in the main article for now. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 18:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "List of [franchise] characters" articles are generally difficult to source, but this one has a surprisingly decent number of reliable sources already included. In cases like these, whether to split a list of characters into its own article is more of an editorial decision than a policy decision. In my opinion, the main article is long enough that splitting into a separate article for the characters is beneficial. Mlb96 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Squid Game#Cast and characters section isn't that long enough to split for another article, it's not like Avengers that has too many characters that's why it has its own separate article. The author of the nominated article is in a hurry process of creating an article I think, that's why he just copied the top paragraph of that article from the main article of Squid Game, he did not make his own sentences for creating Wikipedia list article, it means he didn't make any plans for creating this unnecessary article. Until now there are only 7 listed characters in that article that we can just summarize in the main article until now, that's what I think. Ctrlwiki • 00:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all the information is copied from the main page, I have removed the top paragraph. I, along with the other editors of the article, have made plenty of my own sentences here, all of which are found in the characters section. The main article does not reveal any information about the characters (such as the Il-nam twist), which are stated here. Therefore, not all of the information was copied (only the removed top paragraph) and me and the other editors have used plenty of original sentences here. Please don't accuse me and other editors of copying every single thing from the main article when that is clearly untrue. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough sources to meet GNG, and it has a lot of information that's not on the main article and would unnecessarily bloat that article if upmerged. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Merge to Squid Game#Cast and Characters: Why is whether the show has a second season relevant? This article has plenty of reliable sources focusing on the topic of the characters in the show. This article is also long and detailed - I think this level of information about each character would be too much to force back into the main Squid Game article. HenryMP02 TALK 05:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Adamant1's point, I agree. While the article is long, a lot of it is just plot summary instead of character information. With that information removed, I think it could fit into the main article's section for now. HenryMP02 TALK 18:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Squid Game#Cast and Characters, per Qwaiiplayer -- Painting17 (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TV series has received extensive coverage, therefore there is sufficient text to warrant a standalone article for the characters. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I restored this deleted vote by Masem, but only as a comment cause I agree to him. That article is basically all plot and very little about characters' creation or reception, so this fails on notability as well as WP:NOT#PLOT. That article should revolved on the background of the characters, not their scenes. I nominate this article for deletion, because it's too early, and not because it has no confirmed season 2. Until now, there still a few characters mentioned in that article, you can read few about the background of the characters, and the rest are about their scenes, that you can also read in the main page. I would still contribute in that article if the result is keep or merge, but I really think that the article is far too early. Ctrlwiki • 01:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Squid Game#Cast and Characters. As the series hasn't been around long enough to justify the article IMO. Also, as things currently there's a lot more plot then useful background information about the individual characters. While I agree with whomever said the article as currently stands would be to long for merging, I don't think that would be an issue if the unnecessary plot summaries are adequately cleaned up. Then an article like this can be recreated after a few more seasons when there's enough coverage of individual characters to justify it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Squid Game#Cast and Characters. Dr Salvus 21:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Squid Game#Cast and Characters per above comments. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After a thorough discussion of the available sources, people are divided about whether they are sufficient to establish notability. There are valid reasons for both points of view, such that I can't determine whose arguments are stronger. But in terms of numbers, we have 7 delete to 3 keep (including a "weak" keep"). This is above the two-thirds threshold that I use as a benchmark for rough consensus, ceteris paribus. Sandstein 08:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Robotics[edit]

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

Elephant Robotics

Non-notable corporation that does not satisfy corporate notability or general notability. Naïve Google search shows that the company uses social media, and shows robotic elephants. Article was moved from article space to draft space by User:Joseywales1961 as not ready for article space, but has since been moved back to article space, and is still not ready for article space. With no independent coverage, it is not clear whether it will be ready for article space, but likely not. Neither of the editors who have worked on it have worked on anything else. There are no footnotes, only three external links, one of which is their own web site, and one of which does not mention the company.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Elephant Robotics Corporate web site No No No
2 Forbes 30 Asians Under 30 30 Asians Under 30, does not mention Elephant Robotics and so completely useless Yes No Yes No
3 Forbes Appears to be a press release No No Yes No
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Good analysis. Though there are few articles about the company in TechCrunch, but I think that is routine coverage and TechCrunch doesn't count towards notability. Aside from that most of the coverage is paid/press releases. Doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. 221.127.21.217 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tricky one, mainly because the permalinks name the company Elephant Robots even though the SIGCOV in the sources are attributed to the creators. The sources listed serve a good purpose to establish notability for the two creators of the company, but not the company itself. The Forbes 30 under 30 is a powerful indicator of notability, and merely because of that, it may warrant its own page in the articlespace. One way to avoid losing the productiveness that was put into this is to merge some of this information into a new Wiki page solely about the creators and attempt a submission. Aside from that, this specific page should be a delete unless more reliable sources are added. Multi7001 (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two points. First off (as has been pointed out to Cunard countless times) the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and not WP:GNG and has no answer when it is pointed out that even WP:SNG (a section in GNG) refers explicitly to the strict criteria of NCORP. Secondly, Cunard also well knows that WP:SIRS says that each reference must meet all the criteria, not just pick and chose between the bits that are easier than others. HighKing++ 16:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Cunard's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Most of the article is still unreferenced, even with those new sources in. That's a lead and five short sentences. If that's all we can do, I don't know how anyone can straight-facedly call this "significant coverage". -- asilvering (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak keep, I would say the 5 references there would just push it across the line. Also considering, there could be more that are not obvious because they are in Chinese language sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added a few more references. There is quite a lot of covereage, though a lot of it is web site based. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as follows:
    • This from CNKI] is a single sentence using the company's own description of itself which can also be seen in thi sohu.com article. Clearly not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND
    • This from ChinaDaily.com is a puff piece in which any discussion on the company relies *entirely* on information provided by the company and an interview with one of the founders, Song. There's a bit about the robotics marketplace in general but none of that says anything about the company. Completely fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This from Emerald Insight is a review of the robotic industry in China and covers many aspects of that industry. The topic company is merely mentioned in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
    • This from Reuters features some quotations from Song, one of the founders at the beginning and then goes on to describe how the general robotics market has suffered recently. There is no in-depth information and no "Independent Content", fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
    • This from Forbes is marked as a profile from the original "30 under 30" feature using information provided by the company, fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
    • This from The Verge is a feature on a Kickstarter campaign for a robot cat to be built by the topic company. There is no in-depth information on the company and all of the information about the product is provided by the company, fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Similarly, this from TechCrunch is also about the robot cat and fails NCORP for the exact same reasons.
In summary, not a single reference meet NCORP and I have been unable to find any others that meet our criteria for notability. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Elephant Robotics passes both Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Per Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, that the article would benefit from being further sourced and expanded from the sources presented in this AfD does not mean the subject is non-notable. It is standard journalistic practice for journalists to include quotes from people affiliated with the company. That does not make the articles become non-independent. These sources provide significant coverage about the subject:
    1. 黄勇; 李路遥; 李路遥 (2018-11-24). "协作机器人市场风头正劲，大象机器人瞄准汽车零配件行业" [The collaborative robot market is gaining momentum, Elephant Robotics targets the auto parts industry] (in Chinese). ifenxi. Archived from the original on 2021-12-13. Retrieved 2021-12-13.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Established in 2016, Elephant Robotics is a collaborative robot design, R&D and production manufacturer that independently researches and develops robot bodies, control systems, operating systems and software solutions, mainly for the auto parts industry. ... Elephant Robot has two major product series-Elephant series and Cat series. Both series of products are aimed at the auto parts industry. Application scenarios include workpiece loading and unloading, assembly, functional testing, packaging, etc. ... At p1resent, the main customers of Elephant Robotics are Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers in the auto parts industry. On the one hand, Elephant Robotic obtains customers through direct sales, and generally provides solutions on its own in the Pearl River Delta and Yangtze River Delta regions. On the other hand, it can also cooperate with system integrators. Elephant Robotics only provides robots, and the integrator will carry out system integration and cooperate to create a complete set of solutions."

    2. Chai Hua (2017-04-07). "'Elephant' joins the robotic revolution". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2021-12-13. Retrieved 2021-12-13.

      The journalist profiles the company and extensively discusses its initial product, Elephant. The article includes quotes from a founder of the company. It is standard journalistic practice to include quotes from the subject of the article. That does not make the article non-independent. The article notes that Joey Song founded Elephant Robotics in Shenzhen in 2016 and created "Elephant", which "consists of a "head" to detect obstacles, a body to move around and the most important part - a robotic arm to pick up and place objects." The article further notes, "Last year, Song and business partner Kirin Wu founded the startup. Their creation of snack-stealing and automatic hotpot robots won the support of the world's largest hardware incubator HAX Accelerator. Since then, they've started to focus on industrial robots. To get familiar with the market, they had spent every weekend in different factories around Shenzhen for about four months."

    3. The following sources provide less significant coverage of the subject but still contribute to notability. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherent notability: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." The Emerald Publishing article calls Elephant Robotics one "of the more important and recently founded Chinese manufacturers" which contributes to notability as the source believes the company has had a significant effect in the robotics industry. The Reuters article covers how Elephant Robotics had to lay people off owing to falling revenue which is negative coverage of the subject that the company would not want highlighted. There is no evidence that the Forbes article used information provided by the company rather than independent research by Forbes.
    Cunard (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Yeah, I see the standard journalistic practice for journalists to include quotes from people affiliated with the company reasoning a lot but it hardly ever stands up to scrutiny. Either journalists end up relying *entirely* on information provided by the company (with no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject) or the article regurgitates the information from the company's website and product literature.
  1. You've included a number of quotes from the ifenxi.com article. The small paragraph which you've included that starts with "Established in 2016" is the standard company description which can be found in other articles. The next paragraph in the article introduces us to "Song Junyi", the founder and further down the author provides detailed technical information prefaced with "According to Song Junji" and later another reference to information provided by the founder "Song Junyi estimates". Clearly, all of the detailed information was provided by the company and/or the founder and there is nothing in the article that is "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". Therefore fails WP:ORGIND.
  2. I've already commented on the puff piece from ChinaDaily.com in which all of the discussion and information on the company relies *entirely* on information provided by the company and an interview with one of the founders, Song. There's also a bit about the robotics marketplace in general but none of that says is relevant to establishing notability of the company. Completely fails WP:ORGIND. There is nothing in this article *about the company* that can be clearly identified and is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company. Also fails ORGIND.
  3. Trying to justify a single sentence where a journalist gushes that the topic company is "one of the more important and recently founded Chinese manufacturers" as a measure of a "demonstrable effect on culture, society, entertainment...etc" is pretty lame and totally ignores WP:SIRS which says that each reference must meet *all* of the criteria for establishing notability which includes CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. It is also difficult (mind boggling in fact) to justify a "recently founded" robotics company as having any profound impact on society to the extent you're imagining. And just to dwell for a second on the full meaning of WP:SIRS ... it means that each reference is examined in isolation from other references and that each reference must meet all of the criteria including 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" which is defined as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Plucking single sentences from articles which clearly rely on information provided by the company and/or the founder or cutting out paragraphs from such articles where the author doesn't explicitly state "The founder says" or "According to the company" (but the rest of the article makes it clear that the article relies entirely on information provided) is disingenuous, disruptive and a waste of other editors' time to have to point this out to you just about every single time you comment at an NCORP-related AfD.
None of those references meet NCORP. HighKing++ 12:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with HighKing that sources are not in-depth enough and it is hard to pass WP:CORPDEPTH with these sources. Maybe it is WP:TOOSOON for them. 70.237.13.67 (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify and delete if it is moved into articlespace again without first passing AfC. The AfD doesn't give me confidence that this article will ever merit inclusion in mainspace, but Joseywales1961's decision to draftify was sound and redraftifying is less BITEY than deletion. I'm inclined to give the authors of this article a second chance to work with the AfC process. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NORG. Both Reuters piece and China daily seem to satisfy Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary. Chumpih. (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chumpih, could you point to the parts of those articles that meets WP:ORGIND? You say those articles seem to satisfy "Independent" but what do you mean exactly by "Independent"? Have you identified parts of those articles that contain original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject?? HighKing++ 17:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: The Reuters piece features companies other than Elephant. Reuters is reliable. It's not the direct content of the company, and it's not the trade journal. The piece dwells upon the impact of Covid on the market, and has quite a few paragraphs with Elephant as the subject. I'm not currently aware of anything that suggests this is unoriginal. The piece is attributed to the author David Kirton, so unless there's evidence of plagiarism, it's likely original.
The China Daily piece talks mostly about Elephant, although it does include commentary from a prof. of Robotics in Shenzhen, and compares the company's fortunes with reports from ABI. While the piece is overwhelmingly upbeat, it looks to contrast the new stuff they're producing with traditional equipment. China Daily is probably reliable on this topic, since it's nothing to do with toeing the gov't line. Again, I'm not currently aware of anything that suggests this is unoriginal. The piece is attributed to the author Chai Hua, and again, unless there's evidence of plagiarism, it's likely original. Chumpih. (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chumpih, you've clarified your decision for me. I'm not focused on whether the publications are reliable or not - I assume they are. But in response to your explanation, I would say that NCORP requires (SIRS) that each article/reference contains "Independent Content" (ORGIND) that is in-depth (CORPDEPTH) *on the company*. So when you've an article that discusses a marketplace and the impact of Covid (which may or may not be Independent Content), it is irrelevant unless it is directly about the topic company. The part in the Reuters piece that is about the company is generic and is a standard description with the same information that can be found on the website and in multiple articles and announcements. We will disagree on the China Daily piece also - for me it is clearly a puff piece based entirely on information provided by the company and/or the execs. The article is peppered with references to this fact (e.g. "Song notes", "says Song", "Song believes", etc) and it fails ORGIND since the in-depth facts/information don't appear to be *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated with the topic company. Your argument that the piece shows no signs of being "unoriginal" is a strawman argument as it is entirely possible for a journalist to write an "original" piece based on an interview but still fail ORGIND. HighKing++ 14:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HighKing for your rationale. Re. WP:CORPDEPTH the list of qualifiers is an 'or', not an 'and', so to qualify a piece should provide any of those bits of info. Per that section, we don't want a WP:PERMASTUB. For the Reuters piece, we have commentary, and the subject of many paragraphs in that piece is Elephant. Re. the China Daily, agree it's peppered with quotes from a company exec and is overwhelmingly upbeat, but there is a smattering evidence to suggest intellectual independence, specifically where the professor and the research are cited. Chumpih t 15:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chumpih, re CORPDEPTH, yes the list of qualifiers is an example list and doesn't require all of those elements. Similarly, an example list is contained in ORGIND. And there are other sections in NCORP too including WP:SIRS which says that each reference must meet all of the criteria. I think we both agree on all of that but no harm in clarifying our understanding. So, in the Reuters piece, you say it contains "commentary" (which needs to be about the company in order to meet CORPDEPTH) - but can you point out something specific? I am unable to identify anything that is deep or significant 'commentary' about the company and is clearly "intellectually independent". Similarly, you say there's a "smattering of evidence" to suggest the China Daily piece meet ORGIND, specifically where the professor and the research are cited - but the professor doesn't even mention the topic company nor does the research, its just generic commentary on the entire robotics market. HighKing++ 16:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one HighKing. Re. Reuters, we have Elephant Robotics’ main business is the automation of factory assembly lines but revenue has plunged by a third this year due to the coronavirus, leading the company to cut staff by a fifth. which is clearly commentary, bordering on analysis.
Re. the China Daily yep, smattering. It provides context etc, but not much more. But it didn't have to be included, so it's not unreasonable to infer some intellectual independence from that. Chumpih t 18:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per source analysis by Robert McClenon and HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:51, 29 December 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. No prejudice towards recreation of an article in the style proposed by Uanfala. Daniel (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kos-[edit]

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

Simply being part of a place name is most definitely not what a disambiguation page is for. This is the most partial list of partial matches that I've ever encountered. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:51, 25 December 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. Sandstein 08:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Java and C++[edit]

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

Although this article's been around for a while, I don't see it as encyclopedic. None of the cited sources explicitly contrast the two languages, so it's mostly original research to compare them beyond face value. In that respect, any meaningful comparison beyond a table would just be a special case of "pros/cons of garbage collection, native code vs bytecode..." which can be better dealt with at each feature's respective article. More generally, comparing two vastly different languages like this isn't Wikipedia's job. "Comparison of C and C++" would arguably make sense, for example, because they are closely related and the difference between them is important (some valid C is not C++, etc), but that's not the case here. Even if Java and C++ are both old, popular and object oriented, that's not a particularly compelling reason to dedicate an article to comparing them. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This should be a YouTube video, not an encyclopedic entry. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, some of the sources in the article do explicitly contrast the two languages.[1][2] There are also many more sources which do the same.[3][4][5][6][7] So the comparison is notable.

References

  1. ^ Robert C. Martin (January 1997). "Java vs. C++: A Critical Comparison" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 May 2008. Retrieved 15 December 2007.
  2. ^ Hundt, Robert (2011-04-27). "Loop Recognition in C++/Java/Go/Scala" (PDF). Stanford, California: Scala Days 2011. Retrieved 2012-11-17. Java shows a large GC component, but a good code performance. [...] We find that in regards to performance, C++ wins out by a large margin. [...] The Java version was probably the simplest to implement, but the hardest to analyze for performance. Specifically the effects around garbage collection were complicated and very hard to tune; 318 kB
  3. ^ Prechelt, L. (1999). "Technical opinion: comparing Java vs. C/C++ efficiency differences to interpersonal differences" (pdf). Communications of the ACM. 42 (10): 109–112. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.64.2193. doi:10.1145/317665.317683. S2CID 18549854.
  4. ^ Ghosh, D. (2004). "Generics in Java and C++ a comparative model". ACM SIGPLAN Notices. 39 (5): 40–47. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.453.2181. doi:10.1145/997140.997144. S2CID 14265893.
  5. ^ Mayrand, J.; Patenaude, J.F.; Merlo, E.; Dagenais, M.; Laguë, B. (2000). "Software assessment using metrics: A comparison across large C++ and Java systems". Annals of Software Engineering. 9 (1). Springer: 117–141. doi:10.1023/A:1018924724621. S2CID 9023504.
  6. ^ Gherardi, L.; Brugali, D.; Comotti, D. (2012). A java vs. c++ performance evaluation: a 3d modeling benchmark (PDF). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 7628. Springer. pp. 161–172. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34327-8_17. ISBN 978-3-642-34326-1. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  7. ^ As’ad Mahmoud Alnaser; Omar AlHeyasat; Ashraf Abdel-Karim Abu-Ein; Hazem (Moh’d Said) Hatamleh; Ahmed A. M. Sharadqeh (2012). "Time Comparing between Java and C++ Software". Journal of Software Engineering and Applications. 5 (8): 630–633. doi:10.4236/jsea.2012.58072.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SailingInABathTub: Wikipedia is not for comparing things though, regardless of how comparable the two products are. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a buying guide. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about Comparison of programming languages, Category:Programming language comparisons, and Category:Comparison of individual programming languages? SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SailingInABathTub: I'm slightly indecisive on what I think of these. On the first hand, those seem different from the one in this discussion. I'd say they are more encyclopedic list rather than guides like this one is. On the second hand however, they are still somewhat more of an answer to "what should I use?" versus an encyclopedia entry and I don't see any other use of those for anyone besides people looking for what they should use, and really only serve people outside of Wikipedia. I'd say I lean more towards deleting them all, because the only other comparisons on Wikipedia that I know of involve languages, like Portuguese vs Spanish and US English vs UK English. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Comparison of top chess players throughout history, Comparison of the AK-47 and M16, Comparison of web browsers, Comparison of American and Canadian football, Comparison of Macintosh models and many, many more. I think notable comparisons are pretty ubiquitous on Wikipedia. I agree though that this particular article requires improvement. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reasonable position to take that Wikipedia is not for comparing things, but it would need a wider discussion than this for us to accept that principle. I find 780 pages in article space with "comparison of" in the title. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over those articles, it seems many "comparison of" deletion discussions are contentious. There are definitely some notable comparisons, but I'm not sure (and I don't know of a guideline about this) what metric should be used to gauge whether a comparison deserves its own article. I daresay this topic is more notable than "Comparison of ALGOL 68 and C", but that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. With regards to the presented sources, most of the recent ones are comparing particular implementations in Java and C++—not the languages themselves. And anything published before, say, 2006, is pretty firmly outdated; this was before HotSpot really got good at optimization and much before C++11 came out, a version which transformed the modern language. Ovinus (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: comparison is quite informative and exhaustive. - Hatchens (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The motion (or lean-toward) to delete all comparative articles directly contradicts a long-standing precedent positing that some comparative articles do belong on Wikipedia, complete with their own page. The Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars article has withstood more than a couple separate VfDs, whereas a formerly existing "Differences Between Pokémon and Digimon" article was deleted. As Ovinus correctly asserts, the issue is dependent on a presently non-existent metric to dictate which comparisons are and are not notable. To begin considering such a metric, we should primarily consider a specific comparison's (1) general prevalence or logical connection, (2) historical or social significance, or (3) legislative relevance. In the case of the Trek/Wars article, its notability arises from the fact that the comparison spawned a sort of social phenomenon; likewise, the immensely pervasive Java/C++ comparisons hold academic and professional significance. As Java is directly influenced by C++, the comparison has historical significance, validating the older presented sources and lending to their encyclopedic (albeit not learning manual-made) relevance. There are serious issues in the article's structure and presentation, but these qualify editing, not deletion. Misandrism (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Summarizing several refutations of the OP's arguments, partially discussed above:
  • "Although this article's been around for a while, I don't see it as encyclopedic." --- This is a valid perspective but if true, it would require site-wide consensus and not just targeting this specific article
  • "None of the cited sources explicitly contrast the two languages, so it's mostly original research to compare them beyond face value." --- SailingInABathTub lists sources which do independently cover the comparison, and these should be added to the article
  • "comparing two vastly different languages" --- this part is just wrong IMO, C++ and Java are often considered directly adjacent and mentioned in the same sentence. They are the two mainstream languages most known for performance and OOP. It's true that for example, an article on "Comparison of Python and Haskell" or "Comparison of Pascal and Brainfuck" would be ridiculous, but that is not the case here.
The article does, however, need a better lead written. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been some refutation to the keep arguments, it seems that the existence of sources that directly compare the two languages and the notability conferred from that have shown an argument to keep under WP:GNG; however, there is still a dispute as to how WP:WAX factors into all of this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, snood1205 01:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - while I have some sympathy for the WP:NOT and WP:SYNTH argument of the nom, the fact is, the editors have managed to put together a quality resource based on verifiable claims that do not have the kind of V/N issues that the SYNTH policy guards us against. The article is problematic, but deletion would not improve our offering as a reference resource and no reasonable ATD has been offered. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:06, 27 December 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 02:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dokument. Program Strefa[edit]

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

I found no coverage. The article makes it seem like this was an album without a label that was sold with a Polish arts magazine. SL93 (talk) 01:12, 25 December 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 redirect to Ernie (Sesame Street)#Books. Sandstein 08:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie's Work of Art[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Wikipedia was interesting in 2005 - this unreferenced article was on DYK on December 7, 2005. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coolabahapple My only issue with a merge is that Ernie has been in many Sesame Street books. It doesn't seem like this one is significant to the character. SL93 (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree that this book is not wikinotable enough to warrant an article, but as a kids book hoarder, ahem, collector am reluctant to have the title totally disappear from wp so have included it in a load of ernie books added to Ernie (Sesame Street). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list is reasonable. I wouldn't be against a redirect there. SL93 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 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. Sandstein 08:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalinga Bhagavathar[edit]

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

IMDB only has one movie listed for this actor. Seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER Singularity42 (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 25 December 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. Can be draftified on request at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 08:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pibby[edit]

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

Lacks any in depth coverage, just a few articles, mostly in unreliable sources, repeating press materials about the show being in development, or being a Halloween short. Does not appear notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge might be a better fit, as there certainly is relevancy and notability regarding the show, only not enough to justify its very own article; perhaps with upcoming Cartoon Network shows or upcoming Adult Swim shows, as CN's copyright filing seems to indicate intent to act on the IP at some point in the future.
~~~~ W0nderhat (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn’t even anything announced about the series, the series hasn’t even been greenlit, nothing more than just a cut sneak peek. There’s not enough information about it than just a standalone article.
Userfy/Draftify I agree that while there is relevancy and notability, the fact that it hasn't been greenlit makes it unsuitable for inclusion in either of the article sections mentioned by W0nderhat, and the lack of greenlighting means that there is little to discuss regarding this show. However, this is a good start to the article should it be greenlit in the future, so I think it's worth keeping around in some form for if/when the show becomes greenlit. Edderiofer (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Interesting premise, but this show is not notable at this moment. If they greenlit it, it can has its own article on WP. Until then, it can move to a draft page. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_25&oldid=1063511535"